HC Deb 07 July 1980 vol 988 cc26-8
33. Mr. Dubs

asked the Attorney-General if he is now in a position to make a statement on jury vetting.

The Attorney-General

Following a recent decision of the Court of Appeal I thought it desirable to consult again the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary and other interested parties. I have nearly finished these consultations but those with the chief officers of police, which are being conducted through Home Office officials, will not take place until Thursday of this week, 10 July. I hope I shall be ready to make a statement not long afterwards but, in any event before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Dubs

Is the Attorney-General aware that everyone understands his embarassment at finding himself in the difficult position of having given an undertaking, to this House that jury vetting would not take place without his consent when such jury vetting is taking place without his consent? Does he appreciate that we look forward to an early statement so that we can clarify the present muddled position?

The Attorney-General

I accept that the position is not as clear as I should like it to be. But I reassure the hon. Member that any case which involves vetting with Special Branch records will still be reserved for my decision. In any event, I have said that there is to be no inquiry made at local CIDs except to resolve identification problems when there may be four Smiths involved in a jury list.

Mr. Grieve

In my right hon. and learned Friend's consideration of this important matter, will he never lose sight of the fact that the administration of justice is not to be polluted or diverted by persons of serious criminal conviction serving on juries? To that extent, jury vetting is essential for the protection of the public and the administration of justice.

The Attorney-General

That is one of the matters which I shall take into consideration when I reach a conclusion.

Mr. John Morris

Will the Attorney-General accept that the Opposition welcome his assurance that there will be a statement on this matter before the recess? In his consideration of the statement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the statement made by Lord Denning in a recent Court of Appeal case that jury vetting is unconstitutional? In view of the disquiet and apparent conflict in decisions, should not this matter come to Parliament for right hon. and hon. Members to decide whether there should be an increase in the classification or any change in those who should be entitled to serve on a jury? Will the Attorney-General consider asking a senior judge to look into the various differences that have arisen and to make recommendations for legislation?

The Attorney-General

I shall bear in mind what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.