To ask the Attorney-General if he will ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to call for a report on the memorandum of 6 September 1995 written by Sir Colin Chandler, chief executive of Vickers, to his fellow executive David Hastie; and if he will make a statement. [8858]

No, Madam Speaker.

The cynical and casual attachment to the principles of British law implicit in that most cynical of answers is probably why this will be the last time that we shall see the Attorney-General in his current position. The Vickers memorandum catches the chief executives of Vickers and British Aerospace red handed as accomplices before the fact of a conspiracy against Mohammed al-Masari, a refugee living lawfully and peacefully in this country. If not kidnapping and murder, what could the executives have been referring to when they used the cynical and chilling phrases, "stifle him personally" and "direct intervention against him"? Why have not those executives explained their words? Why have they gone to ground so shamefacedly? Why is the discredited Attorney-General covering up for them today?

The House might think that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If he seriously thinks that there are any grounds for suggesting that there has been criminality in relation to that memorandum, he will no doubt report it to the police.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the professor enjoys the hospitality of this country and should not behave in a way that puts jobs for people in this country at risk?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is fully entitled to take foreign affairs considerations and the relationship with important allies into account in making his decisions.

To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to reduce the paperwork involved in bringing criminal charges in magistrates courts. [8859]

In cases where pleas of guilty are anticipated, abbreviated files are being introduced which are expected to reduce paperwork by 5 million sheets annually.

That is a welcome answer. An independent inquiry into paperwork in the police force has been conducted by PA Management Consultants, and there is a strong case for having an outside look at the paperwork element of the Crown Prosecution Service because there are concerns, legitimate or not, about delays. We should consider widening the scope of cases that can be handled by the use of guilty pleas through the post, which greatly reduces cost and time in the prosecution process.

My hon. Friend's latter suggestion is already the subject of discussion. The Crown Prosecution Service does not impose case format on the police unilaterally: it is the result of joint discussions between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the legal profession.

Would the Solicitor-General be prepared to call in the papers in the case of my constituent, Miss Elaine Steele, to review the prosecution brought against her?

The Crown Prosecution Service conducts 1.4 million cases annually, so the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not have the facts of that case at my fingertips at present. Naturally, I shall look into the matter if he asks me to.

To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in reducing the number of discontinuances; and if he will make a statement. [8860]

The rate of discontinuance has fallen from 13.4 per cent. of cases for the year ending September 1993 to 11.9 per cent. of cases for the year ending September 1995.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the discontinuance of prosecution often causes great frustration to the police and distress to the victims of crime? Can he confirm, therefore, that the very welcome reduction in the number of discontinuances that he mentioned is the result of closer co-operation and liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

Yes, I can confirm that. Although the matter is of concern, it is of less concern than before as the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are working together very closely at local level to ensure that the quality of files is as high as it can be.

My hon. Friend will realise that some cases will always have to be discontinued. Some 30 per cent. of cases are presently discontinued because they cannot proceed due to the defendant producing documents at court or witnesses refusing, or failing, to attend.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about prosecutions for serious fraud.[8861]

The Serious Fraud Office has so far brought to trial and concluded some 145 cases of serious and complex fraud involving some 325 defendants. That has led to the conviction of at least one defendant in more than 75 per cent. of those cases. Where there has been only one conviction, it has usually been of the principal defendant.

I do not think that the country will be particularly satisfied with that answer because the spectacular prosecutions are going down very badly. I think that the House is entitled to ask the Attorney-General what is going on inside the Serious Fraud Office. Is it harassing honest business men, is it incompetent, or are white collar crooks simply getting away with it? My gut feeling is that the Maxwell brothers are about as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Is not the real problem self-regulation in the City? There might be a case for getting rid of the jury system in complex fraud cases, but, quite frankly, self-regulation for crooks will never work.

Order. Before the Attorney-General replies, I must point out that there are a number of other charges pending involving the Maxwell brothers and the House's sub judice rule prevents any further discussion of those matters. Of course, general references to the work of the Serious Fraud Office are entirely permissible, but I hope that the House will be cautious about these matters.

I take fully on board the points that you have made, Madam Speaker, and I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman may regret the observations that he has just made.

The case was investigated with what independent commentators regard generally as great skill, it was prosecuted entirely fairly with great professionalism, the court handled it in an exemplary fashion and the jury considered the matter and reached its decision. That is British justice. We keep under careful review how we should proceed in future, but we should not distort the position.

Is not this a moment when the whole House, the Government and everyone else should defend and support the Serious Fraud Office, and not attack it for irrational reasons, bearing in mind the fact that that institution is crucial to the future of the country in tackling serious fraud cases, that it needs more resources and more staff in future and that it has a very good record? Is not it important also for the Government to consider further, without excessive delay, the need to have a professional panel of assessors instead of an amateur jury in the trial of such cases?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Serious Fraud Office has proved its worth during its seven years. Very complex cases are now being brought to trial with a professionalism and skill that cannot be compared with what went before. If we did not have the Serious Fraud Office in its present form, we would need to invent it.

The whole House will acknowledge that trial by jury is a very important part of our liberties, from which it and the country would never move lightly, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the only way to conduct a trial. When the Maxwell case is over, we shall consider calmly, carefully and thoughtfully whether there is a way in which similar cases might be tried better than by jury. We should certainly make no change unless we were confident that it would be an improvement.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with Lord Devlin that the object of any tyrant would be to overthrow trial by jury? Does he believe that that applies as much to fraud cases, where there are judgments of honesty and dishonesty to be made, as to any other case in which dishonesty is charged? Will he reflect on the effect of his remarks following the verdict in the Maxwell trial, which have given the impression of criticism of a jury that listened for 131 days to evidence and argument, and returned a verdict on the basis of that evidence and argument?

I am sure that no one who has listened to my comments in the round will have received that impression. I have been studiously careful to be very balanced on the subject.

The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to Lord Devlin, who was head of my chambers and a greatly respected Law Lord, but other greatly respected Law Lords take different views and it is a subject on which very experienced people hold different views. When we come to consider the issue, we shall certainly consider it extremely carefully before we make any change—and I am not saying whether we shall make any change.

Will the Attorney-General reject recent criticism of the jury system in fraud trials—there is no evidence that it has failed, and I know so far of no better way of assessing dishonesty—and of the SFO, changes in both of which have been rejected by Parliament in recent years?

Will the Government, instead of considering the matter internally, as the Attorney-General appeared to suggest at the weekend, appoint a senior judicial figure of the calibre of Lord Roskill to examine, with the assistance of financial experts, the system of prevention, investigation, prosecution and trial of alleged large-scale financial wrongdoing?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the support that he has rightly given to the SFO. He, like me, recognises the enormous advances that it has made in the seven years of its existence. I can assure him that, in keeping under review the best way of trying even the most complex and difficult cases, we shall bear his words, among others, in mind.

To ask the Attorney-General how many successful appeals have been made against over-lenient sentences. [8862]

Since the introduction of the power to refer unduly lenient sentences in February 1989, the Court of Appeal has heard 213 references, of which 177–83 per cent.—resulted in increased sentences.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for the general public, the introduction of the power to appeal against over-lenient sentences and to ensure that criminals receive a proper sentence has been hugely popular? Is not that another demonstration of the Government's commitment to law and order, on which Labour so signally seeks to undermine us?

My hon. Friend makes two good points. The power has been most beneficial, and it is exercised with great care. The Opposition opposed the power when it was introduced, but have been good enough to realise that it is beneficial and to say so. I am glad to think that that view spreads across far wider fields of policy. I hope that we shall always hold the high ground and that the Opposition will seek to assault us upon it.

To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [8863]

The Crown Prosecution Service is in the process of developing initiatives with the police on training, and on the provision of prosecutors in police stations and police crime support units, to give early advice and assist in the prompt and efficient preparation of cases for court. Like other departments, the Crown Prosecution Service is implementing a senior management review.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take note of concerns expressed by my constituents? In one case, a young man was knocked off his motor bike by a car, whose driver accepted guilt at the scene of the accident. There were also two witnesses to the accident, yet the CPS is refusing to take that case forward. My constituents would like changes in the service. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that changes will be considered?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whenever there is criticism of the CPS's handling of case, I examine the matter with immense care. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to write to me with details, I shall ensure that the case he has in mind is carefully reviewed. If it is concluded, I shall give the hon. Gentleman an explanation; if it is still in process, I shall ensure that it is reviewed.