Crown Prosecution Service

Oral Answers to Questions — Attorney-General – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 20 January 1997.

Alert me about debates like this

Mr. William O'Brien:

To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [9938]

Photo of Sir Nicholas Lyell Sir Nicholas Lyell Attorney General (Law Officers)

The key to effective and efficient prosecutions is close co-operation between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Both services are tackling this together through joint performance management to provide early advice to police officers, to improve the timeliness and quality of police files and to reduce paperwork and speed up communications by the increased use of information technology.

Mr. O'Brien:

The Crown Prosecution Service is doing a good job, but there are concerns about the fact that many cases referred to it by the police are not pursued. That causes concern and bitterness in the minds and hearts of the victims of crime, because they fear that they are not getting support from the CPS. The same is true of lenient sentences—the CPS seems to have a weakness of not appealing against them. Will the Attorney-General assure me that those issues will be followed up and that there will be greater efficiency in the CPS on the points that I have raised?

Photo of Sir Nicholas Lyell Sir Nicholas Lyell Attorney General (Law Officers)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's recognition that, generally, the CPS does a good job. It gets many brickbats and it deserves a bit of praise. He says that some cases brought by the police are not pursued by the CPS. I invite him to write to me with any details that he has on that. He will have heard me say before in the House that I have looked into such claims time and again. Very seldom are those worries—sincere though they are—borne out by the facts. The CPS keeps in close touch with the police. In 75 per cent. of cases, it discusses the issue with the police before dropping a case. In only 4 per cent. of cases that are discussed do they disagree—a tiny proportion.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned unduly lenient sentences. He should completely acquit the CPS of any suggestion that it has failed to deal with unduly lenient sentences. The Majority of sentences that I, as Attorney-General, refer are brought to my attention by the CPS, which keeps a close watch on the issue, as well as on cases brought by members of the public and by Members. I am glad to have an opportunity to make that clear.

Photo of Mr Ivan Lawrence Mr Ivan Lawrence , Burton

Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist all calls, made in the name of efficiency, to give the Crown Prosecution Service the right of audience in the higher courts? That would seriously undermine the strength of the junior Bar and lead inevitably to the abolition of the separation between solicitors and barristers, which is one of the strengths of our criminal justice system.

Photo of Sir Nicholas Lyell Sir Nicholas Lyell Attorney General (Law Officers)

My hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. He will know that an application by the Law Society on behalf of employed solicitors, both generally and in the CPS, is currently before the four senior judges of England and Wales. As for my personal position, I see a case for the CPS to have some power to go into the Crown courts, but on a limited basis. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I stand four square with him on the importance of the independent Bar, and the importance of doing nothing to weaken its long-term position, which is vital to the proper administration of justice.

Photo of Sir John Morris Sir John Morris Shadow Attorney General

Is the Attorney-General satisfied with the role of the Crown Prosecution Service and the investigators in the war crimes case of Regina v. Serafinowicz? What did the case cost, and what action does the Attorney-General now propose for other cases that are in the pipeline?

More generally—not with reference to those cases—what is the Attorney-General's view of the expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the organisation of the CPS, the setting up of which I continue to support? In particular, what is his opinion of the MORI poll commissioned by the First Division Association of civil servants, which reported that 90 per cent. of its member respondents believed that the CPS had become worse since they joined it, and that those who spoke up when they disagreed with senior managers could damage their career prospects? Is it not time that an inquiry was conducted?

Photo of Sir Nicholas Lyell Sir Nicholas Lyell Attorney General (Law Officers)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me a fistful of questions, which I shall try to answer succinctly. First, let me answer his question about the war crimes case against Semion Serafinowicz, which stopped on Friday when a jury found him unfit to plead and I issued a nolle prosequi. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman definitely that the case was skilfully, carefully and scrupulously investigated and prosecuted by the police and the CPS. The matter came before the chief metropolitan magistrate last year, and he was perfectly satisfied that there was abundant evidence to commit to trial. All legal arguments were carried out at the end of last year before the trial judge, who was also satisfied that there was a proper case to go to trial; but, of course, when the defendant was unfit to plead it was absolutely proper to bring it to a close, as I did. That is what a nolle prosequi does.

The total costs of the war crimes investigations to the end of last year—to date, effectively—are approximately £6 million for the Metropolitan police and £2 million for the CPS, but that covers not only the Serafinowicz case but 369 other cases that were investigated, some very briefly because people were soon found to be dead and there was nothing further to pursue, and others in greater detail. There remain five cases in regard to which investigations continue.

Let me turn to the wider question of the MORI poll on the organisation of the CPS, which we have discussed before. I believe that the CPS, in which people work extremely hard, is very well organised. Only a small sample replied to the poll, which was conducted only within members of the FDA. About 12 per cent. of the entire CPS responded, which did not give a balanced picture. A much more balanced picture was given by the CPS's own poll, which was carried out on a much wider basis and which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Photo of Mr Walter Sweeney Mr Walter Sweeney , Vale of Glamorgan

Has a pilot study of the CPS in Wales been conducted and, if so, with what result?

Photo of Sir Nicholas Lyell Sir Nicholas Lyell Attorney General (Law Officers)

Yes. A pilot study of the CPS monitoring system has been conducted in Wales—the system whereby its own inspectorate has carried out its first pilot project in Wales. I have not yet seen a report, but I believe that the House will greatly welcome the establishment of the inspectorate, which will ensure high and consistent standards throughout the country.

majority

The term "majority" is used in two ways in Parliament. Firstly a Government cannot operate effectively unless it can command a majority in the House of Commons - a majority means winning more than 50% of the votes in a division. Should a Government fail to hold the confidence of the House, it has to hold a General Election. Secondly the term can also be used in an election, where it refers to the margin which the candidate with the most votes has over the candidate coming second. To win a seat a candidate need only have a majority of 1.

Division

The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.