| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
CPS (Racism)
31. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): If he will make a statement on the findings of Ms Sylvia Denman in her interim report on racism within the Crown Prosecution Service. [122433]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Sylvia Denman presented her interim report on race discrimination in the Crown Prosecution Service to the Department on 10 May 2000. The report recognises that some of the most glaring deficiencies in race equality in the CPS have been remedied recently, but concludes that there is evidence that some forms of race discrimination and institutional racism have operated to the disadvantage of black and Asian staff within the service. The report recommends various areas for future work, which will now be addressed by the CPS in consultation with Sylvia Denman and the Commission for Racial Equality.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply and recognise his personal commitment to dealing with racism in the CPS. Does he agree that Ms Denman has clearly identified a trend within CPS management to downplay the possibility of racism, look for innocent explanations when those may not exist, and indeed, on occasion, blame the victim? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that something must be done to change the culture at the top of the CPS so that it recognises that there is a real and immediate problem to address?
The Solicitor-General: As I have told the House on previous occasions, we take the matter seriously. A number of steps have been taken, which I have explained to the House. One matter that I have not mentioned is the fact that all CPS area plans must now set out clearly what is being done to address issues of diversity. There is no doubt that the report makes uncomfortable reading for those at the top of the CPS and those in senior
management positions. Something must be done. There is not a sufficient number of black and ethnic minority persons at senior management levels. Now that benchmarks have been established, the CPS must meet them and ensure that the problem is remedied.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Can the Solicitor-General confirm that Ms Denman's final report will review the impact on the CPS of the change in the burden of proof imposed by Labour MEPs voting in the European Parliament last week?
The Solicitor-General: That has nothing to do with the law in this country. We operate under the Race Relations Act 1976. We have made it clear that internally, the CPS must lift its game. With regard to the external behaviour of the CPS and the prosecutions that it undertakes, the recently published Mhlanga report showed clearly that there was no racial discrimination.
CPS
32. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): If he will make a statement on measures to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service. [122434]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service has a number of initiatives in place to improve efficiency within the service. A major programme of IT modernisation will provide basic IT tools and enable staff to be connected electronically to each other, the police and the Government secure intranet.
The CPS is developing joint administrations with the police--criminal justice units--to prepare magistrates courts cases more efficiently. Similar arrangements are being developed for the establishment of trial units, which will focus on and raise the standard of preparation of Crown court cases.
The CPS, working closely with the police and the courts, is playing a significant part in the effective implementation of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In many cases offenders are brought to court the day after charge. Across much of England and Wales, 60 per cent. of cases are now completed at the first hearing.
Mr. Paterson: The Solicitor-General missed out the victims of crime. Who measures whether they are happy with the efficiency of the CPS?
The Solicitor-General: As I have said on previous occasions, victims are central to the policies that we are adopting. We take into account the role of victims. We have instituted pilot studies so that the CPS can operate more effectively with victims and with witnesses. I confess to the House that the pilots have revealed some difficulties in the CPS adopting a more central role, but
we are working on that. We hope that, with more resources, we will be able to put the CPS at the centre of a more victim-oriented criminal justice system.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Would not the efficiency of the CPS be improved if there were fewer vexatious prosecutions, such as those that I listed to one of my hon. and learned Friend's fellow Ministers? I refer to prosecutions against people who use natural cannabis for severe pain. Of the last prosecutions, every one has been thrown out by the juries, who exercised good sense and decided that people who were seriously ill and seeking relief from pain should not be regarded as criminals, prosecuted and imprisoned. When will there be a simple change in the law to allow natural cannabis to be prescribed in the same way as heroin is prescribed legally now?
The Solicitor-General: I refute my hon. Friend's suggestion that there are vexatious prosecutions. The CPS acts in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. There must be evidence, and public interest considerations must be taken into account. As I explained in an earlier answer, the law provides certain offences in relation to drugs. My hon. Friend knows that clinical trials are being held and that money is going into research on the problem that he raises. I refute the notion of vexatious prosecutions.
My hon. Friend also raises the issue of the jury. In serious cases, juries obviously have an important role to play in the British criminal justice system, and in some cases juries acquit defendants. That does not mean that the prosecutions should not have been brought. The evidence suggested that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and a public interest in bringing a prosecution, but a jury took a different view. So be it.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seeks an Adjournment debate, he might get a shorter answer.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): Last Tuesday on Second Reading of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill, the Solicitor-General told the House, at columns 885-86, that the Attorney-General was making great efforts to improve the funding for the Crown Prosecution Service and that in that endeavour he was being supported by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. It would assist the collapsing morale of the CPS to know exactly when those negotiations will be over. Furthermore, it would assist the House and the CPS to be assured that the rolled-forward deficits will not continue to be rolled forward in future years.
The Solicitor-General: I said the other day that I hoped to bring good news to the House very soon. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is dealing with those matters expeditiously.
Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us the business for the week after the Whitsun recess?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
Monday 5 June--Supplemental Allocation of Time Motion followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
Tuesday 6 June--Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Wednesday 7 June--Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 8 June--Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Friday 9 June--Private Members' Bills.
I regret that I am not in the position to give full details of the business for the following week, but the provisional business is as follows:
Monday 12 June--Debate on European Affairs.
Friday 16 June--The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 June there will be a debate on European Document No: 6230/00: the White Paper on Environmental Liability, in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
European Standing Committee A--Relevant European Community Document: 6230/00, White Paper on Environmental Liability. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xiii (1999-2000).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the business for the week after the Whitsun recess, and for a hint of the business for the following week.
The Deputy Leader of the House has announced a guillotine motion on the Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. How long does he plan to allow for debate on those amendments? He will be aware that 1,450 amendments to that Bill have been passed, that it has been rewritten since Second Reading in this place, and that 238 amendments were tabled on Report in the upper House. He will also be aware that the Opposition have assisted the Government by agreeing to carry the Bill over from the previous Session, and I hope that that generosity will not be met with a less than generous timetable. One day is simply too ambitious if the amendments are to be properly scrutinised.
Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the debate on European affairs on Monday 12 June will be the usual pre-summit debate, not a substitute for a proper whole day's debate focused on the intergovernmental conference White Paper, for which I have been pressing for some time?
The hon. Gentleman also announced a debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on 6 June. The next few days are likely to be crucial for Northern Ireland. Will it be in order during the debate on that Bill to discuss the outcome of the Unionist vote and the consequences for Northern Ireland? If not, the House may well want a proper debate on Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman has two or three days blank in our second week back, might we pencil in the much delayed debate on the Wakeham report and a debate on foreign affairs, which has not been held for some time?
Finally, there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the dome, which I hope the Government will recognise by finding time for us to debate it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |