Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

2. What responsibilities the Law Officers’ Departments have for the National Fraud Authority.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

The National Fraud Authority is an Executive agency of the Attorney-General’s Office, which is the authority’s sponsoring Department. The Law Officers are the Ministers accountable to Parliament for the work of the agency.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for that answer. Given the estimated £30 billion cost to the UK economy of fraud, does the Solicitor-General agree that the coalition’s spending cuts must not undermine the work of the National Fraud Authority?

[The Solicitor-General]

I would agree, and they will not.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

3. What support the Law Officers’ Departments have provided for the investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service into alleged telephone hacking and blagging; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

4. On how many occasions decisions by Ministers have been overturned on judicial review in the last five years.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

Figures for the number of occasions on which decisions by Ministers have been overturned on judicial review in whole or in part over the last five years are not held centrally, and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

[Tony Baldry]

Well, there have clearly been quite a number. Does not the Solicitor-General’s response highlight the fact that the concept and reality of parliamentary sovereignty are often misunderstood and that, increasingly, the last word on what Parliament has decided will not be determined here, but by the judges on the other side of Parliament square, in the Supreme Court? The increase in judicial review is a reality that is now part of our constitutional fabric.

[The Solicitor-General]

I do not think that my hon. Friend, who is an eminent member of the Bar, is at all confused about the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Nor, if I may say so, is our right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who responded to the debate on clause 18 of the European Union Bill last Tuesday.

Judicial review has increasingly become part of the legal armoury since the second world war. Ministers, whether of the present Government or the last, are not above the law, and it is for our independent judiciary to arbitrate, through judicial review cases, in disputes between the citizen and the state. The courts apply the laws enacted by Parliament, and Parliament can make, amend and repeal legislation as it thinks fit.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Given the increase in judicial activism and, in particular, legislative activism on the part of the judiciary, is it not important for us to examine much more closely the qualifications and background of the individuals who are making these decisions, so that we can ensure that the judiciary is much more representative of the society from which we all come?

[The Solicitor-General]

That is a point of view. I tend to think that judges ought to be highly professional, legally qualified and of the highest intellect. If the hon. Gentleman takes a different view, perhaps he will let us know.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What estimate he has made of the likely funding required by the Crown Prosecution Service to implement proposals to restrict arrest warrants in private prosecutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

6. What recent representations he has received on the effectiveness of prosecutions in human trafficking cases.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

We have not received any.

[Lisa Nandy]

Is the Solicitor-General aware that many solicitors still face many problems taking instructions from child victims of trafficking who wrongly believe that their trafficker is their friend? If the Government are serious about ensuring that there are more prosecutions for this heinous crime, why will they not ensure that every child who undergoes the gruelling, awful court process is afforded a guardian to represent his or her best interests?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to the fact that someone of that nature is not available. I had hoped that that was the case. I will make some inquiries of the Crown Prosecution Service to establish what assistance of that sort can be given, but it is fair to point out that the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service already bend over backwards to ensure that vulnerable witnesses, be they children or vulnerable adults, are afforded every possible protection so that they can give their evidence. Without the evidence, we cannot have the convictions.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution Service’s performance in the prosecution of cases involving allegations of domestic violence.