HC Deb 26 April 1995 vol 258 cc945-52
Mr. Trimble

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 22, line 32, leave out 'and' and insert 'or (aa) in the case of a function specified in sub-paragraph (3A), by any committee of, or by one or more of the members of the Commission, and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in page 22, line 39, at end insert— '(3A) The functions referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(aa) are

  1. (a) requiring the production of documents or other material under section 16,
  2. (b) requiring the appointment of investigating officers under section 18,
  3. (c) giving directions to investigating officers under section 19.'.

Mr. Trimble

With these amendments, we come to provisions in the schedule that relate to the way in which the commission will discharge its functions. The amendments relate to an issue that I mentioned in Committee, in respect of which I was glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has also signed the amendment being considered this evening.

We were worried that the provisions in paragraph 6 of schedule 1 are designed in such a way that, whereas the primary functions of the commission, such as that of referring a case to the Court of Appeal, can be discharged only by the commission as a whole or by a committee consisting of not fewer than three members, any other function of the commission can be discharged by a committee or one or more members or an employee, so that, under the schedule, a range of important functions of the commission can be discharged by an employee. It seemed to me that that was not appropriate.

We mentioned the matter in Committee, and had the opportunity since Committee to table what I hope are amendments on which the Minister will look favourably. Of the functions that I have singled out in amendment No. 29, functions such as requiring the production of documents from other organisations, requiring the appointment of an investigating officer and giving directions to investigating officers, should not be dischargeable by an employee of the commission. They should be discharged through the commission, or at least a member of the commission.

I know that there is a provision in the schedule that those functions can be conducted under the general direction of the Commission"— in other words, the commission can give general direction as to the way in which its employees are to discharge functions. But that does not satisfactorily answer the question about functions such as that of appointing an investigating officer.

Earlier, we had a debate about the provisions in clause 18 concerning the way in which investigating officers will be apppointed. The Minister of State laid great emphasis on the power of the commission to control and direct the conduct of investigations and to control the choice of who was to be appointed as an investigating officer. Yet when one reads the schedule, one discovers that those powers—control, supervision and direction and requiring appointments—can be exercised by an employee without the specific decision going through a commissioner. That is unsatisfactory.

I very much hope that the commission will not in practice avail itself of the tremendous width that paragraph 6 of the schedule affords. It would not be good practice for any type of commission to avail itself of those broad powers.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably on those amendments, which are sensible amendments to ensure that important functions are discharged, and that each specific exercise of them is under the control of the commission or, at the very least, a member of the commission.

Mr. Hutton

I shall not detain the House long, but I want to say one or two words about the amendments, which are simple but important. Before I do so, I wish to express my appreciation of the role that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) played in Committee. He tabled several important and useful amendments, such as those that we are discussing.

The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a fundamental issue. Obviously everyone wants the commission to work effectively, with the maximum flexibility. No one wants to place the commission in a straitjacket. We are discussing important powers—powers that might loosely be described as quasi-judicial. They relate to the appointment of investigating officers, the way in which the investigating officers are to perform and discharge their functions and responsibilities, and several another aspects.

Clause 20, which is not referred to in our amendment, gives the commission any other residual power that it considers it may appropriately take in relation to any inquiry. The amendments raise a very simple question: why should those important powers be administered by an individual employee of the commission? The answer is that they should not.

It is clear in paragraph 6 of the schedule that there has been an attempt to rein in those powers by making employees subject to the general direction of the commission. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said, that is unlikely to be adequate to deal with the range and complexity of cases that may confront the commission. The acts of individual employees will be scrutinised or investigated ex post facto—after the event. I do not think that that is good enough; it would be too late.

9.30 pm

I think that it would be better if that part of the schedule specified in greater detail that those important powers should be exercised only by a committee of commission members or possibly by one commission member and not by individual employees. I do not think that that places an unreasonable restraint upon the commission's flexibility—far from it. I think that it will make the commission's important powers transparent and accountable to those people who are supposed to be responsible for their discharge—the commission members.

If that is not good enough for the Government, I ask the Minister to reflect on another point. We debated in Committee another aspect of the schedule concerning the commission's power to appoint employees. The Government insisted on amending the original draft of the Bill to refer to a chief executive of the commission. That employee is mentioned briefly in the schedule and his powers and general role and responsibility within the commission are not specified.

If the Minister is content with employees exercising powers—even some of the more important powers, such as those referred to in clause 20—I hope that he will consider reserving the responsibility for discharging some powers to the chief executive at least.

Mr. Nicholas Baker

We had a good debate about this matter in Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive my fairly brief reply.

I respect the fact that the commission has been given very wide-ranging powers. In the schedule, we have provided some guidelines as to how commission members should exercise those functions. However, I think that we should resist the temptation referred to by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)—many of whose comments I had great sympathy with—to get too involved statutorily with the workings and the management of the commission.

I accepted the advice of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) earlier in the evening, and I am sorry that I cannot do so again in this case. We do not believe that the amendments that he has proposed are helpful to the commission—indeed, in one instance they could only confuse, and possibly weaken, the measures that we have provided to ensure that the commission's key decisions are taken at a proper level.

According to amendment No. 29, the decision requiring an investigating officer to be appointed under clause 18 should be made by one member of the commission acting on his own. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that that is a key decision. We recognise that fact, and we have provided that such decisions should be taken by a committee of not fewer than three members. In so far as paragraph 6(3)(d) is untouched, the amendment would lead to confusion between the two provisions.

The hon. Gentleman's amendments are not helpful, because I believe that they would inevitably slow the speed at which the work would be undertaken. The commission must set the policy and decide what activities should be delegated to which members of staff. I emphasise that that is a perfectly normal arrangement, which is common to perhaps all public bodies and most public sector companies.

I do not see why it should be wrong for the commission—which, in many ways, we have circumvented with very tough controls in the Bill—to be empowered to act in managing its affairs. For example, preparing papers, obtaining transcripts of court cases and other management details can be undertaken perfectly well by the commission's own staff who are acting within the guidelines and under the direction of commission members. For those reasons, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Trimble

I thank the Minister for pointing out that provision in respect of the appointment of investigating officers. I am delighted to see that it is included in paragraph 6(3). I am glad that the Department considers it important enough to ensure that that function is not discharged by an employee.

I am sorry that the Minister did not appreciate that the same argument should apply to giving directions under clause 19 or the production of documents under clause 16. I can only express the hope that the commission will consist of people of considerable ability and merit, and that they do not avail themselves of, or allow their employees to use, the wide powers and great flexibility that the Minister has provided. The measure would not work well in practice if they did. In view of that, we must hope that the commission is more sensible than I regret the Minister has been.

In view of the lateness of the hour and the desire of hon. Members to contribute to the next stage, I do not intend to comment further or to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

9.36 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am pleased to have played a part in guiding the Bill through the House. The Criminal Appeal Bill is creating new and independent machinery for identifying possible miscarriages of justice and referring them to the courts and reinforcing and extending the power of the courts in criminal appeals. It is a measure of great importance.

Hon. Members have rightly emphasised the importance, in dealing with possible miscarriages of justice, of procedures whose independence is beyond question. Those procedures must also be effective in securing the aim of getting to the heart of cases which continue to raise doubts after the normal processes of trial and appeal have finished.

The changes made to the Bill do not affect its basic structure and thrust. They strengthen it and enhance the powers of the commission to do its work. The Bill is now in even better and more effective shape than when it started. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and I am convinced that the Bill will make a significant contribution to the quality of the criminal justice system in future. I wish it well as it goes to another place.

9.37 pm
Mr. Michael

I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that we have been able to make some improvements to the Bill in Committee and today, but it would be wrong to allow the Bill to pass without comment. It is an important measure in restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and it is important that we get it right. If the body that is established under the Bill fails to win the confidence that is so desperately needed, it will be even more difficult to restore confidence in future.

This body will deal with alleged miscarriages of justice and restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and that system's capacity to deal with miscarriages. Its birth has been extremely slow. The Opposition have been calling for the establishment of such a body for a number of years and it now comes with high expectations.

I am concerned about some of the difficulties and shortcomings that remain in the Bill. I am also concerned that some of the comments by a Minister earlier in today's debate suggest that the aspirations that we thought were shared on all sides are not shared by the Government and that the Government intend that the body should be constrained and should almost do the job on the cheap to an extent that certainly is not in accordance with the views expressed by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. That body referred to the need to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and pointed out that the majority of trials are conducted in a manner that all participants regard as fair. It added: But the damage done by the minority of cases which the system is seen to have failed is out of all proportion to their number. It referred also to the burden of work that will fall on the new body. Paragraph 6 of chapter 11 stated:

There is in theory no restriction on the numbers or categories of cases which the Home Secretary may refer to the Court of Appeal under section 17 since the section gives him discretion to refer cases 'if he thinks fit'. In practice, however, as Sir John May observed in his second report on the Maguire case, the Home Secretary and the civil servants advising him operate within strict self-imposed limits. Paragraph 7 stated: The effect of this second criterion was examined in depth by Sir John May as part of his inquiry into the Maguires. We cannot do better than quote his conclusion. I invite the House to consider that conclusion: There is no doubt that the criterion so defined was and is a limiting one and has resulted in the responsible officials within the Home Office taking a substantially restricted view of cases to which their attention has been drawn … The very nature and terms of the self-imposed limits on the Home Secretary's power to refer cases have led the Home Office only to respond to the representations which have been made to it in relation to particular convictions rather than to carry out its own investigations into the circumstances of a particular case or the evidence given at trial … the approach of the Home Office was throughout reactive. It was never thought proper for the Department to become proactive. It is necessary for the new body to take on board the capacity to investigate where there is concern over alleged miscarriages. In view of today's exchanges, there will be debates in the other place to ensure that the Government fully understand the need for a proactive body.

Page 185 of the royal commission report refers to the need for the capacity to investigate:

In our view the Authority should be able to discuss cases direct with applicants if it thinks that this would help it to decide whether a case called for further investigation. It has struck us forcibly that many people who believe that they are victims of miscarriages of justice feel that they have a right to be heard and are frustrated by the fact that they have been unable to put their case in person to the Home Office officials who are considering it. We understand the resource constraints that have prevented the Home Office from interviewing applicants, and we accept that this could not be done in every case. We nevertheless recommend that the Authority be adequately resourced to conduct interviews with prisoners where it believes that this might help. It is not always possible for people who have suffered a miscarriage of justice and then been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment to set out their case clearly and cogently in writing, and an interview may sometimes be the best way of convincing the Authority that the case is one that is worth investigation. Earlier, the Minister suggested that no cases were waiting to be investigated. I believe that there are, and give the example of my constituent Mr. Mike O'Brien. For the avoidance of doubt, again I make clear that he is not the same Mike O'Brien as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North. He contacted many people, including every Member of Parliament, to assert his innocence. I do not assert his innocence unconditionally, but I am convinced that something needs to be investigated in that case. The commission's establishment will enable investigations in that and like cases.

It is not satisfactory that Ministers appear to have resiled from acknowledging the importance of that role. There is also some inadequacy in dealing with the need for a knowledge or understanding of mental disorders, mental illness or adults with learning difficulties, who are often among the victims of miscarriages of justice. That aspect was dealt with briefly in Committee and there has not been an opportunity to debate it fully on Report. Those issues need to be dealt with fully. I hope that they will be dealt with in another place, and that the Government will make some concessions.

Finally there is the whole issue of disclosure. Members and officials of the commission will be subject to restrictions on their disclosure of information and of evidence. There have been exchanges as a result of the letter from Justice and of the reply from the Minister, a copy of which, further to his promise in Committee, he has kindly provided me with. That still leaves questions to be answered if we are to be sure that there will be full and adequate disclosure to enable all serious allegations of miscarriage of justice to be properly dealt with. If they are, that will help to restore confidence in our criminal justice system—a process that the Opposition believe to be thoroughly necessary. Evidence of the need for that restoration of confidence is provided by the many cases in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others have been involved over the years.

We wish success to the commission that will be established under the Bill. We also wish the Bill a successful passage through another place, where we hope that more improvements to it will be made. When the Bill returns to us I trust that many of our reservations about its effectiveness will have been dispelled.

9.45 pm
Mr. Beith

Now that the Bill has nearly completed its Commons stages, and bearing in mind the strong possibility that it may be significantly improved in another place, where I expect it to attract a great deal of close and careful interest, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I wish the new commission every success in its work. I attach great importance to the added public confidence that its work could bring to the police and criminal justice system. I believe that we may have to revisit some of these issues at some stage—especially the capacity of the commission to mount independent investigations in certain cases. Certainly its task will be an important one. We wait with interest to know who will carry out the work and bear these important responsibilities.

I strongly welcome the passage of the Bill.

9.46 pm
Mr. Mullin

I am glad to see the Bill approaching the statute book. I was also glad to see the Government accept amendment No. 35, which strengthens the powers of the commission—although it does not go far enough. I made my views on that known earlier this afternoon.

I welcome the Home Secretary—belatedly—to his place in the Chamber, and I draw his attention to some remarks by Lord Runciman which I quoted earlier. I shall not repeat them now, but they were to the effect that nothing in the proposal for a dedicated force of investigators contradicted what he and his colleagues in the royal commission asked for.

One or two other reservations of mine have been touched on today. I do hope that arrangements applying to Scotland will be made soon, because there are quite a number of problems up there. I am also a little worried that the terms of reference might be interpreted as being unnecessarily restrictive. That could lead to some disputes between the commission and the Court of Appeal.

The success of the whole enterprise will largely depend not on anything in the Bill but on the personnel put on the commission. A former Tory Home Secretary told me some time ago that those people would not be like the usual ones who are put on Tory quangos—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

You should be on it.

Mr. Mullin

I am not interested. I have been doing the job for the past few years anyway, and to be perfectly honest I am getting rather fed up with it.

We really will require people who are a cut above the usual quango appointments, because they will have to confront, at some stage, mighty vested interests among the police and in the Court of Appeal. The success of the Bill will also depend on a continuing improvement in the attitude displayed by the new management at the Court of Appeal. Many hon. Members have remarked on an improvement of attitude following the change of personnel in that court—but they could of course change back again. The suspicion has been voiced to me that the recent liberalisation may in some way be affected by the fear that something more drastic might be done to limit its powers.

I recall that when the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggested such a commission in 1982, an idea that the Government rejected, the Lord Chief Justice promised that the Court of Appeal would be more open minded when considering appeals, a promise on which he promptly reneged once the threat of such a commission had disappeared over the horizon. I therefore hope that the attitude of the new management of the Court of Appeal will last.

I regret that it is still an unhappy fact of life that someone who believes himself to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice is better off approaching a journalist than a policeman or lawyer. I hope that those days are over, although, even as we sit here, Channel 4 is showing a programme on the Brian Parsons case, which is one of the more serious outstanding alleged miscarriages of justice. There will always be a role in a free country for an inquiring journalist.

Since the release of the Birmingham Six, I have received several thousand letters from several hundred prisoners who allege that they are the victims of miscarriages of justice. There is a limit to what one can do to advise them. Organisations such as Justice have also received large numbers of representations from prisoners, far more than I could possibly cope with and no doubt far more than Justice can cope with. I hope that the Bill marks an end to this chapter in my correspondence and, I hasten to add, so does my secretary.

I also hope that the Bill marks an end to an unhappy period in the history of the British judicial system and that we can look forward to a greatly improved system in which everyone can have confidence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Forward to