| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Crown Prosecution Service
34. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what improvements have been made to the Crown Prosecution Service over the past year. [272]
The Attorney-General: Principal Crown Prosecution Service initiatives in the past 12 months include the setting up of the CPS inspectorate and close co-operation with the police through joint performance management to improve the handling of cases at all stages, including the timeliness and quality of police files.
Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Attorney-General remember 18 January 1993, when his colleague the Solicitor-General told the House about the number of cases forming the backlog at the central criminal court? What is the backlog of cases at the central criminal court today?
The Attorney-General: I do not know the answer to that question. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, he will have directed it in the right direction.
Mr. Jenkin: Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered giving extra powers to the Crown Prosecution Service, most particularly powers for it to negotiate a sentence or fine directly with potential plaintiffs in front of a court, rather than having to go through the technical process of going to a court so that a sentence can be delivered? Would not that short-circuit some of the backlog in the courts?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting question. That type of plea bargaining goes on in the United States in very serious cases, but I have not considered it, and I do not think that anyone has considered it in relation to the run of about 1.3 million cases prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service before magistrates courts.
4 Nov 1996 : Column 909
Criminal Trials
35. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the length of time taken between arrest and conviction of criminals; and if he will make a statement. [273]
The Solicitor-General: Following a number of representations, my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General have set up a review--announced on 15 October, and to report by the end of January--to identify means of expediting the progress of criminal cases.
Mr. Barnes: Are not the present arrangements pretty miserable for everyone concerned? They are miserable for victims because they must relive their case in court and hang on and on until the case comes up, suffering during that time; and they are miserable for people on remand--helping to clog up prisons--some of whom will be determined to be innocent when the case reaches court. Is not it therefore beyond time that this review was concluded and the material submitted? The Conservatives have had 17 years in which to act.
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman appears to overlook the fact that, in most Crown courts, the waiting period for trial is shorter than it was some time ago. He has also overlooked several initiatives that have been taken jointly by the police and the CPS to speed up cases in magistrates courts. Recently, we have instituted pilot projects in which lawyers have been placed in police stations to give advice straight away, piloted a system for proof of minor road traffic cases at first hearing, and reduced paperwork in expected pleas of guilty in magistrates courts.
Crown Prosecution Service
36. Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service through the use of information technology. [274]
The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service is currently a key participant in pilot projects at Ipswich and Southampton which provide an e-mail link to the courts, the police, the probation service and legal practitioners to improve communication and reduce paperwork.
Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful for that good news about the pilot project. Does my right hon. and learned Friend
4 Nov 1996 : Column 910
agree that information technology has great potential to improve communications between all agencies involved in the criminal justice system, to save unnecessary adjournments and generally to help all the parties to obtain better service from the system?
The Attorney-General: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I have just seen the e-mail project at Ipswich; it shows how extraordinarily valuable that piece of technology is to a service that deals with several other agencies. It is now possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to raise any number of points with the police or the courts and receive in minutes an answer that would otherwise involve dictating letters, getting them typed, getting them faxed, sending them, waiting for the post and waiting for letters to come back, be processed, registered and read. The whole process can be shortcut so that what probably took days now takes minutes. I commend that impressive project.
Scott Report
37. Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on implementation of reforms recommended by Lord Justice Scott. [276]
The Attorney-General: On the recommendations for which I have departmental responsibility, I informed the House on 17 June that, as from that date, the role of the Attorney-General would include superintendence of those Customs and Excise prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanctions infringements that require evidence of deliberate evasion. The public consultation that I announced in February on public interest immunity has been concluded, and I hope to announce the Government's conclusions soon.
Mr. Smith: The Government promised to report to Members of Parliament on the politically controversial use of public interest immunity certificates to suppress politically embarrassing information. When will that report be made available, and what is the reason for the delay?
The Attorney-General: I hope to produce the report soon. I want to correct the hon. Gentleman--I am sure that, when he reflects on the matter, he will know that I am right to do so. Such certificates have never been used to suppress material information. There is no instance of that happening. It is about time that that old canard--if that is a parliamentary word--was knocked on the head.
4 Nov 1996 : Column 911
Orders of the Day
Crime (Sentences) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Speaker:
I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The key provisions of the Bill were set out in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", which I published earlier this year. They are designed to improve the protection of the public against serious, dangerous and persistent offenders, and to increase public confidence in the sentencing process. They are important and radical measures that target, in particular, violent offenders, sex offenders, drug traffickers and domestic burglars.
The proposals in the Bill address real problems in our criminal justice system. They will introduce the biggest step change in our criminal justice system this century. They will make a vital contribution to the fight against crime. Victims and the public are firmly at the top of the agenda, as they should be.
We have consulted widely on the key provisions of the Bill. They have been welcomed by the public, and have the support of the police. Serious offenders cause harm, misery and distress to tens of thousands of victims every year. It is the duty of Government to do all that they can to protect the public from such offenders. It is the duty of Government to do all that they can to ensure that offenders will be properly punished. Those who persistently offend should know with certainty that they will face a stiff penalty if they offend again. The main provisions in the Bill will help the Government to fulfil that duty.
The public also have a right to know that the prison sentence that is passed by the court is the sentence that will actually be served by the offender. Under the present early release arrangements, that is far from the case. Under the present arrangements, a majority of prisoners are released after serving only half their sentence. The public, and victims, neither understand nor approve of that. The provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Bill will bring greater transparency to the sentencing process. They will ensure that the prison sentence passed by the courts matches much more closely the term that is served by the prisoner.
Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage):
In respect of that so-called honesty in sentencing, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House what has happened to cause the abandonment of a policy that the Government adopted, after careful review, only five years ago?
Mr. Howard:
If my hon. Friend looks back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, he will find that it was a step in the right direction. It significantly increased the proportion of the sentence passed by the court that is actually served by prisoners. It increased it from a third
4 Nov 1996 : Column 912
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |