§ 28. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)When he last met the President of the Law Society to discuss the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. [58032]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI met the then president of the Law Society on 1 June 1998 to discuss the Glidewell report. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I met his successor for a general discussion on 13 October.
§ Mr. JackI thank the Attorney-General for his answer, but I am sorry that the question of rights of audience for lawyers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service was not on the agenda for those discussions. The Attorney-General will know that members of the Bar and, indeed, the judiciary have reservations about lawyers being given rights of audience. Conversely, those represented by the Law Society feel that they should have them. The matter has been around for a considerable time. Can the Attorney-General tell us what is the current position, when action will be taken and when the issue will be resolved?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament in 1990, when the Courts and Legal Services Act was passed—an Act which he supported. Unfortunately, the legislation created a problem that took years and years—six years, in the case of employed solicitors—to resolve. We are determined to change that.
Employed solicitors now have limited access to the higher courts. The position of the employed Bar is being dealt with by the same machinery, and I hope that will be a much shorter process. As regards the future, the Lord Chancellor has drawn up proposals to open all the courts to all lawyers. Consultation was completed on 14 September and, when the Lord Chancellor has made a decision—soon, I hope—and when time is available, legislation will be introduced. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not fall into the trap of the 1990 Act.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)Will my right hon. and learned Friend contact the Crown Prosecution Service about the extraordinary events involving Britain's most senior woman judge? She was involved in an accident—which she has admitted to have been entirely her fault—in which a nanny employed by her family received appalling facial injuries. Glass is still embedded behind her eyes and it is possible that she will lose her sight in both eyes.
476 The judge has been told that she will not be prosecuted, but must undergo a number of hours of extra tuition in driving skills. She will face no charge—she will incur no penalty points and no fine. The young nanny, however, was warned that she might be charged with the offence of not wearing a seat belt. Is that not extraordinary? The impression might well be gained that there is soft justice for judges and the gentry, but tough law for nannies and all the rest of us.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am, of course, aware of the newspaper reports of the incident, as far as they go. However, it is an operational matter for the police. The decision was made by the police; they did not consult the CPS, and they were not required to do so. The matter is not within my ministerial responsibility.
§ Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire)First, may I take this opportunity of welcoming Mr. David Calvert-Smith QC as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and wish him well in his demanding role?
In relation to that role, does the Attorney-General recall that more than 18 months ago, within days of coming to office, he announced the appointment by April this year of 42 new chief Crown prosecutors for each police area—some of whom, no doubt, would be solicitors and members of the Law Society?
Is it not the case that, more than 18 months later and almost six months after the Glidewell report, no new chief Crown prosecutors have been appointed? When can we expect those appointments? Is that not another example of the Government pretending to come in with a bang, but, after one and a half years, finding it difficult even to utter a whimper?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we did come in with a bang and started to deal with the appalling mess that he and the Conservative Government had left us. They remained silent when everyone in the land knew that something was appallingly wrong with the Crown Prosecution Service. We immediately decided that the service should have 42 areas and we appointed a chief executive shortly after the Glidewell report was published. The review considered in great depth the evidence it was given and its report was welcomed by all. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also now welcome it. We have also appointed a new Director of Public Prosecution, Mr. David Calvert-Smith, who is a distinguished member of the Bar with great prosecuting experience. His appointment, too, was welcomed by all. Now that he is in post, he can advertise for and interview applicants for the 42 posts of chief Crown prosecutor.