Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

Of course, like other noble Lords, I was not in any way impugning the independence or integrity of the DPP. I do not think that the Minister has really dealt with my point: in this crime, as in almost no other crime, people who have been damaged, or whose loved ones have been killed, as a result of what they perceive to be the gross negligence of an organisation, will not give up simply because the DPP says that it is not prepared to prosecute. By definition, for this to be a relevant question, anyone who has suffered what those people have suffered will be, very often, in campaigning mode. Recently, when the Attorney-General failed to take actions that members of the public thought that he should have taken, we saw what happens in practice when people who feel aggrieved get into campaigning mode. I would think that it is significantly in the interests of the Government to agree this amendment: if the DPP has, for perfectly justifiable reasons, declined to give consent to a prosecution, the Government could simply say to someone who wishes to pursue it, ““Well, it is always open to you to bring a private prosecution””. The point that the Minister makes about the organisation needing to be protected against frivolous prosecutions is dealt with by the protections in criminal law procedure. With my noble and learned colleague Lord Lloyd of Berwick sitting on my right, I am bound to say that, by definition, all judges are fair and reasonable. If there is no case to answer and no evidence, any reputable judge—all High Court judges are of course reputable—will immediately dismiss the case for no evidence. The protection is already built in against frivolous prosecution. Removing this restriction would very much benefit this and future Governments, because when the DPP turns down a case and will not give consent the answer can be, ““If someone wants to pursue it, it is open to you to bring a private prosecution””. I would ask the Government to think again on this for their own benefit. Clause 15 agreed to. Clause 16 [No individual liability]: [Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 not moved.] Clause 16 agreed to.