| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Successful Prosecutions
26. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to increase the number of successful prosecutions. [31638]
The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The CPS and the police are working together on several initiatives to bring the right cases promptly to court, including further charging standards, guidance on case preparation and measures to assist the police with early advice.
Mr. Flynn: If Ministers are not inclined to accept the accurate figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), will the Solicitor-General accept the House of Commons Library figures showing that, from 1980 to 1995, a period of unprecedented rising crime, the number of people appearing for sentence at Crown court went down from 14,300 to 3,400, which is disgraceful? The crime clear-up rate--the crucial factor--has gone down from 40 per cent. in 1980 to a mere 26 per cent. now. Is it not true that Conservative law and order policy is that the innocent are punished and suffer while the guilty run free?
The Solicitor-General: That is not true. The conviction rate in the magistrates court is 98 per cent. and in the Crown court is just over 90 per cent. The cases received by the Crown Prosecution Service from the police have fallen from 1.53 million in 1993 to 1.3 million in 1996. The police police and the prosecutors prosecute, but they can prosecute only those cases that are sent to them.
Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the use of information technology by the police is increasing the number of successful conclusions of cases? Does he believe that it would be a useful tool for the CPS? If so, what plans does the CPS have to use information technology to ensure that there are more successful prosecutions?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Information technology is a tool being increasingly used both within the CPS and in its relations with other criminal justice agencies. The case-handling computer system is now installed in 38 branches. By the end of the year, it will be installed in 57, including London. The e-mail system of transferring information is being piloted in Southampton and Ipswich and I shall be visiting Southampton within the next two weeks to see it in operation. I expect it to be considerably extended across the country within the coming months.
Crown Prosecution Service
27. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what further legislation he plans in the current parliamentary Session to expedite the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. [31639]
The Solicitor-General: Initiatives include co-ordinated police training to ensure early delivery of the right material to the Crown Prosecution Service and pilots to test the use of electronic mail between criminal justice agencies. None of those initiatives requires legislation.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Has the hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that Question Time for him and the Attorney-General is unique, in that they do not attract the usual fawning and obsequious questions from Conservative Members? Is that not because there is widespread dismay about their stewardship of the Crown Prosecution Service and our justice system?
The common experience of Members of Parliament across the House is that the CPS is not performing and is not responsive and sensitive to those who feel that they are victims, and that there are inordinate delays and insufficient prosecutions pursued with vigour. Is it not time that something was done about that? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear it in mind that that is the view of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, as demonstrated by the fact that no support comes from those on the Benches behind him?
The Solicitor-General:
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Those hon. Members who go to their local branch of Crown prosecutors--they are few and far between, I regret to say--almost without exception come away very impressed with the professionalism, care, skill and dedication of the people who work in the CPS. Let that be known.
Mr. Sweeney:
In order to expedite the work of the CPS, is it not absolutely essential to reduce the amount of paperwork and to improve relations between the CPS and the police? Would my hon. and learned Friend care to comment on those two matters?
The Solicitor-General:
Yes, I agree that it is. As I travel round the country or appear in court cases and speak to police officers at all levels, almost without exception they speak highly of the professionalism shown in their cases by the Crown Prosecution Service. Whenever possible, we are astute at reducing the paperwork involved in the preparation of cases. In the past 12 months, we have introduced a scheme to reduce paperwork in guilty pleas in the magistrates court, which should annually reduce the amount of paperwork by about 5 million pieces.
28. Mr. Cohen:
To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases he has initiated legal proceedings where the actions of a corporation have led to the death of an individual in the past 10 years. [31640]
The Attorney-General:
A corporation that commits a criminal act leading to the death of an individual may be prosecuted for a range of possible offences, depending on the circumstances of the case. The possible offences include manslaughter. The Crown Prosecution Service does not record statistics for different categories of defendant, but, in the past three years, there have been two prosecutions for manslaughter against corporations. The first of those resulted in a conviction of the company itself and the second in the conviction of its managing agent.
Mr. Cohen:
Does that not show that the Attorney-General is soft on criminal companies? Has not the Law Commission said that there should be a new offence of corporate killing, which can be effectively enforced and have attached to it unlimited fines? Should there not also be prison sentences for dangerous bosses? Is it not about time that cowboy companies got the message that they will be held accountable for acts that are reckless, negligent and endanger lives?
The Attorney-General:
The first answer is no, it shows no such thing. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of cases in which he thinks that there has been softness or in which there should have been a prosecution, no doubt he will let me know. I believe that such matters are vigorously prosecuted, and that those two cases show that the Crown Prosecution Service not only is prepared to prosecute corporations but, when it has done so, it has done so successfully.
Madam Speaker:
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996
London Regional Transport Act 1996
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996
Arbitration Act 1996
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act 1996
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague):
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about child abuse.
It has been known for several years now that very serious sexual and physical abuse of children took place in homes managed or supervised by the former Clwyd county council in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1991, North Wales police began an extensive investigation into allegations, and obtained just under 2,600 statements from individuals. Those resulted in eight prosecutions and seven convictions of former care workers. Nevertheless, speculation has continued in north Wales that the actual abuse was on a much greater scale than those convictions suggest.
When I last reported to the House on this issue--in a written answer on 18 April--I expressed my regret that Clwyd county council, which had commissioned its own inquiry into these matters, had apparently failed to ensure that this would be undertaken in a way which would enable its conclusions to be publishable. I explained that I had written to the five successor authorities to Clwyd county council requesting that they seek urgently to produce a version of the report that could safely be published.
The successor authorities have subsequently informed me that they are unable to meet that request. In their view, the report is likely to contain evidence that was given in confidence to the inquiry team, and is in any case so seriously and extensively defamatory that an acceptable version of it cannot be produced.
In the light of my own legal advice, I have considered whether I could make the report as it stands available to the House. I have concluded that, in view of the nature of the defamation it contains, it would not be a proper use of parliamentary privilege to do so.
I find this a deeply unsatisfactory outcome, and one that reflects badly on the former Clwyd county council. It devoted two years and a substantial amount of public money to an inquiry, the report of which cannot safely be published. When public authorities establish investigations, they should do so in a way which, at the very least, permits the principal findings and recommendations to be made public.
One factor in the failure of Clwyd county council to publish the report it commissioned was a concern about the implications of publishing for its insurance cover. This also seems to me to be an unsatisfactory situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will be considering, in consultation with the local authority associations, whether there is a need for guidance on this matter.
The Government's main priority remains to do everything necessary to secure the safety and well-being of children in care. It was for that reason that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), appointed Miss Nicola Davies QC in May 1995 to undertake an examination of relevant documents and to advise whether a public inquiry into the abuse of children in north Wales was required. She recommended not an inquiry but that a detailed examination of the practices and procedures of the social
service departments in the former Gwynedd and Clwyd county councils and of the private homes in their areas be undertaken. I appointed Adrianne Jones to carry out this work.
Adrianne Jones has now produced her report. I am grateful to her and to her team for the way in which they have undertaken their task, the thoroughness of their report and the speed with which it has been produced. I am also grateful to all those in north Wales who have co-operated fully in this work. I have arranged for it to be published in full today, and have made copies available in the Libraries of both Houses.
In her report, Adrianne Jones found that, since 1991, when the Children Act 1989 was implemented, the substantial advice, guidance and regulation available to social services authorities had resulted in a progressive tightening of operational, management and personnel procedures in the Gwynedd and Clwyd county councils. There was a framework of policies and procedures in place. However, there were some significant gaps: the authorities were not sufficiently rigorous in developing their own operational guidelines, and did not ensure that these were followed systematically.
The report contains a total of 41 recommendations. Most are directed at the successor local authorities, and are aimed at improving the planning, management and monitoring of children's services. I accept the thrust of Adrianne Jones's conclusions, and mean to ensure that her recommendation for more resources to be devoted to the social services inspectorate for Wales is acted upon as soon as possible. I shall be reporting to the House shortly on how I propose to take all her recommendations forward.
Adrianne Jones's report will make a substantial contribution towards achieving my objective of securing the safety and well-being of children in care in north Wales, but it also reveals that, despite the Children Act, the Warner report and all the other actions that the Government have taken in recent years to protect children, serious shortcomings remained up until the abolition of Clwyd and Gwynedd county councils earlier this year. This is a disturbing conclusion, which has to be coupled with continuing public concern about the full extent of what happened and how it could apparently have continued undetected for so long.
The Government are determined that there should be no cover-up of events in the past, and that every possible step is taken to protect children in care in the future. In the light of these developments, we have decided that further initiatives need to be undertaken.
First, we decided that there should be a judicial inquiry. The terms of reference of this would be: to inquire into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974; to examine whether the agencies and authorities responsible for such care, through the placement of the children or through the regulation or management of the facilities, could have prevented the abuse or detected its occurrence at an earlier stage; to examine the response of the relevant authorities and agencies to allegations and complaints of abuse made either by children in care, children formerly in care or any other persons, excluding scrutiny of decisions whether to prosecute named individuals; in the light of this examination, to consider whether the relevant caring and investigative agencies discharged their functions
appropriately and, in the case of the caring agencies, whether they are doing so now; and to report its findings and to make recommendations to me.
The inquiry will be conducted within the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, and both Houses will be asked to approve the necessary resolution when it is moved tomorrow. I intend to invite Sir Ronald Waterhouse to be its chairman. His experience makes him ideal for the task. He has already indicated that he would be prepared to accept such an invitation, and I shall discuss with him a target date for the completion of this work.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has responsibility for children's issues in England, is also arranging for a further review of the safeguards against the abuse of children living away from home in England and Wales. It will be conducted bySir William Utting, the former chief social services inspector at the Department of Health. He will be asked to review the safeguards introduced for England and Wales by the Children Act 1989 at its implementation in 1991 and the further measures taken since to protect children living away from home, with particular reference to children's residential homes, foster care and boarding schools; and to assess whether those safeguards are the most effective that can realistically be designed to protect such children from abuse and other harm, and whether they are being satisfactorily enforced. My right hon. Friend is informing the House of the details of that review in a written answer today. Sir William will report to my right hon. Friend and me, and his report will be published.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be keeping in touch with the progress of Sir William Utting's review. Consideration will be given to his recommendations with a view to implementation as appropriate in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be keeping in touch with the progress of Sir William Utting's review. He will also set up an audit of the arrangements for the care and protection of children in Scotland who are looked after away from home.
Additionally, a White Paper entitled "Crime and Punishment", published today, proposes enhanced monitoring and supervision of all offenders on release from custody in Scotland. Under those arrangements, all high-risk offenders may be subject to an extended period of supervision on release. It is probable that a large majority of sex offenders will be included in that category. Further, a proposed Crown right of appeal against a decision of the court not to impose a supervision order in a particular case provides an additional safeguard.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is also publishing today a consultation paper on sex offenders. It outlines proposals designed to improve the protection of the public from, and to enhance opportunities for the treatment of, such offenders.
3.31 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |