| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Solicitor-General: I think that people have welcomed the changes undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service on the Attorney-General's initiative. I think they want the service to be strengthened, reformed and improved. It will be a good thing if that can be made more visible by means of a name change that will enable the public to understand the process better. People understand the concept of Her Majesty's judges and are familiar with judges, but they are not familiar with the concept of the Crown Prosecution Service. Given that it is a public service that is responsible for prosecutions, it is important for people to know how it works, and how the criminal justice system works to protect their interests.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): The Solicitor-General will know that the title of the Crown Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland was changed to "Public Prosecution Service" two years ago by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Would the Solicitor-General have a quiet word with her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to establish whether the sun, the moon and the stars fell out as a consequence?
The Solicitor-General: I congratulate the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland on the extensive changes it has undertaken, and congratulate the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions in particular. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out earlier, the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales is called simply that, and does not have "Crown" in his title.
I urge Members not to run away with themselves, but to focus on the substance. If a name change can assist in terms of the substance, it should be considered and implemented; but the objective is reform and improvement in the Crown Prosecution Service. We are certainly not backing off from the proposal that, as part of that, a name change should be considered.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab/Co-op): As you will understand, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask a question lest I be accused again of toadying, self-serving sycophancy—but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the original question of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was based on synthetic anger, inaccurate newspaper reports, pedantry and semantics? Will she confirm that in Scotland the procurators fiscal are quite capable of conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Crown without having the word "Crown" in their title?
The Solicitor-General: That is true.
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I feel that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is reading rather too much into the proposal; on the other—without wanting to give him too much encouragement—I commend him for taking the accountability of his position seriously enough to present such issues to the House.
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): Does the Solicitor-General accept that the proposed name change gives the impression of an increasing tendency towards touchy-feely republicanism? It is felt that implicit in the new title is a degree of movement towards state control. This is not just a matter of semantics. As the Solicitor-General knows, I tabled a written question to her on the nolle prosequi issue vis-à-vis the Katharine Gun prosecution—a serious matter, in respect of which she replied to me yesterday. Does she not accept that the role of the Attorney-General as holder of a prerogative right of the Crown to drop prosecutions is one of the most important constitutional issues before us today? Does she not agree that changing the name of the Crown Prosecution Service is actually a retrograde step, at a time when we should be emphasising the importance of the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process?
The Solicitor-General: I do not see any contradiction between the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service and a change in its name. The two are not polar opposites.
The hon. Gentleman says he has gained the impression that this is something to do with touchy-feely republicanism. Perhaps I can put his mind at rest. There is no intention of making the Crown Prosecution Service touchy-feely—[Hon. Members: "What about republicanism?"] I shall come to the point about republicanism. Let me deal with "touchy-feely" first. That is nonsense. We are talking about a serious programme of improvement and reform, involving many more prosecutors who will be able to bring offenders to justice swiftly, look after victims and witnesses properly, and make sure the system works. That is not touchy-feely; it is practical work in the public interest.
As for republicanism, the name change was intended to give the public a better understanding of the new, reformed role of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is about moving closer to the idea that the public can understand the public interest.
The hon. Gentleman did indeed ask me a question about the Katharine Gun case, and I have answered it. The answer to his further question about whether the Attorney-General's ability to issue a nolle prosequi was
important is yes, it is. Is it going to be changed? No, it is not. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the Katharine Gun case it was not appropriate or necessary even to consider a nolle prosequi, because it was a question of evidence.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Back Benchers are allowed only one supplementary question, not four. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) might remember that next time.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a real danger of loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system, much of it focused on the Crown Prosecution Service? There is confusion over its role and timidity in prosecutions, a turf war breaks out between the CPS and the police from time to time, and there is a failure to liaise with victims of crime. For all those reasons, should we not proceed rapidly with reform of the CPS?
The Solicitor-General: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. He is absolutely right about the importance of public confidence in the criminal justice system; he is absolutely right about the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the important role of the criminal justice system; he is absolutely right in saying that improving the way in which the system works must mean greater partnership; and he is absolutely right about the need for the Crown Prosecution Service, during the process of prosecutions, to give victims more support and information. It is on those issues that the House should focus.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Have Ministers learned nothing from the mishandling of the announcement of the abolition of the Lord Chancellor? The Prime Minister admitted that it was not handled as well as it should have been, and it created anxieties about the independence of the judiciary from government. Given that there is no evidence that replacing the term "Crown" with the term "Public" will in some way enhance public confidence in the CPS—in fact, that it is determined by the factors that Members have referred to today, such as the extent to which account is taken of the concerns of victims of crime—why does the Solicitor-General believe that it is a significant factor in what is otherwise an important process of reform?
The Solicitor-General: A name change for the Crown Prosecution Service will not by itself establish public confidence, but as part of a wide range of reforms it may well contribute to it. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we have learned nothing from matters relating to the Lord Chancellor, but I should remind Members that the Attorney-General has been leading reforms of, and improvements to, the CPS since 2001. This is a long and ongoing programme of reform and change, and there is nothing sudden about it. What is sudden is the shadow Attorney-General's raising in this House the question of the name change, which I am attempting to
answer. But there is no sudden programme of reform; indeed, we have discussed this issue continuously in the House.
Mr. John Taylor (Solihull) (Con): Is not the prospect of magistrates' public meetings somewhat reminiscent of Bucharest under Ceausescu?
The Solicitor-General: No, but the question of the judiciary's engagement with the public, in whose interests they do justice, is a difficult and sensitive one, and it is obviously important to get the balance right. However, in respect of the more effective prosecution of domestic violence, for example, I have welcomed seeing the magistracy and occasionally Crown court judges at conferences on such violence. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, it is to be welcomed. We can trust the magistracy and the judiciary to know where to draw the line, and they do not need the hon. Gentleman to point out to them that they have to be independent. They know that, and they guard that independence jealously.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): May I assure the Solicitor-General that in the courts in which I sit as a recorder, nobody is in any doubt as to what the Crown Prosecution Service means and what it does? Is she not in danger of becoming involved in an utterly fatuous desire to "modernise" the name of the prosecution service simply because the Government think it a more trendy thing to do? What is important is that the name be maintained, but that the functions of the CPS be improved through all sorts of methods. Changing the name is a simple waste of time and money.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |