HC Deb 02 July 1998 vol 315 cc515-6
29. Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)

When he last had discussions on the Crown Prosecution Service with (a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department and (b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. [47146]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris)

I frequently discuss matters of mutual interest with ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Officials from the Crown Prosecution Service likewise have frequent discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Those discussions promote co-operation and effective joint working between agencies in the criminal justice system and are a key feature of the Government's commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system generally.

Sir Sydney Chapman

Now that we have had an opportunity to read the Glidewell report following the statement made in the House by the Attorney-General on 1 June, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if there is to be an improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service, it is absolutely essential that there should be better co-operation and co-ordination between that service, the police forces and the Court Service? Will he encourage the new Director of Public Prosecutions, as a matter of priority, to hold discussions with the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and to ensure that that becomes a reality in London, where, in my opinion, there is a desperate need for less centralisation and less bureaucracy?

The Attorney-General

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The need for better co-operation goes to the heart of the matter. A great deal has been done in recent years and many of the 75 recommendations that Sir Iain Glidewell made deal precisely with that issue. The issue goes wider than my own Department and wider than the CPS, so the Government as a whole, including my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, will be looking at all 75 recommendations as a matter of urgency. The document is now out to consultation and I should be grateful for any observations drawn from the experience of the hon. Gentleman in respect of London. As he knows, there are particular proposals for London.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Arising from the discussions that my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, can he confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service has not closed the files on the murder of Stephen Lawrence—the brutal racist killing that took place in April 1993? Will he confirm that, when the inquiry is ended, every effort will continue to be made to ensure that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence—or at least some of the murderers of the 17-year-old—are brought to justice? Is he aware that Stephen's parents will never give up their fight for justice? Those who murdered their son should be put in the dock and, if found guilty, serve a life sentence.

The Attorney-General

I fully understand the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend; that is what the inquiry under a distinguished former judge is all about. Thereafter, of course, it will be a matter for the police, in the first instance, and if there is evidence, a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. We have to take it in stages.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss the Crown Prosecution Service, will he discuss the Lord Chancellor's proposals to open up rights of audience for employed solicitors within the CPS to the higher courts? Will he attempt to reconcile the Lord Chancellor's views on that subject with those that he himself expressed at the Bar conference not long ago, when he said that the independent Bar was one of the bastions of a democratic society? Are the views of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor reconcilable on this matter—or on any other matter?

The Attorney-General

The views of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor on the independence of the Bar are precisely the same as mine. I have spelt them out time after time—but repetition is important, and a good thing. The Lord Chancellor includes in his consultation paper words almost to the same effect, which have exactly the same meaning.