| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, be that as it may, will the Minister explain—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we need to move to the next Question.
Government Advertising: National Press
3.10 p.m.
Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What analyses they make of the cost-effectiveness of taking full-page advertisements in the national press; and whether decisions on advertising are made by individual departments or centrally.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the cost-effectiveness of full-page national press advertisements is measured by cost per response—that is, the cost of the advertising space divided by the number of responses that can be attributed to the particular advertisement.
Decisions on the size of advertisement to be used are made in consultation between the government department concerned, the Central Office of Information and the specialist advertising and media planning agencies appointed to the campaign. Key factors considered include the nature of the message and the audience being targeted by the advertising.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. The Government's pensions credit is so complicated that barely half the people entitled to it are actually claiming it. So I can certainly agree that there is a strong case for advertising the Government's pensions credit. But the full-page advertisements that are being used are both wasteful and misleading. The whole of the top page contains absolutely no information whatever. The bottom half of the page says that a certain group of pensioners will get extra cash, when in fact they will simply be allowed to keep a little more of their own money. Can the Minister tell us the cost of this campaign, and whether the content has been approved by the Advertising Standards Authority?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware whether the content has been approved by the Advertising Standards Authority. I should have thought it was more appropriate for it to receive responses from the public over criticisms of advertisements placed.
I think that the noble Lord misses the point. That campaign has been extremely effective; it is a very eye-catching advertisement. It is likely that 75 per cent of pensioners every month who get an award will benefit in the sum of at least £43.50—that is the average award—on top of their basic state pension. That is a very large sum of money in my view. Two-thirds of those receiving the benefit will be the poorest women in our society. Its aim is to reach some 3 million households in all, and some 2.5 million are already in receipt of it.
I think this is an excellent campaign and I am surprised that the noble Lord seeks, perhaps by undermining the effect of the advertising campaign, to deprive millions of pensioner families of money to which they are rightly entitled. As to the cost of the campaign, at £12 million I think it is extremely good value.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when Mr Alastair Campbell had overall control of government advertising, the "Panorama" programme accused the Government of jiggery-pokery in terms of government advertising prior to the last general election? When Mr Alastair Campbell left his job, it was split, very correctly: Mr David Hill took over his position immediately, and we were promised a senior
and independent civil servant who would keep an eye on government advertising to prevent any more jiggery-pokery. When will we get this civil servant?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has asked a question along those lines in the not-too-distant past. I explained to him on that occasion that the recruitment of the Permanent Secretary, not for advertising but for communications across government, was in process.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, who paid for the full-page advertisements for changing the system of getting numbers from the GPO? Was it the GPO or was it the Government? Two rather ridiculous young men came galloping through the pages of our national papers frequently.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know for sure, but I suspect it was the commercial organisation that was changing the numbers.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, what is the Government's total expenditure on advertising and how does that sum compare with the amounts spent before they came to office?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, prices in real terms, adjusted for inflation, from 1986–87 to 2002–03, are available. The spend in 2002–03 in real terms was £160 million, which is somewhat short of the £190 million recorded for 1986–87. For 1996–97, the sum was some £81,700,000.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have stressed constantly in debates that I am strongly in favour of people taking up the Government's pensions credit, but wasting paper in this way is not an ideal way to do it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is in favour of take-up campaigns for benefits. I am hoping that he will add his enthusiastic voice to that end. I am sure that the company which has advised the Government on providing advertising support for that campaign will be more than happy to advise the noble Lord further, should he so wish, of the success of that campaign.
Children Bill [HL]
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a Children's Commissioner; to make provision about services provided to and for children and young people by local authorities and other persons; to make provision in relation to Wales about advisory and support services relating to family proceedings; to make provision
about private fostering, childminding and day care, adoption review panels, the making of grants as respects children and families and about child safety orders. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Massey of Darwen set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Haskel to two hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Lord Trefgarne.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
London Local Authorities Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 25 February be now considered; and that, notwithstanding anything in the Private Business Standing Orders or practice of the House, the promoters of the Bill, which originated in this House in Session 2001–02 and which has passed all its stages in this House but not in the Commons, may proceed with the Bill in the present Session;
That the petition for the Bill be deemed to have been deposited;
That all Standing Orders applicable be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on Thursday 4 March with a declaration annexed, signed by the
agent, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill passed by this House;That the proceedings on the Bill in the present Session be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill had passed in the last Session and that no new fees be charged.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
Crown Prosecution Service
3.18 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Solicitor-General to an Urgent Question. The Answer is as follows:
-
"As Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney-General has initiated and is leading a substantial programme of development reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Home Secretary fully supports this programme, particularly the closer working between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. The Attorney-General first raised, some months ago, whether, to reflect this programme of change and reform, the name of the CPS should itself be changed. Further discussions are under way. The Attorney-General is making a Statement on this in another place this afternoon".
3.19 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I think that this Statement has been provoked by a question asked this morning by my honourable friend the shadow Attorney-General in another place for answer by the Home Office. The question related to a statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary yesterday. He said, accordingly to an article in today's Daily Mail by the deputy political editor, Mr Paul Eastham:
- "We have agreed now that, right across the country, the CPS will become the Public Prosecution Service and will become much closer to being understandable by the public".
On the statement by the Home Secretary, I should like to make two observations. First, it appears that a decision has been taken to rename the Crown Prosecution Service the "Public Prosecution Service". Secondly, it seems that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs has participated in taking that decision.
Arising from that, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General two questions. First, does he regard himself as the Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service? If he does, can he tell the House when the decision to change the name was taken, and whether the Queen was informed before it was taken?
My second question concerns the exclusiveness of his responsibility. It is trite constitutional law to say that it is wholly undesirable for any political interference to have taken place in a decision to prosecute. That is true, not only as a matter of substance, but as a matter of perception. It is vital that there is a clear separation between the political arm of the constitution and that arm of the constitution that has to be wholly impartial in relation to the liberty of the subject—that is, the Attorney-General. In those circumstances, how can he explain why the Home Secretary had to agree with this decision?
I should like to make two further observations before I sit down. The first is that, irrespective of the matters to which I have just referred, would it be wise to change the name? In my submission, it would not. If you change the name to "state", you clearly implicate the Government, and therefore the political arm of the constitution. If you change the name to "public", you do the same thing, because the Government—as the democratically elected government—regard themselves as the incarnation of the public interest.
The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary went on to explain the decision that he is supposed to have made by saying that it would be quite wrong for the Crown Prosecution Service—or the "Public Prosecution Service" as it now appears to be—to be impartial in relation to prosecutions. The public should know that it is on their side. But, with great respect, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has misunderstood the whole point about describing the Crown Prosecution Service as the "Crown" Prosecution Service. It is described in that way in order to make it absolutely clear that it is independent from party politics.
My second observation concerns a phrase that the right honourable and learned lady the Solicitor-General used repeatedly in another place when she responded to some apposite questions posed by the shadow Attorney-General. She talked about the principle of partnership in relation to those agencies that are involved in the prosecutorial process. I was surprised to hear this, as I understood that the principle that was animating the Government's vision of the constitution was the principle of the separation of powers.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the Government are not only keen to see the principle of the independence of judges respected, but also the perception that they are entirely separate from the legislature or the executive arm. That is why—despite the fact that they accept that there has been no evidence of political interference with respect to Her Majesty's judges whatsoever—they are determined to set up an independent Supreme Court. Yet here we have the Home Secretary blatantly breaching the principle of separation of powers by engaging himself in a decision that should be none of his constitutional business whatsoever.
3.24 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can the Attorney-General confirm the report in today's Daily Telegraph, that he took a sharp intake of breath when he heard of the Home Secretary's latest lollipop from his bran tub?
As the Attorney-General is aware, we on these Benches broadly support many of the Government's proposals for legal and constitutional reform. But would he not agree that they seem to be making an awful mess of this with various initiatives that seem to be popping out without due notice and consultation, and which undermine public confidence in a process of reform which should be winning public approval?
Can the noble and learned Lord indicate how the Government are going to get their act together—between his office, the Home Secretary and the noble and learned lord the Lord Chancellor—so that we get some indication that Ministers are singing from the same hymn sheet as they bring forward these complex and important measures?
As a layman, I am aware that we have a Director of Public Prosecutions. On the other hand, Her Majesty's judges and Crown Courts have a great deal of public respect and confidence. People want a system of prosecution that is credible, consistent and trusted. In order to have that, we need coherence such as I have urged over the whole matter of constitutional reform. The Home Secretary should not be responsible for some of those matters; they should properly be dealt with by a ministry of justice. As I have said, there should be some sense that Ministers are talking to each other and working to a coherent programme, instead of indulging in high-profile gimmicks that damage public confidence.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I want to start by making one thing clear. I want to leave the House and the people of this country in no doubt. I stand for the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service. No one will challenge that while I am Her Majesty's Attorney-General.
It is crucial to confidence in the criminal justice system that everyone knows that each decision to prosecute—or not to prosecute—is made independently, in the public interest and without political interference.
Everything that I am going to say in answer to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord McNally, must be understood behind that clear and unequivocal statement.
When an Urgent Question was asked of the Home Secretary in another place this morning—as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said—it seemed important that, as the Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney-General and my deputy, the right honourable lady the Solicitor-General, should respond. I hope that noble Lords who are concerned at yesterday's events would think that it was right for the Ministers responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service to come and deal with this question.
Before I go on to some of the wider questions, let me deal with the position of the issue that was raised yesterday. It is not the first time that a suggestion has been made about a change to the name of the Crown Prosecution Service. I floated it myself at the beginning of last year. It has been mentioned in the press several times since. The Director of Public Prosecutions has himself mentioned it in the press. I am bound to say that it would do a lot of good if we could bring the temperature down in relation to this matter. I am surprised that some people have found renewed outrage in something that had already been floated. But I recognise that there are strong interests.
Let me make this clear: the name change remains under active consideration. The Director of Public Prosecutions and I have made it clear that we are in favour of the name change, but we are still considering it. He is discussing it with his staff but no final conclusion has yet been reached.
Let me deal with why it may make sense. I want to make it clear that it is only a part—and some, including me, would say that it is only a small part—of a much more important and much bigger programme of reform, to which my right honourable friend referred in the Statement. However, the reason why it might make sense to make the change, and the reason why the Director of Public Prosecutions and I believe that it does, is that it would clarify that the Prosecution Service in this country serves the public, not the Government—absolutely not the Government. It serves the public of this country in the public interest at all times. No prosecution can proceed unless the prosecutor in charge of the case is satisfied, not only that the evidence indicates that there is a realistic prospect of conviction but also that it is in the public interest to proceed.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, there is nothing surprising or unusual about referring to the concept of public prosecutions. We have had since the late Victorian age a Director of Public Prosecutions. He has never been a director of Crown prosecutions. This House approved, the creation of a Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland—and it is a public prosecution service in Northern Ireland. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made the point that he did, but I reject any suggestion that calling something the public prosecution service carries with it any implication at all that it is for the government, or that it is anything other than a prosecution service for the benefit of the public in this country. That is all.
I turn to the other questions that have been raised. It is plain from what I have said about the process that no final conclusion has been reached. Whatever may have been said in any newspapers or elsewhere in relation to the matter, no final conclusions have been reached. Questions do not therefore arise in relation to the particular involvement of particular persons. I have made it clear that there can be no political interference and therefore no interference by anybody—other perhaps than the Attorney-General—in any decision to prosecute. There certainly cannot be interference by any other Minister.
Notwithstanding that fact, there will be questions in relation to the organisation of the public prosecution service—the Crown Prosecution Service—in which others will have a legitimate interest. After all, the service works on a budget that comes from the taxpayer. We are not at the point at which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been involved in a decision in relation to that. However, even if that were the case, I would not regard it as interfering in the slightest with the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service or with any prosecuting decision. With respect, it seems to be going far too far to suggest that for Ministers to have a view and even to take part in decisions in relation to a name change can conceivably affect the independence of the prosecuting decisions, on which we all agree.
I turn to the question of partnership. We have recognised and realised that in order to have an effective, efficient and fair prosecution and justice system in this country, it makes sense for the different parts of the justice system to work together. They must do that always in accordance with their own particular missions and principles. Noble Lords passed, in the Criminal Justice Act, a very important measure, which gives the Crown Prosecution Service the responsibility for deciding what charge should be given in any case, or whether a charge should be made at all. That necessarily involves a close co-operation, or partnership, between the police and the prosecutor. It does not subvert in any way the independent decision of the prosecutor on whether the case should go ahead, but it involves working in partnership.
So, too, we have demonstrated that by working in partnership with court management, we can enable victims and witnesses to be better served, so that courts are ready to take their cases when they arrive, are protected from defendants who intimidate them, and all that sort of thing. I am very strongly of the view that with that sort of partnership, which we have in the National Criminal Justice Board and the local criminal justice boards across the country, we are really helping to serve the people of our communities—the public—and enabling us to have a better justice system. I very much hope that your Lordships will enthusiastically support many or all of the changes that are being proposed, which we shall bring before noble Lords when we are ready to show them the full agenda. All those changes are towards the same objective, of a prosecution system which, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, put it, is credible, trusted and effective. Ultimately, we are involved in reducing crime and the fear of crime.
I do not in fact agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the concept of a ministry of justice, but that no doubt is for others on another day. I conclude by thanking both noble Lords for the questions that they asked and the comments that they made. I hope that I have covered them all; if not, I am sure that they will be put again. The fundamental point about independence—that it is for the Attorney-General to support that independence—is absolutely my view.
What is up for discussion may be the name change; what is not up for discussion is the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service. That is non-negotiable.3.36 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, having had the privilege on three occasions of serving as one of Her Majesty's ambassadors abroad, and having for five years been the head of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, can I have an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that no thought whatever is being given to either removing or diluting that important and much valued connection between the Diplomatic Service and the Crown?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page