Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for that response. He will not be surprised that I do not find it a very satisfactory response. He said that the general law is adequate in most cases. The only example he gave of the general law being inadequate was an auditor turning a blind eye. Presumably the auditor in question was doing so with no intention of dishonesty, because if there were dishonesty there would be a very clear way in which that activity could be caught. So here the Government are intending to criminalise negligence. The Minister said that there is an interest in the integrity of accountants which justifies criminal prosecution. I return to my example. I think that there is a much greater public interest in the integrity of doctors and nurses and, indeed, in many other groups of individuals. I really do not think that the Government have made their case on this; nor do I believe they have listened to the impact that this will have on companies’ costs. The Minister can assert that this should not add anything because they already have the disciplinary arrangements, but I can assure him that the fear of    criminal prosecution will have very wide repercussions. Between now and Report, we will want consult the groups that have a particular concern, but the Minister should be under no illusion that this will not be an area that we shall wish to return to with some force on Report. Clause 494 agreed to. Clause 495 [Guidance for regulatory and prosecuting authorities: England, Wales and Northern Ireland]: On Question, Whether Clause 495 shall stand part of the Bill?