§ 32. Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)If he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. [47149]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI published the report of the review of the Crown Prosecution Service—the Glidewell 520 review—on 1 June 1998. Its main thrust, which we accept, lies in proposals for reordering CPS priorities to focus more on the core business of prosecuting, greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for staff.
We immediately accepted the recommendation for the appointment of a chief executive, to which I have just referred, and work is already under way within the CPS and other Departments to consider the recommendations. I expect to provide the House with a progress report in the autumn.
§ Mr. BruceThe whole House would respect the Attorney-General for the calm and charming way in which he answers questions in the House. However, if one looks back at the answers that he has given on the Crown Prosecution Service and at the criticism coming from both sides of the House, it is clear that that calm and charm masks a great deal of incompetence in his Department and possibly even on his part. Barbara Mills resigned, rightly, because of the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service was functioning. What about people in the Attorney-General's Department—or will we always be reassured that the CPS is working well, when clearly it has never worked well?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's latter comments and grateful to him for his earlier words. We inherited a system that was appallingly bad. We published in opposition "The Case for the Prosecution." I immediately set in train the Glidewell review. It examined in detail what was wrong and produced a report within a very short time—one year—which we are about to implement. We are doing so because the palsied hand of the previous Administration did nothing at all.