| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Private Sector Lawyers
31. Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): What plans he has to increase the use of private sector lawyers by prosecution services. [83878]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have no immediate plans to increase the use of private sector lawyers. The CPS is working with the Bar to foster closer working relationships while seeking to increase the use of in-house lawyers employed by the CPS who have achieved success in obtaining the higher court advocacy qualification. The aim is to increase competition, improve standards and quality, and achieve best value for money.
Mr. Cohen: Is there not an increasingly good case for hiring the best local solicitors to reduce delays in getting prosecution cases to court and get better results in more complicated cases? Is there not an opportunity to turn some of the poachers into gamekeepers?
The Solicitor-General: All prosecution services can instruct private sector lawyers or in-house lawyers with the higher court advocacy qualification. The decision depends on the circumstances of the case. There has been no significant change in their use recently, one way or the other. My hon. Friend's comment has a certain validity. If there are suitable local lawyers, I am sure that the CPS will consider employing them.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): Does the Solicitor-General have any proposals to encourage experienced lawyers in mid-career to join the CPS? Will he assure the House that no stigma will attach to lawyers applying to rejoin the CPS, on the ground that early in their careers they had been members of the service?
The Solicitor-General: I am sure that we would encourage lawyers in private practice to join the CPS. The CPS advertises and has very flexible arrangements for extended leave. That is particularly advantageous to married women who may go on maternity leave and then want to stay away for longer. We encourage outside people to apply to the CPS. No stigma will attach to those who left service some time ago.
International Court of Justice
32. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): How many cases he has been involved in within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the last 12 months. [83879]
The Attorney-General: I represented the United Kingdom on 10, 11 and 12 May in proceedings brought before the International Court of Justice by Yugoslavia against the United Kingdom and nine other NATO States. My hon. Friend asked about cases "within the jurisdiction" of the ICJ. The question whether the Court has jurisdiction over Yugoslavia's claims against the UK and the other defendants is one of the central issues that the Court has to determine.
I have also followed developments in the case brought by Libya against the United Kingdom and the United States arising from the tragedy over Lockerbie in 1988, but I have not myself been directly involved before the Court in that case.
Mr. Dalyell:
As cluster bombs are not very different from landmines, on which there has been international legislation--much to the credit of this Government--has anything been said about the legality of the use of cluster bombs? In particular, was either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General consulted about the dropping of cluster bombs on the centre of the city of Nis? Was either of them told of the proximity of a hospital in Belgrade to a target before permission was given, on the legal basis on which I understand they are consulted, for the attack to go ahead, with the tragic resulting death of patients?
The Attorney-General:
The matters that my hon. Friend raises are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I confirm that I have offered advice to colleagues in relation to some of the legal issues that have arisen during the process of approving targets for attack by UK forces. I am unwilling
Court of Appeal
33. Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): How many unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal since 1 May 1997. [83880]
The Attorney-General: Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 171 offenders, and 117 applications have been heard. Leave was granted in 112 applications and the sentence increased in 96, which is 83.4 per cent. of references that have been heard.
Mr. Grieve: Does the Attorney-General consider that those figures reflect satisfactorily on the sentencing system in this country, or does he think that the number of cases on which he sought to make reference suggests that uniformity of sentencing is not being properly achieved?
The Attorney-General: Only a tiny proportion of cases before the Crown courts are referred. They are those in which it is necessary so to do to ensure that public confidence is maintained. Over the years, the figures have been roughly the same; there was a dip in 1996 and 1997, and an increase in 1998 to a figure nearer to what it used to be in 1995. Generally, the figure is about the same. I believe that that is right and that it is shown in the results in the figures from the Court of Appeal that I have already given.
Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows.
Monday 24 May--Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the second report from the Modernisation Committee on sittings of the House in Westminster Hall.
Tuesday 25 May--Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House--the pre-Cologne debate.
Wednesday 26 May--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House which will include the usual three hour pre-recess debate.
Motion to approve the first report from the Administration Committee on the proposal to re-open the line of route during the summer adjournment.
Motion relating to Members' travel to EU institutions.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
Motion on quorum of concurrent meetings of Select Committees.
Motion on the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
Tuesday 8 June--Second Reading of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 9 June--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Health Bill.
Thursday 10 June--There will be a debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 11 June--Private Members' Bills.
Sir George Young:
The House is grateful for next week's business and for an indication of the business for the week after the Whitsun recess. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she has not lost sight of the promised debate on the House of Lords White Paper? That debate could have been held today, but for the Government's shameful decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
Will the Government table any amendments to the Health Bill before we rise next week, so that Members and people outside the House have ample opportunity to respond to them? What has happened to the Food Standards Bill, which completed its passage through a Special Standing Committee some time ago and is now languishing on some parliamentary shelf?
The House is expecting several statements in the near future: on genetically modified foods, drugs and freedom of information. We shall also expect to be updated on Kosovo before we rise. Will the Leader of the House indicate when we might expect which announcements? In relation to genetically modified foods, the Government will want to address the widely held belief, confirmed in the leaked letter to Friends of the Earth, that the Government are obsessed with presentation at the expense of policy.
Last week, I asked the Leader of the House if she would
"assure the House that if there are any important changes in Government policy next week, the appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House?"--[Official Report, 13 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 416.]
That was in connection with the Government's U-turn on the Tote. The right hon. Lady rejected the charge of discourtesy, but was not insult added to injury by the behaviour of the Home Secretary yesterday, when he announced a new policy--the opposite of the previous one--on the "Today" programme? Has the right hon. Lady read what Madam Speaker said yesterday about the matter? She stated:
"The House knows that I deprecate statements that are made in the written press or in the media before they come to House. I do so very much again today."--[Official Report, 19 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1074-75.]
Will the right hon. Lady now apologise to the House on behalf of the Government?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |