| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
"Every Child Matters" Green Paper
10. Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): What response he has received to the consultation paper "Every Child Matters". [154519]
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): The response to the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" has been extremely high. We have received more than 4,500 responses, of which I am pleased to say that more than 3,000 were from children and young people. I propose to publish a report shortly, which will set out the way forward.
Mrs. Cryer: Did any of the responses suggest how young girls could be protected from unwanted marriage through early intervention by a school? If not, will guidelines be given to schools to help prevent these tragedies, which happen too frequently?
Mr. Clarke: First, I applaud my hon. Friend's very good work in connection with unwanted marriages in her constituency. She recently wrote me a very long letter on the subject. I have been studying it, and I hope to meet her to discuss the best way to make progress towards tackling what I accept is a difficult and distressing problem for the young women involved.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
21. Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): If she will make a statement on the report by the Privy Councillor Review Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in so far as it relates to bribery abroad. [154530]
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Privy Councillor Review Committee published its response to the Joint Committee on the draft Corruption Bill on 18 December. That report is due to be debated in this House on 25 February. The operation of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 continues to be under review.
Hugh Bayley: The Privy Councillors recommended a radical simplification of the law on international bribery and corruption. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the provisions in the 2001 Act will not be repealed until there is better, clearer and simpler legislation on the statute book? Will she ensure that the new measures are phrased in such a way that investigations taking place under the existing legislation will still be able to proceed to prosecution?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises various points, and I shall start by saying that the UK, as a
signatory to the convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions, takes its responsibilities seriously. The convention is the framework under which we operate. On 25 February, the House will debate the Privy Councillor report, which contains proposals on how provisions should be simplified to make them more effective. Obviously, we want simplicity, but the legislation must be effective. We need to make it work, and that is a matter that we will have to discuss and consider.My hon. Friend asks whether the bribery clauses in the 2001 Act will be caught by the sunset clause. The Act contains a requirement for review, as its provisions were considered to be so important, as well as sunset clauses, which ensure that Parliament must positively re-enact those powers. However, there is no question that the Act's provisions in respect of bribery will fall into abeyance as a result of the sunset clauses. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): The Solicitor-General may know that I and other hon. Members have corresponded with the police and the prosecuting authorities about allegations of bribery by UK companies in the arms export sector. Are any active investigations of that sector under way?
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman may know that, following reports in The Guardian in relation to BAE Systems, a number of items of evidence were passed to the Serious Fraud Office. The SFO originally considered a number of issues that broadly come under the heading of bribery, but decided that there was not enough material to warrant further investigations. It will always consider material that it is given, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that any prosecutions are pending or that any active review is under way at present.
Parmalat
22. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): What activities the Serious Fraud Office is undertaking in relation to Parmalat. [154531]
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): For operational reasons, the SFO cannot confirm or deny whether this matter has been referred to it.
Miss McIntosh : That response is a little like the answers that I get from the Advocate-General. Will the Solicitor-General answer the more general question about what precautions are in place to ensure that nothing like the Parmalat scandal could happen in this country? It would reassure many businesses, and many people affected by the scandal in Italy, to know that nothing similar could happen in this country.
The Solicitor-General : The focus of a number of Departments would bear on that, such as the Treasury, through the Inland Revenue, and the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, through the auditing processes. There are a number of mechanisms to combat fraud in this country. We are not complacent; we aim to be robust in ensuring
that tax is paid and accounts are audited and that, if corruption starts, with its dreadful effects that can cause loss of businesses, homes and people's livelihoods, it can be nipped in the bud rather than continue to grow.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon) (LD): International financial scandals, such as Parmalat, invariably involve substantial amounts of tax evasion and tax fraud. Recent evidence of prosecution criminality in Customs and Excise has vindicated the decision to bring Customs and Excise under the aegis of the right hon. and learned Lady's Department. Even though the culture in the Inland Revenue is different, are there are any proposals to bring Inland Revenue prosecutors into her Department, not least to enable them to work more closely with the Serious Fraud Office?
The Solicitor-General: We have acted on the proposals, following the Butterfield review, to create a separate prosecution arm for Customs and Excise, and making it accountable to the Attorney-General. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that big scandals, such as the one we have just been discussing, often involve tax evasion and tax fraud. He asks whether we should undertake the same exercise at the Inland Revenue as with the Customs prosecutors. There is a different culture, but the Attorney-General and I frequently meet the Revenue prosecutors, and hear about their cases. There is a light-touch professional superintendence, although they work effectively in their home department—the Treasury. If there was evidence that that did not provide sufficient independence, and that professional standards were not sufficient, we should obviously have to look at the matter. However, that is not the case in relation to the Revenue.
Domestic Violence
23. Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): How many representations she has received during the past 12 months on the approach taken by Crown prosecutors in cases involving women subjected to domestic violence. [154532]
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I answered oral questions in March and May 2003 on policy in relation to domestic violence cases. I have also answered a number of written questions and received numerous representations from voluntary organisations and members of the public. I am afraid that I have not counted them—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask me to do so.
Mr. Llwyd : I have no intention of asking the Solicitor-General to count them. The subject remains very important, as two women are killed each week. To be fair to the Government, they have introduced numerous useful reforms, yet Home Office figures show that in July 2002 domestic violence was, unfortunately, up by 22 per cent. Is any monitoring under way to look at the numbers of cases that fail, are discontinued or result in conviction, and whether the penalties are appropriate to the crime?
The Solicitor-General: On penalties, the Attorney-General and I can refer to the Court of Appeal unduly
lenient sentences if the case has taken place in the Crown court. Such cases go to the Court of Appeal and the response can then form guidelines that are effective in the magistrates courts as well as the Crown courts. That meets the point about sentencing, but, in addition, the Home Secretary has asked the Sentencing Advisory Panel to review sentencing across the board in domestic violence cases. The panel will report in a matter of months, so we shall be able to see whether we have got the guidelines right.On the number of cases that fail, once a domestic violence case gets to court—whether the magistrates court or the Crown court—generally speaking, it is more likely to succeed than not. The difficulty is in actually getting such cases to court, because victims can be terrorised or pressurised to drop the case. The hon. Gentleman is right; we need to keep a close eye on cases that fall by the wayside before they get to court. My noble Friend, Baroness Scotland, the Minister for Criminal Justice System and Law Reform, leads an interministerial committee, which is examining a number of indicators so that we can report more clearly to the House whether we are succeeding in tackling domestic violence.
Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth) (Lab): Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a disturbingly low proportion of those who perpetrate domestic violence are brought to court? What guidance is she giving the Crown Prosecution Service so that it can increase the proportion of those who are brought to justice?
The Solicitor-General: The first point is that we want to prevent domestic violence from taking place, which involves getting across to women very clearly the message that they should not have to put up with violence as part of their relationship; and to men that, if they are violent, they should not get away with it. The next step involves the police, the prosecution services and all the other agencies working closely together so that, as soon as there is a case of domestic violence, they all operate together to ensure that the offender is brought to justice.
There also needs to be plenty of support for victims to enable to them to get to court. As a result of one measure that will be brought into effect in April, victims will be given anonymity on application to the court. If they are not prepared to come forward unless their names are kept private, the prosecutors will be able to apply to the court to say, "In this case, please can we have reporting restrictions?" That is another new measure, designed to try to ensure that prosecutions go forward and that those who perpetrate domestic violence are brought to justice.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I noted what the Solicitor-General said in relation to the majority of domestic violence cases that actually get to trial succeeding—of course, we all wish to see that happen—but does she agree that it is very important that, in any system to deal with domestic violence or any other crime, there should be a sense of fairness in the procedure? She will be aware that there is a principle in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill to apply for restraining orders on acquittal. Does she agree that, if those restraining orders were to be granted on anything other than the higher, civil burden of proof, it would be seen as a way of getting round an acquittal and would bring the entire process into disrepute?
The Solicitor-General: The restraining orders are not a way of getting round an acquittal; they are a way of getting around a problem: there may be an acquittal in the criminal court, but there is still a need for protection—the equivalent of an injunction, a non-molestation order. Currently, the person involved has to go across town to another court to apply for an injunction, where the balance of probabilities is the standard of proof. Instead of making them go across town to another court, we ask, "Surely the criminal court could swap hats, become more like a civil jurisdiction and issue the equivalent of a non-molestation order?" That is proposed in the Bill, but I have described those orders as stay-away orders, generically, because it is not a question of the criminal court operating according to lower standards, but of that court operating more like a one-stop shop, so that a woman does not have to go from pillar to post and the court can deliver the necessary orders for her protection.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |