HC Deb 05 March 1999 vol 326 c918W
Dr. Tony Wright

To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74470]

The Attorney-General

On 12 June 1997, I established the review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of the right hon. Sir Iain Glidewell, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal. He was assisted by Sir Geoffrey Dear (a retired HM Inspector of Constabulary) and Mr. Robert McFarland (a retired Chief Executive of a multi-national company). Their Report was published on 1 June 1998.

None of those individuals was recruited by way of public advertisement. The Review Team was a short-term body established to give thorough consideration to an important and difficult issue. Sir Iain Glidewell was invited to chair the Review because of his judicial experience and the two additional members of the team were selected because of their ability to contribute specific experience and expertise. Public advertising would have been inappropriate and disappropriate. It would have also delayed establishment of the Review.

In February 1998, I established a Working Party to review the system of appointing Counsel to act for the Crown in civil cases and to monitor the use of advocates appointed to act. The Working Party was chaired by the then Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer QC) and included representatives from the Bar Council (Laura Cox QC and Lincoln Crawford), the two First Treasury Counsel (Philip Sales and Jonathan Crow) and officials from the Government Legal Service. I announced that I had accepted their recommendations on 30 July 1998.

None of those individuals was recruited by way of public advertisement. The working party was a short-term body established to give thorough consideration to an important issue. The four external members were invited to sit on the working party because they were able to contribute specific experience and expertise. Public advertising would have been appropriate and disproportionate. A draft of the working party's report was sent to organisations with a specific interest in the subject, inviting their comments. The bodies consulted were the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Institute of Barristers' Clerks, the Association of Women Barristers, the Society for Black Lawyers, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.

Forward to