| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): What about the name change?
The Solicitor-General: I will come back to the name change. Conservative Members should bear with me, because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised many more questions in addition to the name change. I think it right that I should try to answer those. I am not trying to avoid the issue of the name change, but I have been asked many other questions.
I understand that prisons will remain known as Her Majesty's prisons, but, as a means to bring together the probation service and the Prison Service, the overall service that employs those who work in probation and in prisons will be called the National Offender Management Service.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not shout across the Chamber. I call David Heath.
Mr. Duncan: But what about the name change?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I tell you, Mr. Duncan, that you are defying the Chair. You will not do that. I call David Heath.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I also regret the fact that the Home Secretary is not apparently accountable for his words when he interferes with the business of another Department of State.
I believe that there is a case for the name change proposed for the Crown Prosecution Service, if not least to bring it in line with the nomenclature of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a post that, after all, we have had for 124 years. Indeed, there is a case to be made for increased transparency and effectiveness on behalf of the service. However, is it not important to differentiate between the activities of the prosecution and the judiciary and those of the Executive and the state? Is that not an important differentiation, which is made by the use of the term "Crown" and which needs to be maintained in the dealings of the Crown Prosecution Service?
Will the Solicitor-General confirm that there is no question of changing the practice of mounting prosecutions in the name of the Crown? Will she confirm that for any name change to take place there would need to be primary legislation, not least the amendment of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985?
Whatever merits there may be for the case, it is simply not a matter in which the Home Secretary, of all Secretaries of State, should be involved because of that separation of the judiciary and the prosecution from the executive arm of the Home Office. Is this not, yet again, an argument for having a fully effective Department of Justice, which would take away such judicial matters from the province of the Home Secretary?
Lastly, does not this episode smack of the confusion over the removal of the title "Lord Chancellor" and the proposals introduced last year? Is it not time for considered reform of the judicial system, not the disintegration of our systems by press release, Cabinet reshuffle or ministerial asides?
The Solicitor-General: Of course, the Home Secretary is accountable for his words, but the shadow Attorney-General tabled this question, and the Attorney-General, to whom I am the deputy, is responsible for superintending the Crown Prosecution Service. Sometimes, during Solicitor-General's questions, you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I get asked questions about the police. I do not say, "That is not a matter for me, I am not going to answer that question." If I think that I know the answer, I seek to give the House the information for which it asks and I say, "This is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I understand . . . " Similarly, if a Member asks a question that relates to issues that are the responsibility of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, I do not say, "Nothing to do with me, go and ask somebody else." I seek to answer such questions. Similarly, if the Home Secretary is asked at a public engagement a question related to the wider criminal justice system, which finds its centre of gravity within the Crown Prosecution Service, it is perfectly fair for him to answer the question, and he is accountable for his words.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. We cannot have joined-up government, joined-up agencies and partnership in the interests of justice, and at the same time a kind of narrow, paranoid departmentalism. I am not in any doubt of the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service, nor do I fear for it. I stand here to defend that, as does the Attorney-General in the other place. All Crown prosecutors know that they have that backing from the Attorney-General and they implement the code accordingly. I therefore urge Members not to read something into the proposal when, on reflection, they know that it is an important programme of reform, of which partnership is an important part, that the Attorney-General is in no doubt about the importance of having an independent prosecution service, and that that is the situation.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): As one who pestered Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, before my right hon. and learned Friend was born, with pertinent questions, may I ask whether this does not show that the Attorney-General should be in the House of Commons? Given the quality of the question asked earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), might not he be an admirable candidate?
The Solicitor-General: It is a matter for the Prime Minister to appoint the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and I take seriously my responsibility to account to this House for the work of the Attorney-General. I do not therefore think that there is less accountability to this House, as I am absolutely clear and open with the House and speak on behalf of the Attorney-General in this House.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): May I ask Her Majesty's Solicitor-General what prior consultation there has been with Her Majesty's judges, those who command the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force or officers of regiments with the prefix "Royal"? Does she not understand that this country has a long and proud history, and that the title "Royal" reminds us of that? Does she not understand, too, that few people who are not zealous republicans have any sympathy for the type of policy now being described?
The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that too few people know what the Crown Prosecution Service is, and what it does. We want to make sure that people have confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. They understand what the police do, and they understand what the courts do, but many of them are baffled about what the Crown Prosecution Service does. One of the things that the Crown Prosecution Service has been doing is seeking to engage with local communities to ensure that people understand what it does in the public interest. The question is whether, as part of a whole range of reforms—which I have already set out to the House, and which I do not want to rehearse again—changing the name would contribute to people's understanding of the enhanced and reformed role of the Crown Prosecution Service. Hon. Members should not therefore get too concerned about this.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether judges had been consulted—
Mr. Hogg: Her Majesty's judges.
The Solicitor-General: Her Majesty's judges, or her Majesty's regiments.
There has been discussion within the Crown Prosecution Service, with the Director of Public Prosecutions. When the Attorney-General first mentioned the idea as a possibility, it was reported in the newspapers. It would not be true to say that no substantive change is being made, but I know that the whole House supports that change, and that it will be in the interests of everyone in the country.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Having removed the word "Crown" from the title of the Crown Prosecution Service, will the Government proceed to get rid of Crown immunity, especially in health and safety matters?
The Solicitor-General: Having said that government is joined up, I do not think it would be right for me to answer a question about Crown immunity. What I will do is draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my colleague who is responsible for such matters.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Are the Government backing off from the idea of a name change, and how much would it cost if it went ahead?
The Solicitor-General: No, there is no backing off. There is sensible discussion. It would be premature to discuss the cost, but I would say "As cheap as possible".
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Will my right hon. and learned Friend come to the Rhondda to discuss with my constituents the changes to the Crown Prosecution Service and to its name? I think she would find that they would say, almost universally, "Hear, hear" to what the Home Secretary said yesterday. They would like a Crown Prosecution Service that is on the side of the public, because their experience so far has been, on the whole, that it only makes itself known to them when it is saying no to a prosecution and they are victims of crime.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |