Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

moved Amendment No. 78: 78: Clause 8 , page 7, line 30, leave out ““attitudes,”” The noble Lord said: In moving AmendmentNo. 78 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 78A, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath. Amendment No. 78 would delete the word ““attitudes”” from the factors that the jury must cover when considering evidence in a case. It is a simple drafting amendment but it seeks to tease out a potentially deeper problem. Currently, the jury must, "““consider the extent to which the evidence””—" in a corporate manslaughter case— "““shows that there were attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices within the organisation that were likely to have encouraged””," a gross failure to carry out a duty of care. First, ““attitudes”” does not give a jury any more to look at than is already covered in the other factors listed. I go further and say that there are circumstances where that word possibly could be pernicious. Corporate manslaughter cases are obviously going to be highly emotional and can involve a huge loss of life, so there is a real need for the jury to be objective in its judgment of a case. While attitudes may have been the reason for bad policies and systems, and even more so for not meeting what is considered in a company to be accepted practice—the acceptance of which denotes its attitude—the consideration of attitudes as a first principle is not sufficiently objective. My noble friend will speak to his AmendmentNo. 78A in due course, which adds ““motives””, and I look forward to hearing his rationale. To me it seems to go against the grain of our amendment and I do not think I will be able to support him. I hope the Minister will consider the points made on Amendment No. 78 and I look forward to hearing his response. I beg to move.