My Lords, listening to the exposition of the Minister leads an experienced lawyer to think that those were the kinds of arguments that would make for an entertaining tutorial at university and deprive the participants of any career at the criminal Bar, because they simply would not know what they were talking about in terms of what a judge and jury would expect by way of argument. I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but it really is a clash with the Interpretation Act that would lead to ribald laughter in most criminal chambers. I am being serious about this. It is the kind of argument that you would expect to get from a bright lawyer with no criminal law experience. The Government must face up to this. I do not understand why they cannot take advice from a competent independent Treasury counsel on the scope of the offence in order to make sure that they can prosecute, or at least hope to prosecute. Creating such an offence in-house is, I think, highly suspect.
I will go through this point by point. First, why should not the statute say decision and/or decisions—one of the two? Secondly, why, as the noble Lord has suggested, do we have to get ourselves into the circumstance of having to identify the key decision? It may be extremely difficult to do that because it may be a refined banking judgment where a series of acts or decisions which led to failure may be cumulative and not the result of the key decision. Thirdly, how the word “cause” in the criminal law can be construed to be “significantly contributed to” is not, I think, something that figures in the criminal law books.
I turn next to corporate manslaughter. The argument has to be met. The fact that you get the same words in another statute is of no importance until you consider the context in which the words are being used. Far below that, in the industrial safety context, is the matter of common sense. In terms of banking behaviour, it is an extremely complex exercise to expect a jury to carry out, and an unnecessary one. The answer given in response to the amendments did not include any explanation of why this statute is taking itself down a different route from R v G. Wilful blindness is a specific criminal law phrase designed to embrace the people who deliberately close their eyes to something. It does not embrace innocent incompetence. The very word wilful imports the culpability of it.
My last point, in agreement with my noble friend Lord Eatwell, who is known as an academic, is that the legislature would be shooting itself in the foot if it created a criminal offence which the public came to treat as having no effect, bordering on the ridiculous. That would be a major political mistake. Those on the government Bench who take such matters into account should pay more attention to that than to the legal advice they are getting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.