---

Tomlinson Report

15. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): When the Government will publish its response to the Tomlinson report. [217641]

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Ruth Kelly): I did, yesterday.

Richard Ottaway: I thank the Secretary of State. Does she accept that we can all argue for a long time about those bits of Tomlinson that we like and do not like? I welcome the retention of A-levels, but does she accept that the retention of AS-levels is not so popular? Will she acknowledge that taking three serious sets of examinations in three consecutive years hampers the broadening of the mind and the development of the character of young people in their late teens? Even at this late stage, will she rethink her position on that particular exam?

Ruth Kelly: I will not because, under the new system, I see people taking exams at the age and pace that suits them so that we get away from the idea that 16 is a fixed point in the education system, that at 17 one takes AS-levels, or that at 18 one has to take A-levels. We will
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 470
 
move toward a system in which students take GCSEs when it suits them and perhaps take an AS-level at 16. We have to try to broaden the range of opportunities available to all our young people to offer a mix of the academic and the vocational and to give the vocational route much higher esteem. That all fits together as a coherent picture.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is some concern about the decision to retain A-levels, but does she accept that AS-levels are popular in certain respects, especially for youngsters from non-traditional backgrounds who perhaps do not have the academic background that some of us have had? It is a great advance to have an examination in the first year of sixth-form study to get used to the style and content of A-levels. It is beneficial to students of that type.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is quite possible that, in the future, in the different specialised lines of learning such as engineering, employers and higher education institutions might ask for an AS level—in physics, for example—as part of a vocational course. It is quite important that students have the opportunity to mix the academic and the vocational, so that we get away from the idea that pupils are pigeonholed into one category or the other and let all our pupils have the opportunity to combine studies in both areas.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Burden of Proof

20. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): What legislative provisions introduced since 1997 have entailed a reversal in the burden of proof; and what guidance she has provided to the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to these provisions. [217646]

The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I will write to the hon. Lady with a list of the issues that have been considered by the CPS reversed burdens sub-committee. I think that that is the most helpful way I can answer her question. The CPS issues guidance to all prosecutors on new legislation and on significant court decisions that clarify the law.

Miss McIntosh: This is the second opportunity that I have had to put this question. I did so once in writing to the Solicitor-General, which was due to be answered on Monday, and the right hon. and learned Lady said that she would write to me. I find that unacceptable, given that on Monday we debated the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, whereby the incidence and the level of fines for the issuing of fixed penalty notices has increased and there is a reversed burden of proof at the time that the fixed penalty notice is issued. Does the right hon. and learned Lady not see that as a result of increasing the reversed burden of proof at that stage, the
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 471
 
only defence for those who do not wish to pay such a fine is to go to court, so that will throw a load of cases in the direction of the court? Does she find that acceptable?

The Solicitor General: The hon. Lady will agree that what is in the substantive law is a matter for the House. All these issues are canvassed on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and if a reversed burden of proof is introduced in any legislation, customarily people do look more closely at it. When it comes to prosecution, cases will be prosecuted in the normal way following the legislation and following any guidance.

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon) (LD) rose—

Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not giving the hon. Lady a second supplementary question.

Miss McIntosh: Owing to the totally unsatisfactory answer I have received from the Solicitor-General, I wish to apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point is noted.

Mr. Burnett: Can the Solicitor-General confirm that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am advised that, as a result of that point of order, we now have to move on to the next question.

Victims Charter

21. Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): If she will introduce proposals to extend the provisions of the victims charter to Government Departments and agencies which can instigate criminal actions on behalf of complainants. [217647]

The Solicitor General: A draft of the victims code will shortly be the subject of a public consultation exercise. As with the charter, it is proposed that the code applies to named criminal justice agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government do not propose at this stage to extend the code to cover other prosecuting authorities.

Mr. Barnes: Is it not the case that under the victims charter, a victim of crime can obtain an explanation from the police or the Crown Prosecution Service if charges relating to the crime they have suffered from are being reduced, dropped or just not proceeded with? I have been pursuing a case for six years with the Department of Trade and Industry, where it has powers to prosecute under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Why are not the DTI, other Government Departments and agencies covered by the victims charter, so that my constituent can be given the explanation that he seeks as to why the action he and I feel should have been taken by the DTI has not been taken?

The Solicitor General: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He has identified, of course, that these
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 472
 
prosecutions come under the responsibility of the DTI, which is not covered formally by the victims' code, but I think it is good practice for all prosecutors to look at how they inform victims of things that are important to them. Perhaps I can undertake to get the Whitehall prosecutors' group, which includes all the prosecutors in Whitehall, including the DTI, to look at whether they could adopt good practice when prosecutions are of particular importance to individual victims.

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon) (LD): Has guidance yet been given to the Crown Prosecution Service on the ability of victims and prosecution witnesses to have direct access to the CPS? If that guidance has yet to be given, will she tell us when that will happen?

The Solicitor General: The first stage of closer involvement between the Crown Prosecution Service and victims came with the roll-out of victim information. Not so long ago, victims would often find out that charges in their cases had been dropped. Nobody would be told about it—they would read about it in the newspaper. Now, new procedures have come into effect in all areas so that if there is a material change—if a charge is dropped or reduced—the CPS has a responsibility to inform that victim directly. However, there are many other issues that victims want to know about—for example, the progress in the case—so more information is being given, in co-ordination with the police, in witness care units. I hope that the information that I have given is as helpful as it possibly could be. I had no intention of doing anything other than answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): Will my right hon. and learned Friend review the way that victims are treated in circumstances in which it is impossible to bring a prosecution because of the lack of absolute proof? I am thinking in particular of circumstances in which an elderly, vulnerable witness has been conned out of money by builders and so on, and people who have sought to befriend them.

The Solicitor General: It is important that victims get support even if there is no prosecution. Victim Support gives very useful support to victims, irrespective of whether anybody has been caught and charged with the crime. Also, victims can get criminal injuries compensation even if the offender has not actually been caught.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): The Solicitor-General will be aware that in some categories of offences—particularly those under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974—it is possible for prosecutions to be brought either by the Health and Safety Executive or by local authorities, and now by the Crown Prosecution Service as well. How does that impact on the operation of the victims charter? It is my understanding that some of those bodies will not be covered by the charter, but, in many cases, there are likely to be victims. What co-ordination or discussion
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 473
 
has taken place to ensure, particularly if cases start with one body and are transferred to another, that victims' views are properly represented?

The Solicitor General: What we are looking for is a culture change whereby all prosecutors think carefully about the information and support that is given to victims throughout the case and how they are treated. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify that prosecutions can move from one prosecutor to another. They may start with one prosecutor who is not covered by the code and then move to a prosecutor who is covered by the code, or vice versa. The answer is to ensure that the Whitehall prosecutors' group discusses all those issues and that we level all practice up to the best, but we must start with the code that is under the statute having a clear focus. We must move it forward on that basis and then, in future, we might well be able to extend it.

---