§ Mr. LidingtonTo ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown prosecution service.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell)The Crown prosecution service is continuing to develop best practice on a national basis through the national operational practice initiative. It is continuing to recruit high-quality lawyers and is making substantial progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the working group on pre-trial issues.
§ Mr. LidingtonI thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the problems that the CPS has caused to the police service in Aylesbury and elsewhere by its insistence that the police should supply it with lengthy written summaries of tape-recorded interviews? That insistence is causing police officers to spend hours seated at word processors instead of being out on the beat catching criminals. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a waste of time? Will he consider whether the situation could be improved?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI understand my hon. Friend's point, but I would strongly acquit the CPS of the use of the word "caused". The use of summaries is standard procedure, but I recognise the advantage of typed transcripts, done by typists, straight off. That can provide tremendous benefits to the criminal justice system, as can the immediate typing of all the papers at that stage.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the Attorney-General satisfied that at all times the CPS gets the right people charged? Is he satisfied that its effectiveness and efficiency, which resulted in the three Matrix Churchill people being brought before the court, were correct? Would it not have been more proper for all those Cabinet members to be brought before the court, instead of those three people? Is it not a coincidence that that case managed to last over the general election and was sub judice for all that time, so the real truth could not come out about Iraq-gate? If it had, we would have been faced with a different situation in that general election—where the Prime Minister and all the rest of them would have been referred to as the guilty men, and not the three people in that case.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe hon. Gentleman's comments are as riddled with confusion as any of those that we have heard recently. An important feature of our 13 prosecuting system is that it is independent. The prosecuting authority in the Matrix Churchill case was Customs and Excise, an independent prosecuting authority which employed independent counsel. The independent leading counsel is someone of great experience who is much respected in his profession. He acted throughout with complete integrity—as, I believe, did everyone involved in the prosecution process.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIs it my right hon. and learned Friend's belief that the Crown prosecution service is a more reliable prosecuting authority than Customs and Excise, which brought a successful case against Ordnance Technology in the Crown court in Reading last February? It led to the convinction of three directors of that company and two other personnel on charges relating to the transfer of weapon-making equipment, supposedly to Jordan. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine that matter as well?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIf I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is worried about the propriety of a particular case. Although I do not know enough about that case, I think that he may well be able to refer it to the independent inquiry to he set up shortly and chaired by Lord Justice Scott.
§ Mr. Alex CarlileWill the Attorney-General confirm that if the Scott inquiry shows there to be evidence of criminal offences by any person, however high his position and whether or not he be a Member of the House, the same level of independence will be applied to possible prosecutions as that about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke earlier?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI confirm that absolutely. The prosecuting process in this country is carried out by independent prosecuting authorities without fear or favour and without regard in that sense to whornsover it may have to consider.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the allegations by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were superbly refuted by leading and junior counsel in the case, who said that everything had been carried out with complete propriety and that Ministers could not avoid their responsibilities? Were not those points made clear by prosecuting counsel when laying the papers before the court?
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy hon. Friend makes valid points, all of which will be capable of being considered learnedly, independently and impartially by Lord Justice Scott when he carries out his inquiry.
§ Mr. FraserIs not it the duty of the Attorney-General —both as head of the prosecution service and because of his inherent power to put an end to any prosecution, whether brought by the CPS, Customs and Excise or anybody else—to undertake that never again will he allow a prosecution to proceed where he had personally obliged Ministers to sign immunity certificates and where, if the judge had believed what those Ministers were saying, innocent people might have been sent to prison?
Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's duty to justice greater than the duty to Ministers to hide behind immunity certificates? Just what is the authority for saying that immunity certificates are mandatory? Surely somebody could use some common sense in these cases.
§ The Attorney-GeneralFirst, I agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's points—that the duty to justice supervenes all others. That said, I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman repeating a number of points that, quite frankly, are badly made and ill-founded.
The hon. Gentleman and I frequently ask and answer questions across the Dispatch Box, so with all respect I say to him that he is mistaken in a number of his suggestions. However, all those matters will be capable of being properly investigated by Lord Justice Scott.