| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Victims of Crime
29. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): If he will make a statement on the role of police officers in dealing with victims of crime exclusively on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. [R] [107911]
32. Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
What recent steps have been taken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has a greater role in dealing directly with victims of crime. [107916]
The Solicitor-General:
Under the citizens charter, the police are responsible for keeping the victim informed of developments in the case.
The Government have accepted the Glidewell and Macpherson recommendations in relation to the CPS assuming a greater responsibility for direct communication with victims. Six pilot studies to assess the operational impact of such communication are now under way. Information from those pilot studies will help the planning of a wider options study, due to begin in April 2000.
Dr. Lewis:
I am grateful for that constructive reply, but I urge the Solicitor-General to press on. Does he not agree that the system is skewed too much in favour of the defendant and against the victim, especially in complicated technical cases in which the defendant can directly consult the lawyers representing him, but the victim can only communicate what are sometimes precise,
The Solicitor-General:
I know that the hon. Gentleman has long been interested in this matter, and he is right to suggest that the approach of the police is sometimes not the right approach, in that they can get the message garbled. It is better for the prosecutors to be able to communicate directly with victims, but this will be a long process. The practice already exists in relation to homicide, but the aim of the pilot projects is to ensure that it can apply to offences more generally.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about victims' access to prosecutors, but by the same token, it is important for prosecutors to continue to act in the public interest, and in some cases that is not on all fours with the arrangements applying to defendants and their counsel.
Mr. Coaker:
Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that the CPS keeps victims of crime informed about the progress of prosecutions, and that the reasons for action taken by the CPS are explained to them?
The Solicitor-General:
My hon. Friend is right. Victims need to be kept informed, and we are taking a number of steps to ensure that they have a more central place in the criminal justice system. Their views must be taken into account, and one aspect of that is ensuring that they are kept informed. My only regret is that one of the six pilot schemes is not located in my hon. Friend's constituency; but on the basis of the national roll-out, his area will benefit.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
I wonder whether the Solicitor-General is satisfied that the amount of police resources available for co-operation between police and the CPS is sufficient. Has he made vigorous representations on the 5,000 police officers whom we all thought would be extra in the system--and whom the CPS requires for all the work that it is doing--or has he accepted that the number of police officers will continue to be reduced?
The Solicitor-General:
The CPS of course depends on police--police investigate, and the CPS prosecutes. We have taken a number of steps to ensure that there are adequate numbers of police officers. However, we were faced, before May 1997, with a considerable decline in the numbers of police.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire):
Will the Leader of the House 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 14 February--Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (First Day).
Motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2000.
Tuesday 15 February--Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill.
Motions on the Greater London Authority (Election) Orders--the Greater London Authority Election Rules 2000 (SI 2000 No. 208) and the draft Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000.
Wednesday 16 February--Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (Second Day).
Thursday 17 February--Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill [Lords].
Friday 18 February--The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
Monday 21 February--Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Excellence in Education: the Government's Failure to Deliver" followed by a debate on the Millennium Dome. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Tuesday 22 February--Debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion (First Day).
The provisional business for the week following the Adjournment will include:
Monday 28 February--Conclusion of debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 1 March, there will be a debate on European Community humanitarian and development aid in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 16 February, there will be a debate on the 1999 review of telecommunications legislation and radio spectrum policy in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 1 March 2000:
European Standing Committee B--Relevant European Union documents: 10497/99, 10705/99, 11203/99, 12456/99, EC's Humanitarian and Development Aid. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC-34-xxxi (1998-1999).]
Sir George Young:
The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the weeks thereafter. The House remains concerned about Northern Ireland. May we have a statement, on Monday,
When will the Government publish the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference? Subsequent to its publication, may we have a debate, in Government time, on Labour's plans for a European army, tax harmonisation and the renunciation of the veto?
What has happened to reform of the House of Lords? The Government invited Lord Wakeham's commission to report quickly, but, since the baton was handed over to the Government, the pace has dropped from a sprint to a stroll. When will we debate the report and learn of the Government's proposals to take matters forward?
The right hon. Lady has announced a defence debate. Will the terms of that debate be sufficiently wide to embrace the critical report of the Defence Select Committee expressing alarm at the extent of overstretch in our armed forces?
Finally, reverting to my request for a St. David's debate on Wales, would it not be appropriate for the Prime Minister to open that debate and explain to the House the precise relationship between his highly centralised Administration and the devolved Welsh Assembly?
Mrs. Beckett:
First, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend will, of course, keep the House informed. As to whether he will be coming to the House on Monday to make a statement, obviously the situation is fluid and I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that now. However, I shall certainly make my right hon. Friend aware of his express request for such a statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference will be published. I think that "soon" is the correct answer to that. However, he then made some slightly surprising observations on the European army, on tax harmonisation and on renunciation of the veto. I remind him that it was Lady Thatcher who first signed up to the notion of a European defence role. That was endorsed by her successor, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). On tax harmonisation, the Government have made it plain that we retain control of our tax affairs. On the veto, we are prepared to explore issues when there is merit for Britain's case, but we have never renounced the veto. The only person who has ever renounced Britain's veto is Lady Thatcher.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about a debate on the Wakeham report. I have already said that we are prepared to undertake such a debate. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that he has had full opportunity to digest its contents, but I do not think that most of the rest of us have. He will remember that Lord Wakeham said that he thought it deserved mature consideration.
12.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |