| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Looked-after Children
15. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): What steps the Government are taking to improve the educational attainment of looked-after children. [58793]
The Minister for Children and Families (Beverley Hughes): The educational attainment of looked-after children is far from acceptable, and we intend to consult shortly on proposals to transform outcomes for that group of children. Building on the new duty on local authorities to promote the educational attainment of looked-after children, we will also propose, in the Education and Inspections Bill, to help those children to get into the right schools in order to meet their needs. We will enable local authorities to direct school admission authorities to admit looked-after children at any time, not just at the beginning of the school year, and even when the school is already full.
Stephen Pound: I am grateful for that answer, and all the more delighted that I voted for the Bill last night.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that nationally only 1 per cent. of looked-after children go to university. In the London borough of Ealing, owing in no small part to the inspirational leadership of Judith Finlay, the figure is 11 per cent. May I seek to tempt my right hon. Friend to visit the London borough of Ealing when, shortly, we are to open a one-stop shop to provide looked-after children with education, social welfare and benefit advice? Sadly, it will be a few metres outside my constituency—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I seek to tempt the hon. Gentleman to be more concise in his questions? I hope that the same will apply to the Minister's answer.
Beverley Hughes:
It would be taking a rather dangerous path to succumb to temptation from my hon. Friend, but he is absolutely right. One of the aspects of educational attainment that we want to improve is further and higher education for looked-after children. As my hon. Friend says, Ealing has made considerable progress in supporting young people from care to higher education through subsistence and the drop-in centre to which he referred, and a package of support for those going to university. Those are exactly the kinds of
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1599
innovation that we are exploring, and I shall be very pleased if I can go to Ealing and observe them in practice.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Witness Support
21. Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): What steps the Crown Prosecution Service takes to support vulnerable witnesses in court proceedings. [58771]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Crown Prosecution Service can apply to the court to allow vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via a televised link or from behind a screen, or to withhold their personal details. The court may of course refuse the application.
Ms Keeble: Hate crimes have been a problem in my area, especially homophobic attacks. If the courts and the CPS cannot establish certainty, vulnerable witnesses may find themselves in a court without a screen, or in a court that is unsafe because of the layout and the furniture. A defendant may discharge his lawyer and, in effect, use the courtroom to continue to harass the vulnerable witness. Will my hon. and learned Friend examine the position, especially in relation to hate crimes?
The Solicitor General: I will certainly do so. However, it is open to the CPS, under section 36 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, to prevent the accused from personally cross-examining a witness. The court must be satisfied that the quality of evidence given by a witness under cross-examination is likely to be diminished if the cross-examination is conducted by the accused, that it may be improved if the accused does not cross-examine the witness, and that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to restrict cross-examination by the accused.
There are a number of provisions and conditions, but it is possible that the courts have the power to which my hon. Friend refers. As she knows to her cost, however, benches sometimes decide not to use some of the powers that they could use, such as the power to provide screens. It is important for the courts to realise how vulnerable witnesses often feel in such circumstances.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have got off to a very slow start. We shall not give hon. Members a chance if we do not have shorter questions and shorter answers.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking)
(Con): In the courts where I sit, one of the big problems occurs in domestic violence cases when, for one reason or another—fear, perhaps—women do not turn up. Does the Solicitor-
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1600
General recognise that problem? It costs a good deal of money. Can more be done to strengthen the position of such women?
The Solicitor General: There has been a considerable problem with domestic violence cases. There have been pilot schemes in Caerphilly and Croydon to establish whether non-lawyer advocates can work with domestic violence victims and witnesses, take them through the criminal justice system, and ensure that they are relieved of at least some of the stress of giving evidence—although the experience is always likely to be stressful.
Crown Prosecution Service
22. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): What steps he is taking to improve liaison between victims of crime and the Crown Prosecution Service. [58772]
The Solicitor General: A new code of practice for victims and witnesses is due to come into force on 3 April that sets out responsibilities towards victims, witnesses and bereaved relatives. Breaches of the obligations can, if unresolved through a complaints procedure, be referred to the parliamentary ombudsman. The Attorney-General has also recently published the prosecutors pledge to victims of crime.
Keith Vaz: My hon. and learned Friend will know that the first full performance review of the CPS was published on Tuesday. It showed that performance was less than good in more than half of CPS areas and that in most there was a failure to communicate with victims of crime—to tell them that charges had either been dropped or reduced. Those are damning criticisms of the CPS. What steps is my hon. and learned Friend going to take to ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions is aware of these failings—and what is the CPS going to do to get its act together?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did well to pause at that moment.
The Solicitor General: The overall assessment of the recent analysis was that three CPS areas were "excellent", 16 were "good", 19 were "fair" and four were "poor". So some 45 per cent. of CPS areas are either "excellent" or "good", and 90 per cent. are for the most part complying with relevant standards satisfactorily. The inspectorate also said:
A lot of good work has already been undertaken in the past year through the charging programme, the "No Witness, No Justice" programme and the effective trial management programme. We predict that by December 2007, due to the steps that we are taking, 12,000 more trials will go ahead per year than do so currently.
Murder
23. David T.C. Davies (Monmouth)
(Con): What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on changes to the way murder is prosecuted. [58773]
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1601
The Solicitor General: The Law Commission is dealing with the first stage of a review of the law on murder, and the Law Officers have had discussions with the Home Secretary and other Ministers. The Law Commission, which is of course an independent body, has issued a consultation paper containing provisional proposals. The Government will await the final proposals before taking a view on them.
David T.C. Davies: Can the Solicitor-General assure us that, whatever the outcome of the review, the most serious forms of murder will continue to carry a mandatory life sentence? Can he further assure us that from now on, a mandatory life sentence will mean that the person in question spends the rest of their life behind bars, rather than spending several years watching Sky television before being set free to continue a campaign of violence against the innocent populace?
The Solicitor General: If the hon. Gentleman had listened when the review was announced, he would know that the Home Secretary made it clear that the mandatory life sentence for murder will indeed remain. The murder principle set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will also remain. The Government passed that Act to ensure effective sentencing principles in dealing with murder cases, which, I have to say—given the way in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question—his party singularly failed to do when in power.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): Does the Solicitor-General agree that it is far better to respond to the Law Commission's proposals in the rational and measured way that it made them, than in the histrionic manner that we just heard from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies)? The Law Commission has made it clear that the law is in a mess, that it is not saying and doing what the public think it is, and that it needs reform. The best way to get reform is to have a rational debate and to build consensus. Will the Solicitor-General commend the Law Commission's very sensible proposals?
The Solicitor General: The proposals are out for consultation and will remain so for only a few more weeks, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies)—who asked the "histrionic" question, as the hon. Gentleman put it—respond to that consultation and make their respective views known. The proposals, provisional as they are, are very important and will doubtless change the law on murder in due course, although we have yet to take a final view. It is important that Members take the opportunity to make their views known to that independent body.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)
(Con): The Solicitor-General will be aware that the Law Commission proposes that, although first-degree murder would continue to carry the mandatory life sentence, second-degree murder—which could involve killing a person when the intent is to commit grievous bodily harm of the most serious kind—would not. Does the Minister think that it might be useful for the review
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1602
also to look at how fixed-term sentences are passed, and at the disparity between what the judge says in court and the sentence that is in fact served? The public need greater reassurance that fixed-term sentences mean what they say and approximate to the period that a person might serve in prison. Would it not be possible to provide that reassurance by making it clear that the mandatory sentence was not always necessary? People latch on to the mandatory sentence because they do not have confidence in the current sentencing system.
The Solicitor General: I suspect that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and other Back-Bench Opposition Members may take that inquiry as something of a rebuke for the way he asked his original question. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is right that it is important that we consider these matters with a degree of calm and ensure that the public have confidence in the sentences that are passed. The Law Commission is looking at how such matters should be dealt with. We must await the outcome of that, but the Government are discussing how to ensure that people understand better precisely what a sentence passed by a judge will mean in practice for each defendant. There are ways to achieve that, but we must approach the matter through a process of consultation and not by making announcements here. However, I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |