Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 11: 11: Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ““substantial”” and insert ““significant”” The noble Lord said: We continue the debate on the meaning of ““senior management””. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the definition of these words is exceedingly important: we have to get the wording of this new offence exactly right. Amendment No. 11 relates to subsection (4)(c) concerning the definition of ““senior management””. At the moment, the definition is, "““means the persons who play significant roles in … the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of its activities are to be managed or organised, or … the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities””." The amendment would leave out the word ““substantial”” and utilise the word ““significant””. Thus, it would change the subsection to read, ““‘senior management’ … means the persons who play significant roles in … the making of decisions about how the whole or a significant part of its activities are to be managed or organised, or … the actual managing or organising of the whole or a significant part of those activities””. Definitions are important. As I have the honour to be chairman of the English-Speaking Union, I have to take care to get my terminology right. Whenever our wonderful English language has been in competition with other languages, it has just absorbed them, and therefore thousands of words in the English language are not our words at all, but have been taken from other languages. In order to win a battle, it is always a good idea to absorb the other side into your team. Latin is the derivation of both these words. ““Significant”” comes from the Latin word ““significant””, or the present participle ““significans””. It means that something has meaning, but is likely to have influence or effect. It is quite a mild word and, therefore, putting it in place of ““substantial””, which is a stronger word, would catch more potential offenders than would the Government’s present wording. ““Substantial”” comes from the Latin ““substantialis””, which, in effect, means ““having substance””; it is not imaginary. You find the word ““substantial”” many times in Shakespeare. My mind goes back to the phrase, "““Most ponderous and substantial things!””." Within all politicians is the desire to act, and I can imagine declaiming the words ““substantial”” or ““significant”” on the stage. What do I mean? I want to make it clear that, if the Government have taken it upon themselves to use the word ““significant””, they should not jettison it in the remaining part of the definition. Having taken the word ““significant””, whose meaning everyone understands, they should continue to use it, and it will then catch more of senior management than might otherwise be the case. I am worried that ““substantial”” is a quantitative word that suggests that, in order to be classified as ““senior management”” for the purposes of the Bill, a person would have to be responsible for a substantial part of the company, whereas he might be caught by having responsibility for a ““significant”” part of the company. So, rather than be quixotically chivalrous, I am now looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.