Westminster Hall Sitting of 24 February 2004

Preamble
[MRS. IRENE ADAMS in the Chair]

Pre-legislative Scrutiny
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Ian Lucas: Good morning, Mrs. Adams. It is a pleasure to be opening this half-term's proceedings on such a fine morning and to begin discussing the interesting topic of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a topic of great importance, but it perhaps labours under the least attractive nomenclature of any parliamentary procedure. As someone who labours under the burden of having been trained in the legal profession, I struggle to think of a more unattractive name for a legal process. After a few minutes' thought on the tube this morning, the best alternative that I could come up with was "reflective law making"—lawmaking that reflects opinions from various sources and which proceeds in a considered way.
David Taylor: That is even worse.
Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend helpfully suggests that my version is even worse, so perhaps I should stick with "pre-legislative scrutiny".
It is rare indeed to find anyone with a bad word to say about the process of scrutinising draft laws, which involves considering improvements, refining the details and reintroducing laws in settled form. The Hansard Society says that it
"fully supports the continued use and extension of pre-legislative scrutiny"
In an impressive Adjournment debate only last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) highlighted the benefits of online consultation on draft legislation, which were demonstrated in the draft Communications Bill.
I do not propose to discuss the benefits of draft legislation, which have been well rehearsed. All parties agree that draft legislation has been a successful innovation, but it is time for us to move beyond general expressions of support for extending draft legislative scrutiny and to embed such procedures in the culture of Westminster. The burden of doing so falls to the Government, and we now need them to give a statement of intent and to give further momentum to the welcome process that began shortly after 1997.
What unites supporters of pre-legislative scrutiny is the belief that increased scrutiny makes for better laws, and few people dissent from that view. However, it would be useful for us to be clear about the Government's view of what such scrutiny should entail. We all want the vessel of pre-legislative scrutiny to be given a fair wind, but we need to be clear about the purpose of such scrutiny and about the Government's aims.
2WH
The 2000 review of the scrutiny of draft legislation, which was sponsored by the Constitution Unit and the Hansard Society, noted that committees that considered draft legislation
"were not clear whether they should challenge the underlying policy or concentrate on the technical detail."
To take just one example, if a Government proposed to ban hunting with hounds, would a Committee that was appointed to consider the draft legislation be entitled to conclude that a ban was not justified, or would its role be to work out how to implement the ban? If we are to have pre-legislative scrutiny, we must resolve such issues and be clear about the Government's answer to such questions. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views.
I believe that the Government should retain control of the legislative programme. They are the elected Government. As the Modernisation Committee pointed out back in July 1997:
"The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided that it obtains the approval of the House)."
Does the Minister agree that the primary purpose of the scrutiny of draft legislation is not to challenge the purpose of the legislation but to ensure that that purpose is achieved fairly, efficiently and clearly?
If the purpose is established, it may help to introduce clarity to the process of choosing what legislation should be considered in draft. Pre-legislative scrutiny has been welcomed almost without exception. My view is that it is one of the most successful innovations since the Government came to power in 1997.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Hansard Society commission headed by Lord Rippon thought of that in 1993, and that it was John Major who introduced it?
Ian Lucas: I am happy to concede that the Rippon commission reported on the matter in 1993 and that the matter was taken forward and introduced by John Major's Government. However, the hon. Gentleman has to concede that the real momentum behind the policy came about after 1997. I mean no disrespect to those who worked on it at an earlier stage. In fact, one can go back further to find examples of pre-legislative scrutiny in the 1970s. I believe that the devolution proposals introduced in the mid-1970s were originally to have been introduced in draft. However, for present purposes, and bearing in mind that other Members will have things to say, I have taken the 1997 general election as my starting point.
So why should not all legislation be considered in draft form? Clearly, there are circumstances in which emergency legislation is required and it is imperative that the Government act quickly. An obvious example was in the environment that followed the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001; it was clearly necessary for the Government to act quickly in response to a dramatically changed situation. That was a valid exception to the general rule that pre-legislative scrutiny should take place.
It would be welcome if the Government made a presumption that legislation should be considered in draft as a matter of course. If draft legislation is a good

3WH
thing, it should be the rule, not the exception. If the Government believe that pre-legislative scrutiny should not take place, they should give their reasons, and those reasons should withstand scrutiny by Parliament.
Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that decision should be in the hands of the legislature rather than the Executive? Parliament should decide which Bills would benefit from earlier scrutiny, not the Government who are asking Parliament for its assent.
Ian Lucas: I am not sure that I agree. As I said earlier, I have thought about the matter at some length and I believe that the Government need to retain control of the legislative programme. They have the democratic mandate. If they suggest that a particular piece of legislation should not undergo pre-legislative scrutiny, their reasons should themselves be subject to scrutiny. Parliament should have the opportunity to address those matters and to discuss them.
David Taylor: I support almost everything that my hon. Friend has said so far. However, does he accept that, when broadening consultation to the general public—perhaps using the internet—there is a difficult balance to be struck between the Government getting their own way and their accepting refinements and consulting on the detail of legislation? Could not a well-organised, well-resourced minority hijack the process and table wrecking amendments that would head off a policy for which the Government had a mandate? Did we not see that with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and his attempt at wider democracy?
Ian Lucas: There may be difficulties with well-organised minorities trying to exert pressure on particular pieces of legislation, but the online consultation for the draft Communications Bill, for which the Hansard Society monitored the presentation of information to the Committee, worked very well. All my research to date indicates that that innovation was welcome. I am sure that there will be problems—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) clearly had problems with his consultation—but if we work out how it can best be achieved, it is a useful and potentially helpful innovation.
Even in the short time that I have been in the House—since 2001—there have been legion examples of legislation that it would have assisted Parliament to publish in draft. One such example that comes to mind is the Licensing Act 2003. Letters on that subject swelled my postbag for months on end, but the complaints were generally a result of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and—to pick up on what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) just said—carefully constructed lobbying campaigns that were fuelled by the necessity of amending rigidly drafted legislation. People put forward numerous cases, such as church choirs singing for charity in chapel vestries, as matters that might be covered by the Act. I recall that the then Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the
4WH
Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), whose burden it was to deal with those particular difficulties, often loudly expressed his frustration. If there had been a consultation on a draft licensing Bill, similar to that for the draft Communications Bill, many of those difficulties would have been ironed out. That would have benefited not only the legislation but the Government and the poor Minister who had to deal with those problems —which he did competently, in his own way.
The proposed changes to the office of Lord Chancellor and the proposed creation of a supreme court should certainly be considered in draft. If one has confidence in one's argument, as I believe that the Lord Chancellor has, there should be no fear of scrutiny. We need to expose at an early stage, as often and as ruthlessly as possible, arguments such as the assertion that the supreme court cannot be introduced until it has its own building. That would be a helpful way of proceeding.
I accept that legislation will take longer to introduce if consideration of draft legislation becomes the norm, but if it is better, it will be worth waiting for. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was generally very positive, introduced antisocial behaviour orders, but difficulties in their implementation meant that it had to be followed by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. If the 1998 legislation had been considered in draft, some of the difficulties with practical implementation would have been resolved during that process. Such problems have not only occurred under Labour Governments. When I was a practising solicitor, the Conservative Government introduced the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which had to be replaced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 because it meant that the courts could not send young offenders into custody. Bad legislation requires replacement and uses valuable parliamentary time.
The Government need to define the role of pre-legislative scrutiny and drive it forward by creating a presumption that it should be used. However, Parliament is best suited to choosing which type of Committee should be used to scrutinise the legislation. I hold no hard and fast views on the matter. Indeed, I believe that there is much to be said for allowing flexibility. For example, when departmental expertise is especially important—perhaps with a piece of social security legislation—a Select Committee may be the most appropriate model. However, with a more broad-based piece of legislation, such as the Communications Bill, an ad hoc Committee could be appointed.
Speaking as an MP from Wales, I favour the flexibility of enabling MPs from Wales to sit with Members of the National Assembly for Wales to scrutinise draft legislation specific to Wales. I know that this approach secured some support from the Welsh Affairs Committee. Given that we sit on Joint Committees with unelected members of the other place, I see no reason why we should baulk at sitting with elected Members of the National Assembly for Wales. I was interested to read that members of the Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill said in 1999:
"we have all enjoyed the experience of working closely with members of 'the other place"'.
I, too, would welcome the chance to work with Members of another place, whether it be the Assembly or the House of Lords. It seems to me that in the context

5WH
of possible changes to the second Chamber at Westminster and of the development of assemblies in the English regions, the prospect of working with a different type of representative should be left open. It is a way of widening further the pool of good ideas from which solutions can be sought. I favour leaving the decision on which type of body is most appropriate to scrutinise a piece of draft legislation to the scrutineer, namely, Parliament.
When I was preparing for this debate, I was struck by the impressive first report of the Modernisation Committee. It was produced in July 1997, which was fast work, given that the election was only at the beginning of May of that year. I was most struck by the following paragraph:
"The Committee stage of a bill, which is meant to be the occasion when the details of the legislation are scrutinised, has often tended to be devoted to political partisan debate rather than constructive and systematic scrutiny. On Bills where policy differences are great, the role of Government backbenchers on a Standing Committee has been primarily to remain silent and vote as directed. By contrast the Opposition has often set out to devise methods designed simply to extend debate. The Government has then been forced to bring in a guillotine which has often been draconian, as a result of which large sections of the Bill have not been considered."
That was written just two months after 18 years of Conservative government. However, as a veteran of the Standing Committees that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill and one Finance Bill, I can confirm that it still accurately represents Standing Committee life in 2004.
Scrutiny is limited, especially for Government Back Benchers, by its format on Second Reading and beyond. That is a political fact and it will be ever thus. I was made keenly aware of that by my experience of the Higher Education Bill, when political imperatives collided with proper consideration of the Government's proposals on Second Reading. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Higher Education Bill would have helped the Government. In his Adjournment debate at the beginning of January, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North presented a compelling vision of how reflective law making, or pre-legislative scrutiny, could avoid many difficulties, such as those in which the Government found themselves on Second Reading. Pre-legislative scrutiny certainly would have denied critics the opportunity of saying that the policy had been sprung on them.
It is often said that Parliament is at its best when it is at its least partisan and when measured, studied debate takes place, as it did on stem cell research and same-sex adoption. That is certainly so in respect of the lawmaking process. The reality of the present Committee stages is that they are, at bottom, partisan and exist to carry forward the Government's legislative programme. This valid aim needs to be complemented by further development of pre-legislative scrutiny.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should be patient and courteous to Select Committees in the process? I know that he is a member of the Transport Committee. The Government forced that Committee to rush out its report on the Traffic Management Bill because they said that it was vital to have the Second Reading before Christmas, yet the
6WH
Committee that was to consider the Bill was not selected for several weeks because that suited the Government. Does he agree that that sort of thing has to be avoided?
Ian Lucas: That was unfortunate. The Transport Committee had to produce a report within, I believe, a week. The staff of the Committee did an excellent job and provided a very useful report before the Bill was introduced. Our difficulty is that the process of scrutinising legislation before it is introduced is not embedded in the culture of Westminster. The rules of its application are therefore not settled, which often leads to unfair and inappropriate ways of proceeding. What happened with the Traffic Management Bill was unfortunate. The Select Committee produced a detailed report on many issues that related to that Bill in the six months before its introduction. It would have been helpful if the Government had had more discussions with the Select Committee about the Bill.
There does need to be more consultation. I believe that the House broadly agrees on the success of pre-legislative scrutiny, which always depends on courtesy and on the Opposition not scoring party political points. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. Politicians on both sides of the House must be mature about these things. There are times when I, too, am tempted to try to score points. We all do that from time to time, but we need to be more grown up if we are to take a measured approach to law making—a key role for any MP.
I believe that Committees in their current form are partisan bodies, although they scrutinise legislation well. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I were members of the Committee that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill. We were fortunate in that there was much mature and considered reflection in that Committee, and in the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill. However, the format of Standing Committees makes it difficult for Committees to scrutinise legislation in the right way. I am therefore strongly in favour of considering all legislation in draft form.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) deserves great credit for driving forward the process of scrutinising draft legislation after the 1997 election. The fact that the Select Committee on Modernisation produced a report so quickly in July 1997—a report that still reads so well—is testament to the momentum that existed on this issue. Pre-legislative scrutiny commands respect across the House, as I hope this debate will show. I know that the current Leader of the House is a reformer at heart. It falls to him to promote the cause, because it is for the Government to assert the value of pre-legislative scrutiny and to provide the momentum necessary to embed pre-legislative scrutiny into the culture of Westminster. If he does that, it will mark him out as someone who contributed hugely to the development and improvement of Parliament, and this place will once again be a model for others abroad to follow rather than a place that is treated with disdain by those whom we represent.
David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has made a compelling case for greater pre-legislative scrutiny by parliamentary Committees. Does he have any thoughts on how and when wider

7WH
public involvement via the internet and in other ways can be introduced into this process? Should it parallel the process that he is describing or should it follow the establishment of pre-legislative scrutiny as an effective tool within this place?
Ian Lucas: Parliament is still working out the different ways of making pre-legislative scrutiny operate most effectively. We should continue with it, but we need strong signals from the Government that they are committed to introducing it as a matter of course in the legislative process. We need to have a strong and clear presumption that pre-legislative scrutiny will take place. We need to have wide consultation on how interest groups and individuals with particular expertise can contribute.
My hon. Friend Member for Nottingham, North indicated that pre-legislative scrutiny was a very exciting opportunity to engage with the general public about laws, what can be done to improve them and their potential down side. This is something that can reconnect Parliament with the people whom we represent. It is a huge issue; a very important issue. It falls on the Government to make it clear that they are committed to the concept, that they want to draw the public into it and that they are committed to developing the good work that has been carried out.
9.58 am
Tony Baldry: The proof of pre-legislative scrutiny is what the Government do with it. One of the best examples recently of such scrutiny was the report on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill by the Home Affairs Committee. The Committee was chaired by a former Home Office Minister, and the report was unanimous. Let us look at the Second Reading debate, however. Did the Home Secretary take any notice whatever of any of the recommendations resulting from the pre-legislative scrutiny? Not a jot. There was not a single concession, nor a single example of the Government leaning towards the points made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and his colleagues.
I suspect that I am about to make a very liverish, self-indulgent and bad-tempered speech, but I want it on the record, before everyone forgets what life used to be like here. I acknowledge right away that I am one of those who do not see anything good having come out of the Modernisation Committee.
My concern about pre-legislative scrutiny is that, like so many things now in this place, it gives the impression that something is happening, when in fact it is not, and that Back Benchers have greater opportunity to scrutinise, when in fact they do not. When I was first elected to the House, Standing Committees were genuinely important, and they put Ministers under considerable scrutiny. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is absolutely right to say that Government supporters on a Standing Committee were exhorted to remain quiet, but it was a foolish Minister who did not
8WH
meet daily with all his Back-Bench colleagues on that Committee and go through any individual concern that they might have.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tony Baldry: I shall finish my point, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a self-admitted mushy pea member of the Labour party.
Ministers would carefully go through everything with Government Members, and that meant that when a Minister went to Committee, he or she was effectively standing pretty much alone at the wicket being lobbed balls by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and Opposition Back Benchers. They had an interest in thinking up probing amendments, amendments on policy or detail and other amendments that outside interest groups had suggested. That is a perfectly legitimate occupation for an outside group, whether it be the Law Society, licensed victuallers or others concerned about licensing legislation.
That process put Ministers on their mettle. They were obliged to consider legislation in detail and to explain in detail why the Opposition spokesman had got it wrong, forcing him to withdraw the amendment. Opposition Members knew that, within reason, they had limited time and that if they abused it, consideration of the Bill would be guillotined. Equally, Ministers had an interest in coaxing the Opposition into co-operating and getting the Bill through the House in reasonable time. The system worked, and one felt by and large that Bills had been scrutinised by the time they went to the House of Lords.
Now everything is timetabled. How has that changed things? By definition the more time that Ministers and Government Members take up on a Committee, the less time Opposition Members have to scrutinise the Government. If Ministers make long speeches, they wallpaper time that would otherwise be available for Opposition Members to submit amendments and probe Ministers. Increasingly, the House of Lords is dealing with Bills of which large chunks have never been scrutinised or even seen the light of day in Standing Committee. We do not yet know what will happen with House of Lords reform, so perhaps even the scrutiny that their lordships do effectively will be undermined.
We even see the problem increasingly on the Floor of the House—again, I shall make a bad-tempered comment, although I am probably in order. The other day we had a debate on the council tax which was unique, because it went from the opening speeches to the wind-up without ever touching the Back Benches: no Opposition Back Bencher had the opportunity to contribute. This year, my local authority and many others face being capped, so it would have been nice to put on the record the fact that I was present at that debate. If Ministers are allowed to wallpaper time and reduce the opportunity for scrutiny, such practices will become pervasive in the culture of this place.
Pre-legislative scrutiny is of course important: how could one object to giving colleagues the opportunity to examine Bills, particularly technical ones, in draft? However, let us not start singing the Hallelujah chorus until Ministers start taking notice of pre-legislative scrutiny. When Select Committees submit their pre-

9WH
legislative scrutiny reports to the House at the end of the year, it will be interesting to see how many, if any, recommendations on their specialist areas the Government have incorporated in legislation. I now give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).
David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to council tax. When he examines the halcyon days of his jeunesse dorée in this place with his rose-tinted telescope, does he recall the role that the Standing Committees played in the development of the predecessor to the council tax, the poll tax? One presumes that the flaws of that tax were apparent to many Government Back Benchers then, yet it was passed into law with those flaws, which ultimately resulted in the downfall of the right hon. Lady to whom I believe the hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Tony Baldry: Aeons ago I did a stint as PPS to the then Leader of the House. I have no quarrel with the general principle that the Government of the day have the right to get their legislation through the House. My concern is that the amount of scrutiny available to Members of Parliament now is considerably less than it was 10 or 20 years ago, because of the way in which Standing Committees have been undermined as a consequence of timetabling every Bill. That gives an incentive to Ministers and Government Back Benchers to wallpaper time, reducing the time available to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to put Ministers under test. Being in a Standing Committee as a junior Minister, or any kind of Minister, and having balls lobbed at one from all directions is fairly challenging, but if one simply gets soft, under-arm passes and dolly balls from one's own Back Benchers all the time, with amendments being tabled to and fro, that is not scrutiny.
Let us have pre-legislative scrutiny, but let us check at the end of the year how much notice the Government have taken of it. Let us also acknowledge that the way in which Bills are timetabled substantially reduces rather than enhances the opportunities for genuine probing scrutiny.
10.5 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate. It is a subject that we have considered with care over the past few years, but we still await a positive resolution of the question of the structure that we seek. The hon. Gentleman's comments were cogently framed and contained much that I could agree with.
I also agreed with some of the mini-rant from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). He said before he came into the Chamber this morning that he wanted to let off steam and he has done so. He was right to do so, because there are many frustrations in the present system. Although I do not agree with everything that he said, the conduct of Standing Committees still leaves a lot to be desired.
An unfortunate coincidence occurs when a Standing Committee is timetabled but there is unreconstructed behaviour on the part of its members, who still believe that their prime function is to extend debate pointlessly.
10WH
When there is a timetable, that practice is entirely pointless, and we end up with a lack of scrutiny. We must all learn new ways of behaving to maximise the opportunity to put Ministers under pressure to justify the proposed legislation.
The hon. Member for Wrexham did not like the term "pre-legislative scrutiny" and tried "reflective law making", which did not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). We do not want to reflect what is happening elsewhere; we want to refract the input that we receive and concentrate it into better legislation. The sole argument for pre-legislative scrutiny is that it allows a period of genuine consideration rather than confrontation, which should give both the House and the Government an opportunity to get things in better order. That is where I share some of the frustrations of the hon. Member for Banbury. There is scant evidence that pre-legislative scrutiny has to date been used in the most effective way to improve legislation and, importantly, to extend or reduce its scope by taking into account observations from outside this place.
The process has gone so far, but it must now move forward, taking a leap into the unknown. The Modernisation Committee produced an excellent report early on in the Government's life. To give the Government credit, they were prepared to run with those concepts and give them life. However, the Liaison Committee's important report "Shifting the Balance" has not yet been properly reflected in the structures of the House.
I believe that we all felt, as I think the hon. Member for Wrexham reflected, a sense of forward impetus when the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was Leader of the House. That is no reflection on the present Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), or indeed on the Deputy Leader, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who is with us today. The clear agenda for change that existed when the right hon. Member for Livingston was Leader is not entirely dissipated, but it is now less focused. That needs to be addressed.
At the moment, we have a mish-mash. Far too many Bills receive no pre-legislative scrutiny whatever. The two Departments with which I have regular dealings—the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs—are prime villains in this matter. They produce legislation like a sausage factory produces sausages. Every year we revisit the same subjects with new legislation, and often a Bill is introduced before the previous legislation has taken effect. That is a quintessentially valuable area for pre-legislative scrutiny because we are dealing with structures of the law and personal freedoms. Those matters are of such importance that they need the most careful scrutiny, but such Bills receive less scrutiny than others that are considered interesting to talk about, which are happily given to Select Committees for consideration and are improved as a result.
There are Bills that are clearly not of the same import with regard to people's livelihood and liberties, but are still important to their way of life. The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned the Licensing Bill, and I agree with him about that. I was one of the people who caused problems about that Bill and for the then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I believed

11WH
that, in drafting the Bill, insufficient care had been taken in considering the interests of live music. In the end, compromises were made in the House of Lords, and we ended up with a better Bill as a result. That process could have been avoided if there had been a sensible period of pre-legislative scrutiny.
We need a clear structure in which such matters can be arranged and determined in future. I take the view—I make no apologies for this—that that is the property of Parliament, not Government. It is not for Government to decide how we scrutinise legislation. It is for Parliament to decide that and it is for Government to propose legislation, which we shall consider. We need much more clarity in the process of scrutiny, and we need to decide what is the best way to achieve that. Are departmental Select Committees the right way to do it? Is it better to set up ad hoc Select Committees for the scrutiny of a draft Bill or is it better for cross-departmental committees to take on aspects of a Bill?
The Joint Committee on Human Rights does a superb job. When I am dealing with home affairs issues, I always welcome a report from that Committee because it raises points that I would not otherwise have considered. Often, those points are very valuable to our considerations. There are other cross-departmental committees, and perhaps we should have more. I used to be a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is not used nearly enough to advise on matters that have a scientific impact. The expertise that is contained in that Committee and available to it could be used to good effect.
We must consider how we decide what legislation goes through the process in the first place. Again, that is a matter for Parliament, with some exceptions in the case of emergency legislation, although the House does not have a good record on that, and rushed legislation is often bad legislation. It should be the presumption that matters are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Often, urgency is assumed but it is of the Government's creation, rather than a product of external events.
There is also the issue of how we widen consultation. The House does best when it listens to those outside with repositories of knowledge that we do not have. That does not mean that we substitute the knowledge of the technologist or the special interest group for our opinion as legislators. It means that we listen to the expertise that is available to us before coming to a view. That does not happen very often, and we should find effective mechanisms for accomplishing it, whether through Select Committees or by widening access via the internet, for example. We should not seek to establish some sort of Athenian democracy, because that is not our governmental structure, but we should seek to benefit from the advice of those who understand specific areas of legislation better than we can within the confines of the available expertise in the House.
There are implications for the process of government. The Leader and Deputy Leader of the House must consider the matter in depth. I am looking not for a three-tier process of consideration in the House, but for a first stage where ideas are brought in, considered and, if possible, incorporated—an important point made by the hon. Member for Banbury. We might then move in Committee to table amendments that deal with areas
12WH
that have not been considered or extend further the detailed consideration of legislation, to which we might then agree.
The process will inevitably be extended for the best of reasons. If it is to take place without the Government losing their legislative direction— and it is not our intention that they should, because they must retain the ability to direct their programme— they must extend their legislative horizon. Bills must not be introduced in an almighty rush in the Queen's Speech, tumbling out of the civil service before they are ready and while they are half thought-out and missing huge chunks, which are introduced in Committee or on Report, or, worse, never come to the House because they are introduced in another place. That cannot be the right way to present legislation. Departments must look a little further ahead; the planning process must be extended that bit more; and we must have more order to the legislative process. I accept that it is not easy, but the Government must consider it.
I will finish by mentioning two other areas that we must consider. We do not do a very good job of analysing legislation derived from elsewhere, in particular European legislation, which impacts more and more as years go by. If we are to do right by the citizens of this country, we must have much better, more focused and less peripheral consideration of European legislation.
David Taylor: I agree with that point. Does the hon. Gentleman have any suggestions about how scrutiny of European legislation, which from my observations is too often tokenistic, marginal and ill-informed, could be improved within the existing Committee structure?
Mr. Heath: I am not sure that I have a pat answer. I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: it is very difficult within the current structures to graft on a whole new raft of legislation. It is important that we attempt to do so, and we should make it more central to our considerations so that we have more time in the House to consider important issues arising from European legislation. It would provide an opportunity to send the views of the House, and thereby those of the country, to those creating that legislation.
Many other legislatures have much better and more refined pre-summit and pre-treaty scrutiny. We are bound by the royal prerogative in that area, although I think that the royal, prerogative has had its day. I see that the Deputy Leader of the House is grimacing. The making of treaties that bind the British people and the making of war and of peace on their behalf is a matter in which Parliament should be intimately involved. It is not good enough for Parliament to be bypassed on everything other than the effects on domestic legislation. Other countries' Parliaments do this much better. When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee we looked at their processes in some depth. Ministers from other countries who attend the negotiations in Europe have a much clearer idea of what their Parliament thinks about an issue than our Ministers could possibly have, because ours do not have the opportunity of discussing it, other than by making a brief statement in the House, and even that is of limited effect.
The last point that I want to make, and I hope that by doing so I am not straying too far from the subject of the debate, concerns post-legislative scrutiny. Looking at

13WH
the effect of legislation, and reflecting on whether it has done the job that it was purported to do by Ministers at the time, whether it has worked in practice, and whether further amendments are necessary, is another key area. I said earlier that, in home affairs, we now have the extraordinary situation whereby we often repeal legislation before it has even come into effect, simply because another wheeze has come from America or from the tabloids and has to be put into effect. That is a bad way for us to do business. A sensitive and sensible Parliament would wish not only to look in detail at legislation that it proposes to pass and see its potential consequences, but to reflect after the event, and audit its effect, learning from its mistakes and, hopefully, occasionally celebrating its success.
10.22 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: It has been an exciting debate so far, although my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is rather grumpy and out of sorts. However, I am sure we all found it reassuring that he was prepared to come here today and explain the problems that he experienced in the Committee considering Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill and in other Committees.
It is right that we should be considering the role of the Standing Committees, as well as examining pre-legislative scrutiny. There is no doubt that the effect of wider pre-legislative scrutiny is felt in the Standing Committees. We need to look at the interaction of those two elements in the coming period. Two to three draft Bills a year were published under the Conservative Government whereas about 12 will be published this year. I agree that the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), took the process some way forward, and he is to be congratulated on that. However, the Government must decide on the template for the future, and it may be that a certain amount of experience must be gained before it is possible to see a clear way forward.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate. He made a good point when he said that there was a question to be asked about whether pre-legislative scrutiny should concentrate on issues of policy, or be restricted to issues of detail. It is quite difficult to separate the two. To give an example, the Joint Committee on the Draft Civil Contingencies Bill looked in great detail at that Bill, which obviously affects human rights and involves the Government declaring a state of emergency, being able to damage one's property without compensation, and so on. That Committee reached the conclusion that the definition of an "emergency" in the draft Bill was far too wide, and would enable the Government to exercise those powers in too many circumstances. The Committee suggested changes, which have narrowed down that definition.
It also suggested that the lack of safeguards requiring the Government to show that such action was necessary and proportionate needed to be addressed. To give the Government their due, they were prepared to look at those issues and have improved the Bill on that basis. However, the question whether something is or is not a national emergency is a mixed issue—it is not just one of detail but one of principle.
Equally, deciding what is necessary and proportionate when human rights are under threat is a matter of principle. Of course, we do not think that the
14WH
Government have gone anywhere near far enough in the Civil Contingencies Bill. One of the problems is that the Minister for the Cabinet Office felt that, by allowing pre-legislative scrutiny, he had moved some way. When, in Committee, I asked him to move further, he said, "You have had the pre-legislative scrutiny. Enough's enough." That affects the role of the Standing Committee.
My view is that there should be a two-stage process. The pre-legislative scrutiny should tease out the key issues. Some of them are issues of policy, others issues of detail. Yes, the Government make concessions at that stage, but that should not be the end of the process. There is still room in Standing Committee for consideration to be a worthwhile process in which everyone knows the key issues and the debate is much better than the sort of wallpaper-style debates that have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Wrexham. It should be possible, with that more honed-in approach, to produce a better Bill.
At the moment, if some ground is given on pre-legislative scrutiny, there is a tendency for the Government to say, "We've done our bit." Members of Parliament have a special role in scrutinising a Bill that deals with fundamental human rights. It is not enough to say, "We've listened to Justice and Liberty and various other pressure groups." The fact is that each Member represents 65,000 to 75,000 individuals. We have to ensure that our constituents' human rights are considered and respected. It is against that background that the role of the Member of Parliament has to be protected and viewed as important.
There have been some notable successes for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we support the process. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was a member of the Joint Committee that considered that Bill. He certainly felt that a good deal of expertise from both Houses was brought together—people with a background in banking and financial services who understood the issues—and that it was possible to move the process forward and create a better Bill. The Government made some suitable concessions: as usual, not enough, but some progress was made.
An online forum was set up on the Communications Bill. It was generally considered to be a model of its type. The pity is that we have not had more such examples. The Hansard Society moderated the online forum. It distilled the information so that members of the Committee were able to see the sensible ideas that had come forward displayed properly. Everybody felt that people's views had been properly taken into account.
Even with online forums, there is a problem with what exactly one is asking for people's opinions on. Some parts of a Bill are essentially matters of detail; others are matters of policy about which there is a political argument. When the Modernisation Committee talked to individuals around the country on the "Connecting with Parliament" report, people said that the online form was far too complicated because all that they wanted to say was that they did not agree with clause 16. Others said that filling in a detailed form was what they wanted, as they were providing an expert view on large parts of the Bill. Both views are valid. It is worth the

15WH
Government's knowing that there is huge opposition to a clause; equally, it is worth having the benefit of the expertise of the profession or interest that is dealt with by the Bill. The question is how to arrive at a way of dealing with online forums that provides for both the cry of outrage about clause 16 and the detailed briefing.
It is a pity that there is not more scope for using online forums. Part of the trouble is that the infrastructure is not in place—a point that I have put to the Minister before. I believe that the Hansard Society is not geared up to manage online forums for every draft Bill; if it is, I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why it is not doing so. I suspect that to run such forums needs more investment and planning, but I would certainly welcome more of them.
We also need to consider whether the law-making process should be a little more accessible. Many members of the public find it difficult to understand legal language. I should have thought that pre-legislative scrutiny could allow for the main provisions of a Bill and the scope of the argument to be expressed in simpler language. Certainly, when it comes to Standing Committee, it should be possible to timetable debates on key issues that are the subject of substantial public debate so that those who wish to catch the debates online can do so. Equally, material should be available to explain the process.
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman share my experience, which is that a huge number of constituents have no idea about the accessibility of parliamentary proceedings through the internet? For example, even those who have access to the internet are wholly unaware that transcripts of debates and Committee proceedings are available the following day. Does he agree that we have a huge job to do to inform our constituents of that?
Mr. Heald: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the website itself needs further consideration. Five years ago, our system was considered to be cutting edge. Everyone said that it was marvellous and very accessible—but that was judged by the standards of the time. Many of those who have given evidence to the Modernisation Committee say that the websites of some other Parliaments are more accessible than ours and that it is easier to get into a debate on a particular Bill. There is scope for some form of virtual tour of the House of Commons, with an explanation of what is done by each part.
Tony Baldry: Will they put the Whips Office on it?
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend speaks sotto voce about the Whips Office, but we may have to leave the Whips out. It is suggested in the Civil Contingencies Bill that Her Majesty's Lords Commissioners to the Treasury—the senior Whips—should be able to declare a state of emergency, close roads, damage properties without compensation and so on; it seems extraordinary, but it is true.
Yes, we could do a lot more to make this place more accessible, and some of it would be fairly simple. It seems extraordinary that a full list of draft Bills is not
16WH
produced at the beginning of each Session. This year, we had the farcical situation in which I had to ask the Leader of the House, "Are we going to have a draft Bill on X?" If I got the question right and mentioned a Bill that might be coming up, he would say, "Yes."
Tony Baldry: The Kelly approach.
Mr. Heald: Yes. This is now known as the Kelly approach. We played "Guess a Bill" for three weeks. It seems daft, because there was no reason why the Government could not produce a list of their draft Bills. I see the Minister looking a bit cagey. Perhaps he could have told us about most of them. There were seven that I had to guess, and I managed to guess about five before the Leader of the House finally buckled and put a list in the Library. We could do better on this, I am sure.
The Select Committees cannot do all the pre-legislative scrutiny. They play a vital role in scrutinising Departments, and I would not want to see them becoming so overburdened with pre-legislative scrutiny that they could not do so effectively. Joint Committees, which bring together the expertise of both Houses, seem to us to be a good way of easing the burden on the Select Committees and ensuring that the necessary expertise is available.
We are also anxious to see more ad hoc House of Commons Committees used. They have not been used very much, but the Modernisation Committee identified them as a way forward. We see Joint Committees, more ad hoc Committees and Select Committees as the way forward for pre-legislative scrutiny, but we must also not lose the possibility of using Special Standing Committees. I called for one of these recently on the Human Tissues Bill, although in the event the Government were able to satisfy me that it was not appropriate. If a Bill is fairly short in compass but involves a significant ethical issue, or a particular amount of specialism, there is a case for having a Special Standing Committee rather than going through pre-legislative scrutiny, which can be quite a substantial process for a small measure. We would like to leave that option open.
So, without trespassing too much on the good will of the Chamber, may I say that we support pre-legislative scrutiny, but we are worried about the impact of it on the Standing Committees. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that some Standing Committees are not satisfactory. The timetabling is not working well, substantial numbers of clauses are not being properly considered, and the Government are not always showing the patience with the Select Committees that they should to ensure that pre-legislative scrutiny reports are available in time for debate. The House of Lords is having to pick up a lot of problems that we are creating in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has pointed out that the Government are taking liberties with the Standing Committee system by creating amendments that do not really scrutinise the Bill, and talking far more than is necessary in order to curtail the time available to the Opposition. All these tactics are obviously wrong and should not be used. Having said that, I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham for giving us the chance to say so.
10.39 am
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I thank hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting and important debate. Congratulations are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on obtaining it and I am grateful to you, Mrs. Adams, for allowing a fairly broad discussion on not just pre-legislative scrutiny, but the other side of the coin as well—the Standing Committees and their operations.
I shall try to answer as many questions as I can within the themes of my speech. I hope that what I say will move the position forward and provide signposts for hon. Members who asked about the Government's intentions on pre-legislative scrutiny. It is, I think, widely accepted that the Government are committed to it. We have shown that by our actions and have greatly increased the number of Bills that are published in draft form. Hon. Members may be interested in the figures: there were three draft Bills in 1997–98, followed by six in each of the following two years, two in the election year, six in 2001–02, nine in the last Session and, as has been said, possibly 12 in the current Session. We are committed to increasing the number of draft Bills. The phrase "the presumption of norm" was used and, with the few exceptions that I shall explain later, that is our goal.
Bills were occasionally published in draft before 1997. It is not wholly a new Labour idea, but the new Government took it forward most effectively. Bills were published in draft in the 1992–97 Parliament. Hon. Members might be interested to know that public consultations were held on clauses of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill in 1987 under the then Government. With the benefit of hindsight, it is interesting that the Child Support Bill of 1991 was subject to publication in draft form and to pre-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps that is not always the model we want to follow. I make no party political point because my party supported that Bill. All constituency MPs have regretted that day.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny because they believe that it enhances the quality of the laws that are passed. Pre-legislative scrutiny gives Parliament and stakeholders in the wider society an opportunity to influence the Bill's content when the Government's views have not been firmly set—the so-called set-in-stone stage. Examples given include the Civil Contingencies Bill, which is a good one, the Gambling Bill and the Communications Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that all were improved by the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. It has been alleged that the Government have taken no notice of other examples. Some may think that that is two steps forward and one step back, but it is progress none the less. I shall explain in detail how pre-legislative scrutiny gives opportunities to Parliament and stakeholders and why that is a good thing.
One purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny and draft publication is to connect better the process of law making with the public. It cannot be right that the intent of Parliament, which it is the purpose of law making to reflect, should more often be subject to interpretation by the courts rather than the clarity of the laws that are passed in this place. If we wish t o connect the public with
18WH
Parliament and encourage public consent for, and better understanding of, the laws that we pass, we must ensure that people have an opportunity to influence the law, either directly or through their various representatives in the form of pressure groups and interest groups, as well as their MP. We must ensure, first, that they believe that they can have an input and, secondly, that they better understand the law and its intent.
All MPs regularly experience in their constituency criticisms of the law, of what is believed to be the law and of what is believed to be the intent of Parliament. Unless the courts and the public have an opportunity clearly to understand that intent, the consent for Parliament will diminish and the political process will be damaged. Pre-legislative scrutiny is an opportunity to improve the law in its intent and clarity. That is the important point. We are striving to improve the process and to answer the important questions posed this morning about the criteria used to decide which Bills are published in draft and about the Committee's scope and remit, including whether a Select Committee, a Joint Committee or a special ad hoc Committee should consider the proposals.
The Government have taken note of the concern expressed by the Liaison Committee and others about the short notice of the publication of draft Bills. We appreciate that that can and has created difficulties for Committees in planning their programmes. We want to work with the Liaison Committee and the Select Committees to improve the process. Immediately after the Queen's Speech, in response to that concern, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House provided the Liaison Committee with a provisional list of draft Bills expected to be published this Session and a copy was placed in the Library.
It is not always possible in the sausage factory production of legislation to be precise. I am happy to place on the record that Departments rightly have to take advice from parliamentary counsel, whose function it is to probe and to seek clarification of intent. Sometimes there are unforeseen consequences in the preparation and sometimes it is not always possible to publish in draft form. That is a long-winded way of saying that it is not a perfect world.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to openness. In return, however, the House must understand that our legislative programme must have some flexibility and that the provisional list of draft Bills will be subject to change. The Government's proposals are subject to discussion in the usual channels in both Houses of Parliament—the Lords and the Commons—both of which we must take into account. For example, following such discussions it was agreed to introduce the civil partnerships Bill in this Session rather than as a draft Bill as the Government originally proposed. That was a good example of us responding to concerns.
Drafting resources may need to be diverted to other priorities and slippage may mean that there is insufficient time for publication in draft.
Mr. Heald: On the need to have a sensible list of possible draft Bills at the beginning of the Session, the Cabinet Office said that it would introduce a draft civil

19WH
service Bill this Session in response to the Public Administration Committee's report. Why is that not on the list of draft Bills for this Session?
Mr. Woolas: For the very good reason that in planning the legislative programme we have to plan our resources. in terms not only of parliamentary counsel but of Departments as well. The Select Committees have had concerns over their ability to plan and the Government have provided significant extra resources, which I will mention if I have time. We have also provided parliamentary counsel with extra resources in recent years to try to increase its capacity and therefore introduce greater flexibility. It is a statement of common sense that the preparation of Bills, whether they be draft Bills or full Bills, requires a great deal of resources. The implementation of drafting is not always predictable because of unforeseen complexities and difficulties.
Mr. Heald Mr. Heald rose—
Mr. Woolas: I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching to tease me even further.
Mr. Heald: If the Minister is saying that the Cabinet Office is going to produce a draft civil service Bill this Session, why is it not on the list of draft Bills for this Session?
Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake and eat it. He pushed us to introduce a civil service Bill. We responded to that concern and said that we would have one. That is evidence of openness, flexibility, transparency and democratic government.
Mr. Heald: Why is it not on the list?
Mr. Woolas: If the hon. Gentleman wants to move to a Stalinist five-year plan, the logical consequence of the discussions that he proposes would mean the abolition of annual Sessions, the increased carrying over of Bills and one Prorogation every five years. I am sure that his colleagues in the Opposition Whips Office would not support that aspect of modernisation.
To be fair, there are good reasons why flexibility and a rolling programme would be advantageous to the House.
Ian Lucas: Talking of Stalinism, may I return to the usual channels and the civil partnerships Bill? My hon. Friend said that, as a result of discussions among the usual channels, the Government have forgone a draft Bill in favour of the civil partnerships Bill. Does he think it right that an issue that will generate interest and discussion among my constituents is not presented in draft form simply because the usual channels believe that that is inappropriate?
Mr. Woolas: My view and, more importantly, the Government's view is that a Bill should be published in draft form unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Such reasons may be broader than my hon. Friend suggested. He talked about the need to respond to
20WH
emergencies and about the 11 September tragedy, but other forces majeures may require a legislative response from the Government. There may also be financial pressures, and the financial year is a key determinant in planning the legislative programme. I can also reveal that the business managers set about the timetable for the Higher Education Bill because of demands by the printers of university prospectuses. It was therefore a real-world timetable, which had little to do with the parliamentary timetable.
Some Bills are timetabled in response to decisions by our courts and the European courts. The timetable for the Gender Recognition Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday, was drafted in response to the need to protect the British taxpayer against liabilities as a result of the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. Those are examples of real-world pressures on timetables. Famous "events" can also change things. However, on the basis of a shared understanding of that framework, the Government's objective is to move towards the presumption of a draft Bill.
I understand why hon. Members have not gone into detail about the consequences of the greater use of draft Bills for other aspects of the parliamentary legislative process. The Government have given Select Committees greater resources, including staff resources. The new scrutiny unit is now fully functioning, and one of its primary functions is to assist with pre-legislative scrutiny. Following an independent review, the number of staff working directly for Select Committees will be increased over a three-year period. Hon. Members will also know that the payment of Select Committee Chairmen has been introduced. Those are some of the implications. Of course, Select Committees and the Liaison Committee have advised us formally and informally that the scrutiny of draft Bills has increased their work load extensively. That is why Joint Committees may be used increasingly and why we must be flexible in learning lessons at this stage. We should not tie our hands too tightly if we are to ensure that we can proceed.
The proposals also have implications for carry-over. If one is to have a successful programme for scrutinising draft Bills and for legislating subsequently, it is advantageous to have the facility to carry Bills over from a Session. Of course, the timetables and Standing Orders of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are not in sync.
We have touched on the important issue of programming in Standing Committees and on Report, and I am a big fan of programming, as are the Government in general. However, we recognise, as the Modernisation Committee did in its advice, that the current arrangements are not perfect. The hon. Member for Somerton and—
Mr. Heath:Frome.
Mr. Woolas:I apologise. My Lancastrian ignorance of the south-west is coming to the fore.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, programming, or timetabling as I prefer to call it, requires consent if it is to work. I readily admit that Front Benchers do not always co-operate, which is to be regretted. My main argument in favour of

21WH
programming, however, has nothing to do with how this place functions, but with the need for the public and stakeholders to know more about the process of legislation, as has been explained. I was a member of the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill. We discussed key parts of that at 3 o'clock in the morning, which is ridiculous. A few of my constituents who use the internet late at night might have had access to those proceedings, but we could not tell them, as we could when the Local Government Bill was considered in the previous Session, that important aspects would be discussed in the morning and afternoon on Tuesdays and Thursdays at pre-designated times. Such information helps people to be involved in the legislative process, to follow it and to have an input. We need a commitment from Members on both sides of the House if we are to make progress and set signposts, and if programming is to work. I readily admit that that also applies to the Government and the usual channels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham argued for greater involvement in the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills that affect Wales—what we might call Wales-only Bills. The Government agree that it is desirable that Bills containing significant Wales-only clauses should be published in draft form whenever practical for scrutiny by Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. My hon. Friend is already working to achieve that. We have a good record on that. The National Health Service (Wales) Bill and the Public Audit (Wales) Bill were both published in draft form in the previous Session.
In the case of Bills that relate to both England and Wales, it is not usually practical to separate out the parts that relate to Wales for separate scrutiny or for earlier publication. We are, however, committed to publishing those Bills in draft form whenever we can, so long as that is consistent with the overall needs of the legislative
22WH
programme. Last November, following the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House met the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. A working party has been established to see how we can make progress.
On the very important question of whether the Committee's remit is to consider the principle, the policy or the implementation of a Bill, a Committee of politicians will always want to consider the principle. It should be free to consider the coherence of draft legislation, to examine the policy and to disagree with it if it so chooses, but it should concentrate on the successful implementation of that policy by consulting stakeholders.
In anecdotal terms, the objective is to diminish the law of unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out many times in Committee that there are laws of unintended consequences, and that legislative scrutiny exists to tease them out. That can be done particularly well when considering draft Bills. We have drawn the remit wide, but encourage the emphasis to be placed on testing the successful implementation of policy and examining the unintended consequences.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was going to make a bad-tempered speech. It is always a good idea to tell people if one is going to make a bad-tempered speech because then no one thinks that it is. He made his point effectively without upsetting anyone. There was no golden age of scrutiny, as the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee pointed out. It is nice for him to look back through rose-tinted glasses, but the truth is that we scrutinise more clauses and more Bills, and have a more modern and effective process, as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny. I commend hon. Members on the points that they made.

Northern Uganda
11 am
Valerie Davey: I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the brutal conflict which, after 18 years, continues to traumatise the lives of more than 1 million men, women and, most significantly, children in northern Uganda. Sadly, the debate has become more relevant following the massacre by the Lord's Resistance Army of over 200 people in a refugee camp north of Lira at the weekend.
At first there was little media coverage, but Andrew Harding's report last night for BBC News, with the images of the charred bodies of people burned alive in their huts and the numb anguish on the faces of women who had lost as many as 12 members of their family, brought home the horror of what had happened. One casual remark from a parent at the scene was that he had lost two children. Even now, no one knows how many children were abducted in the raid. We all join Kofi Annan in condemning the massacre.
In these circumstances it is hard to know how to extend a hand of sympathy and support to those grieving, terrified families, yet that is what we all want to do. I trust that all of us, everyone who could and should have done more in the past 18 years to end the conflict, will be committed to taking urgent action now. This conflict—uniquely, to my knowledge—is targeted at children, 20,000 of whom have been abducted during the past five years. They have been abused and forced to be child soldiers or sex slaves. I ask that we use this debate to recognise the extent and nature of the tragedy, and to reflect on what can be done to bring it to an end.
Last November, after a visit to Uganda, a senior United Nations official, Jan Egeland, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, said:
"The conflict in Northern Uganda is the biggest forgotten, neglected humanitarian emergency in the world today."
He went on to say:
"We the United Nations have done too little. The donors have done too little. The Government of Uganda has done too little. We have all done too little."
The facts and figures that emerge underline that statement.
The Lord's Resistance Army, under the self-styled mystic Joseph Kony, while claiming to oppose the Ugandan Government or to protect the Acholi people, attacks the civilian population of northern Uganda. It is estimated that 85 per cent. of the LRA forces are 11 to 15 years old. These children are abducted during raids on schools and villages, and are often forced first to kill their own families and to mutilate or kill any children who resist.
Twenty thousand children have disappeared over the past five years, over half of them since June 2002–20,000. I repeat that figure, because I still find it virtually incomprehensible, but little has happened as a result. One child's torso was taken from the Thames. That sparked a criminal investigation across two continents. The trauma in northern Uganda is hard to comprehend. Violence and fear have led to the internal displacement of over 1 million people, with tens of thousands moving every night to find safety in the nearest town.
24WH
Wider knowledge of the situation emerged in England last year, thanks to the Break the Silence campaign run by the Churches, especially the Anglican Church in dioceses such as Bristol, which has close links with Uganda. Last summer the Bishop of Kitgum, the Right Reverend Ben Ojwang from northern Uganda, stayed with constituents of mine and spoke on Radio Bristol. Having spoken about the atrocities, he went on to ask the British Government to mediate, or, in his words, be a midwife to deliver peace after all the pain and anguish. The Government have a strong link with Uganda, as we all know, and they have expertise in conflict resolution, which may well be needed in this situation. Help in these tragic circumstances has been given, notably by donor countries, and also by UNICEF, Save the Children Fund and Christian Aid. The present appeal is poignantly headed: "Over a million Ugandans are scared of the dark". Indeed they are.
The need is to stop the killing, mutilation, rape and abduction. The nature of the situation bears some resemblance to the inexplicable nature of the war going on in the middle east and Iraq. We fail in our comprehension of how to combat an enemy that resorts to suicide bombing. In the case of Uganda, how do we react to an enemy that brainwashes terrified children and uses them to fight their own people? In that situation, when the Ugandan militia or the military attack the rebels, they are just as likely to be killing their own children. Remember that 85 per cent. of the LRA forces are 11 to 15–year-olds who have been abducted.
This is all horrific and difficult to understand, but we do need to understand it. We need to understand the reasons behind the conflict in northern Uganda. What led to this situation? I do not pretend to be an expert or to have the facts and figures, but I did come across a report published earlier this month by the refugee law project at the faculty of law at Makerere university. It is headed: "Behind the Violence: Causes, Consequences and the Search for Solutions to the War in Northern Uganda."
Even reading the press release that announced the report contributes to a better understanding of the tensions that arose after Obote's departure—the tension between northern Uganda and the new Ugandan Government—and of the earlier attempts at rebellion. Into that vacuum of tension and mistrust came the incredible figure of Joseph Kony, with all the evil that his self-styled rule as mystic and spiritual leader has brought about. I recommend the report to anyone who is at all interested in the tragedy and reconciliation in the area.
Let us consider the people who could and should have helped. There is the United Nations. In 2003, the United Nations passed resolution 1460 to provide a framework to protect children affected by armed conflict. It noted that the conscription of children under 15 into armed forces, or using them to participate actively in hostilities, is classified as a war crime by the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, which has recently been enforced. That resolution ended with a cryptic final decision that was very much in the style of a UN resolution. The final decision was
"to remain actively seized of the matter."

25WH
Kofi Annan was seized of the matter, and last November he produced a further report on children and armed conflict. Only last month, 38 members of the United Nations debated that report and what could be done to prevent violence against children, including sexual abuse, maiming, kidnapping and their use as child soldiers. At that meeting the UN special representative for children and armed conflict, Olara Otunnu, said:
"The struggle to ensure the protection, rights and well-being of children exposed to armed conflict has reached a watershed moment".
Those are fine words. There is indeed a new watershed in northern Uganda following the massacre of the past weekend. We need to take further action.
It is easy to look back and to criticise those involved—to criticise Museveni, the Ugandan Government and the donor countries for not doing more. The criticisms have been strong. President Museveni has criticised donor countries for not allowing more of the aid to be used for his army. Critics of the donors have been concerned that some of their money has not reached the humanitarian ends for which it was given, but is being used by Museveni for armed troops in the Congo.
We know that our Government have given considerable aid—£2.5 million for humanitarian purposes in the past year, and now a further £3 million. As I described, we have a good record in debt release and in the important quantity of aid provided to Uganda. However, we have to question whether we have taken enough care and whether, in our intense anticipation of success for Uganda, we have not turned a blind eye to the troubles of northern Uganda. Indeed, in a northern part of this country we have our own experience, which so many of us have wanted to ignore. That experience should well equip us to help Uganda.
We must put the key emphasis on humanitarian aid and on stopping the violence. When he answered questions on the issue in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) emphasised the need for dialogue, although he recognised the need for security. Such atrocity and warfare will not be overcome by further warfare.
Over the past week three headlines appeared in sequence, and they illustrate the trauma of what is happening. On 19 February the BBC's website headline read "Army 'hunts down' Ugandan rebels". It continued:
"More than 30 Lord's Resistance Army rebels have been killed in the north, say the Ugandan army."
There followed an almost provocative statement, as I realised when I read it. One of the Ugandan army officials said:
"We followed them. It was simply good battle planning and we first encircled the enemy and pinned them down and we destroyed them using ground forces and helicopters".
As I read that statement at the weekend in preparation for the debate, a chill went down my spine.
On Monday, headlines in The Guardian and The Independent reported that Ugandan rebels had left 192 dead in the village massacre. On the same day, the BBC website published the headline "Uganda vows to avenge massacre". It continued:
26WH
"The Ugandan defence minister says the rebels behind a massacre in the north will be repaid in the same way."
While that violence continues and is exacerbated, children are dying. Families were brutally killed in the massacre at the weekend and there seems to be no hope. The BBC reported a member of the camp who said, "I have no hope".
The International Criminal Court has now said that it will take action. Last December, President Museveni asked the Court to look at the actions of the LRA. Both Amnesty's response and that of Human Rights Watch was that we should investigate all sides in Uganda. There are reports of human rights abuses and the use by the Government army and the militia of youngsters under 15, who have been set up with arms in northern Uganda to try to deal with the LRA. The criminal court will take time and it will need to arrest Joseph Kony and his rebel leaders.
Is there hope? I still have hope because of the Ugandan people I have met, and because of the bishop from Kitgum and his visit to Bristol, the personal links that are being strengthened and the support that will be given. I have hope as a result of a recent delegation to this country led by the Right Reverend John Baptist Odama, the archbishop of Gulu archdiocese. He came with a delegation of six church and community leaders and human rights activists. I do not need to spend long on their report because I am sure that the Minister has a copy. They talked about the key human rights violations, the abductions and the displacements, the child night commuters, the attacks on humanitarian convoys and the human rights abuses carried out by the Ugandan Government.
The delegation went on to make five main recommendations: to end the conflict by prevailing on the warring parties; to place the situation of northern Uganda on the agenda of the UN Security Council; to ensure that the protection of children who have been abducted and forcibly recruited is addressed independently of any ongoing political process; to strengthen the international monitoring presence in the north and follow up human rights abuses; and to facilitate the support of the national and community process that will foster a sustainable peace.
I urge the Minister to ponder long and hard these incredibly dignified, patient people who come with a solution that does not involve further violence. I urge him to take action in the UN, with European Union members, and as a representative of a donor country. All of us have a part to play.
When I think of Uganda, I hear and see two things. I think not of the latest scenes of the massacre, but of an interview on the radio that first inspired me to take action. It was the emotion of the interviewer, and not the Ugandan teenager who had been rescued from the LRA, that was so poignant. He finally asked the boy, "How many have you killed?" The curt and quick reply came, "Forty-six". Finally, I see the face of Angelina Acheng Atyam, a member of the delegation, who is the chairperson of the Concerned Parents Association—a group of 5,000 parents working to secure the release of their sons and daughters. Angelina's daughter was abducted in 1996 and remains in captivity. I urge the Minister to do all he can, and look forward to his response. We need to bring an end to this children's war —this war on children.
11.18 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this timely debate on northern Uganda. The Lord's Resistance Army has been waging a war against the Government and the people of Uganda for over 18 years. The conflict has caused untold suffering to the civilian population in northern Uganda.
We utterly deplore the brutal massacre of nearly 200 displaced persons in a camp north of Lira last weekend. United Nations agencies have now reached the area and are setting up medical and feeding centres. We have been in contact with the UN and are satisfied that they are doing all they can. Burns victims have been transported to Lira hospital, for the situation in the area remains very bad. Such an incident could be repeated any time. That is a chilling prospect. I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend to set out the action we are taking to promote a solution.
The actions of the rebel leader, Joseph Kony, and his LRA are deplorable. The Lord's Resistance rebellion emerged from the remnants of various anti-Museveni groups that existed among the Acholi people of northern Uganda during the late 1980s. The LRA does not have a coherent political programme in the usual sense. Its leader, Joseph Kony, claims a mystical or spiritual authority for his actions. The LRA is undoubtedly one of the most despicable groups in the world, because of the way in which it carries out its activities. Brutal punishments are used to maintain discipline among the LRA, and enforced participation in such acts is used as a means of binding Kony's adherents together.
The LRA's use of child soldiers is particularly deplorable, as my hon. Friend said. Recruitment is largely through abduction. The vast majority of LRA fighters are the innocent children of civilians, forced to fight against their will. It is estimated that some 20,000 children have been abducted for recruitment over the past 10 years. The degree of violence shown in the attack of 21 February and the practice of making children a main target of the war is so deeply repellent that it defies words.
Most recent reports from our high commission in Kampala indicate that there has been an increase in LRA child abductions in the past few weeks. We are aware of the impact that this is having on the local communities, which are in great fear, and the plight of the night commuters, the children living in rural areas who walk miles each night to sleep in churches or in town, on shop verandahs, in a desperate attempt to avoid abduction. The clear, depressing message is of a sharp deterioration in the security situation, with intensified attacks on soft civilian targets.
We remain extremely concerned about the impact of the conflict on the humanitarian situation in northern Uganda. Over the past two years the number of internally displaced persons has risen from 500,000 to 1.4 million. They are living in camps and enduring worsening conditions. Relief organisations are at full stretch and coping, but reaching populations in need of humanitarian aid in these large rural areas is dependent on the fragile security situation.
28WH
The UK's response to the crisis is focused on supporting humanitarian relief efforts and promoting closer co-ordination among the donor communities; encouraging the Ugandan Government to consider all options to resolve the conflict, not just the military response; strengthening civil society groups in the north, which have a vital role to play in the long-term resolution of the conflict; and building on opportunities created by the Sudanese peace accords.
We have significantly increased our humanitarian support in response to the crisis. We have spent £8.4 million in the past 12 months. Officials in Kampala from the British high commission and Department for International Development regularly visit the north to assess the situation and see what more we can do to assist. We are also working closely with the international community to improve donor co-ordination. We need to ensure that the aid gets through to those who need it most.
The UK was instrumental in the founding of the donor technical group on the north in Kampala and currently holds the position of deputy chair of the group. This is the most important co-ordinating forum for donor responses to the conflict. It has contributed to the development of programmes in support of conflict resolution. Access to camps in a number of areas is risky. The LRA has attacked humanitarian vehicles and convoys. We regularly urge the Government of Uganda to redouble their efforts to protect the civilian population in the north and to ensure the safe delivery of much needed humanitarian relief supplies.
The LRA is a difficult phenomenon to deal with and there is no quick fix, President Museveni's Government have adopted several different approaches in the past, but they have concentrated their efforts on the military approach, which has so far not succeeded. In March 2002, the Ugandan Government launched Operation Iron Fist, billed as a measure to put an end to the insurgency in the north. Capitalising on the new relationship with the Sudan, the Uganda People's Defence Force sent a force into southern Sudan where they claimed to have destroyed the LRA's rear camps. However, the operation resulted in resurgent LRA activity inside Uganda, which continues with varying intensity.
We understand the Ugandan Government's need to deliver a security response, but we believe that they must also explore complementary methods of bringing the conflict to an end. The United Kingdom Government discussed the north with the President of Uganda during his visit to London at the end of January. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister urged President Museveni to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict if possible, and we encouraged him to take steps to improve the prospects for dialogue.
Several possible measures could build confidence in the Ugandan Government's commitment to resolving the conflict: re-energising the presidential peace team, removing from the north those Government security personnel who violate human rights, and developing an open, credible and coherent media strategy on the insurgency to get messages across about how the Government hope to resolve the issue.
We are aware that some people are calling for international mediation, but we do not consider it to be a solution at present. Third-party mediation has been

29WH
tried before and it has failed. Any sustainable solution must involve civil society actors such as Acholi religious and traditional leaders. Those groups have been at the forefront of contact with the LRA and the search for a peaceful solution, and as such they are well placed to act as mediators of dialogue.
Valerie Davey: May I emphasise that it is those very community leaders who are in London asking for third-party help with their work?
Mr. O'Brien: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have every hope that we will be able to talk to those community leaders, as well as to representatives of the Ugandan Government, to ensure that we can work with people who might be able to find a way forward in the appalling situation.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) met northern Uganda civil society groups on 2 February and encouraged them to continue their efforts. At a local level, we continue to support peace building initiatives and British officials based in Kampala are working with local groups involved in conflict resolution.
Since 2001 we have spent almost £1 million supporting conflict reduction and peace programmes, and a further £1.6 million is committed until March 2005. We support the development of the editorially independent FM radio, Mega FM, which has a developing listenership. Over the past year, the UK has given £1.3 million to UNICEF and Save the Children Fund for relief activities, to protect children at risk of abduction and to reintegrate child, ex-combatants into society. That is enormously difficult to do, given the sorts of activities in which they have been involved, which were described so well by my hon. Friend. Some of them have been committing large-scale murder and torture. It is an incredibly difficult situation.
We are committed to helping to resolve the conflict in northern Uganda. We will continue to engage with the Ugandan Government and representatives of the Acholi population, and we will also continue to work closely with partners in Uganda and with the international community, particularly the United Nations, the United States, which has a role, and the European Union. My hon. Friend asked us to do that and I assure her that we will.
The LRA has largely been sustained through its depredations on the Acholi community, but Sudan also has a history of involvement that links with the larger regional picture and the Sudanese civil war. We hope that the successful completion of the Sudanese peace process will provide a window of opportunity also to secure peace in northern Uganda. There are prospects for hope, but in many ways it is a depressing situation. We will continue to do all we can to work with the Ugandan Government, and others, to try to resolve the situation.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Family Court Cases
2 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I welcome this timely opportunity—in fact, more timely than I thought when I applied for the debate—to discuss issues that the Minister raised in her statement to the House yesterday. I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is present today and who is Angela Cannings's constituency MP. He has worked hard and effectively on her behalf, and together we have worked for our two constituents, Sally Clark, with whom my hon. Friend also has a connection, as he represents her father, and Angela Cannings. The Appeal Court's judgment is the reason for asking for the debate today.
My interest in the matter arose because of the small role that I played in trying to get justice for Sally Clark, who was my constituent until she left prison. When I became the MP for Tatton two and a half years ago, my predecessor, Martin Bell, briefed me on several issues but particularly on the Clark case, which had been a large constituency case for him. We spoke about how to take forward the work that he had done for Sally Clark's family. I also met Stephen Clark, Sally's remarkable husband. My meeting with him dispelled any doubts that I had at the back of my mind about the merits of the case. He convinced me that a huge, terrible miscarriage of justice had taken place. Without him and the small team of relatives and supporters that came together to help Sally, she and perhaps other people would still be in prison. It was her case that brought forward the appeals of others and led to the series of events that we are discussing today.
When I first met Stephen, who came to Parliament to talk to me, there were few options open to us. Sally's first appeal had been dismissed and it seemed very unlikely that the Court of Appeal would consider that case again before some considerable time had passed. The General Medical Council was dragging its feet in investigating complaints that Martin Bell had brought against Dr. Alan Williams, who is also a constituent of mine, and Professor Michael Green. Both were key witnesses at Sally's trial. Indeed, it is a disgrace that three and a half years after Martin Bell first made those complaints to the GMC it has still done nothing about them, but that is not the main purpose of calling this debate.
I also applied to the Home Secretary to have Sally Clark's life tariff reviewed and reduced. I know from my conversations with him that he took his duties in this case very seriously but, sadly, he came to the decision that he could reduce by only one year the life tariff that had been set for Sally Clark at the time of her conviction. In short, we were getting nowhere. We found few people in the Government or the medical and legal establishment who were prepared to listen to our arguments about the unreliability of Professor Meadow's theories about sudden infant death syndrome. There was an unspoken but clearly implied suspicion among many people whom I met that, by speaking up for Sally Clark, one was in some way excusing the actions of a mother who had killed her children. That was the prevailing view that I encountered.
That was then, but much has changed. Sally was released after a second appeal last January. Then came the Trupti Patel acquittal and, finally and most

31WH
crucially, the Angela Cannings appeal and the clear and welcome judgment from the Court of Appeal. The Government and the medical and legal establishment are now falling over themselves to unravel what may be the greatest miscarriage of justice in this country in living memory—mothers wrongfully imprisoned after already suffering the agony of losing a child, families torn apart by evidence that, in some cases, they never even saw and could not challenge, lives destroyed by spurious medical theories, and a world of social services departments and family courts that were convinced by them. I say all that because it is important for all of us, as law makers, as Ministers and as representatives of our society, to remind ourselves of the cruelties and injustices carried out in the name of the law and society, and to resolve to learn from the experience and at least lessen the chance of it happening again.
When I applied for the debate two weeks ago, before I went off on my half-term holiday with my children, I feared that the Government were not doing all they could to right the wrongs of what had happened or to address all the implications of the Angela Cannings judgment. On the day of that judgment a month ago, the Attorney-General announced an immediate review of 258 criminal convictions for the murder, manslaughter and infanticide of a child under two where there may have been similar miscarriages of justice.
From the response of the Solicitor-General to an urgent question asked in the House the next day by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), it was clear that the work of identifying those 258 cases had begun the moment that Angela Cannings was released and before the Court of Appeal had published its full judgment. I have called ever since for a review of the Sally Clark case, and raised the issue with the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions in the middle of last year. I made the point that although the principal criticism in the Court of Appeal's judgment was directed at the pathologist, it also criticised the use of statistical evidence by Professor Meadow. I believed at the time that the work of Professor Meadow should have been reviewed as well as the work done by Dr. Williams, but that is in the past. As I said, the Attorney-General announced last month that there would be a review of the 258 criminal convictions.
It was also clear following the question that I asked the Solicitor-General on the same day that no similar review was under way for family court cases. Instead, she told me:
"The process of how to go about a review in family cases is now being considered."—[Official Report, 20 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1221.]
It was not clear at the time, and it is still not clear, why the Government had not done the same preparatory work on a review of family court cases as they appeared to have done for a review of criminal cases while awaiting the full judgment of the Court of Appeal. Instead—I warn the right hon. Lady that this is the only criticism that I intend to make, but I will get it out of the way—the Minister gave an ill-advised interview to The Sunday Telegraph the day before the judgment on 18 January, which she may concede was a mistake.
32WH
Certainly, the headline, "'We can't reunite thousands of mothers with children wrongfully taken from them'—Minister admits", caused many families unnecessary distress. The Minister went on to say that the number of family cases could run into
"thousands or even tens of thousands",
that the Government could not
"turn back the clock",
and that she
"hoped families understand that these are really, really difficult decisions we have to take."
As I said, that interview caused unnecessary alarm and distress, and it was wrong to have given the interview before the Court of Appeal had made its judgment. It would have been far better if the Minister had made the sort of announcement that she made yesterday. I am not saying that my calling for the debate and the production of the Minister's statement are connected, but they might be. I used to work in government and know that a parliamentary debate sometimes forces the mind of Departments and produces statements. If they are connected, calling for the debate has more than served its purpose.
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman can set his mind at rest about whether his debate triggered yesterday's announcement, because it certainly did not. I and several other Back Benchers have had long discussions with the Minister about the best way to proceed, and it is not the case that the Government were unprepared for the judgment. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, it is far more complicated to decide how to tackle the present issue than the relatively simple issue that the Attorney-General had to tackle and about which he was, therefore, able to make an announcement very quickly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his debate would have been the last thing to trigger the Minister's announcement yesterday.
Mr. Osborne: I was not claiming credit for that. I said that I was sure that my debate had not triggered the announcement. It was merely a coincidence that it happened the day before.
The Government could have spelled out much more clearly a month ago the approach that they were likely to take with family court cases. If the hon. and learned Lady reads the interview that the Minister gave in The Sunday Telegraph, she will see that the Minister outlined virtually everything that was announced yesterday. The Government could have said a month ago, "We are likely to ask local authorities to do this. We are likely to proceed in this manner." However, that is in the past, and I am prepared to move on.
We had nothing like the clarity with family court cases that we had with criminal cases.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has given due consideration to the fact that the Minister has been consulting. Is it not extremely important to consult all the relevant bodies?
Mr. Osborne: Of course consulting the relevant bodies is important. I am being dragged into a debate about the Minister's interview on 18 January. It was a big story in

33WH
The Sunday Telegraph, although I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw it. I have the article here and I am happy to send it to her and to the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). It makes the Minister's plans clear at considerable length. It states:
"Another option being considered by Mrs Hodge is to appoint a judge to trawl through the records of each authority to identify possible miscarriages of justice, but this would prove costly."
It also notes:
"Mrs Hodge is likely to ask local authorities to search through their records to find all family law cases involving Meadow."
Again, that is misleading, because she is not asking them to do that. However, the Minister gave that interview a month ago.
Vera Baird: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He asks why the Government have waited a month to make an announcement, when the Minister said everything a month ago. He then reads from the extract only to show that she did not say then what she announced yesterday. Clearly, she was in the process—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and I have recommended this to the hon. Gentleman as a good way to proceed—of thinking about what to do and of consulting others. Is the Minister really to be criticised for that?
Mr. Osborne: Instead of giving an interview a month ago, the Minister should have said, "We are looking at how to take these family court cases forward. These are the options that we are considering, and we are going to consult on them." That was the approach taken by the Solicitor-General, and it would have inspired more confidence in the ultimate outcome in this case. As I said, however, that is the past.
I would prefer everything to have happened last year. Indeed, I regularly asked oral and written questions in Parliament, and it took many weeks to get any kind of response from the Government. I sought meetings with Ministers, but they were not granted. I have been trying to take matters forward for more than a year. None the less, we are where we are.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who speaks for my party on such issues, I welcome what the Minister said yesterday. I also welcome the guidance that she is issuing to local authorities and the arrangements set out by the president of the family division. However, I have some concerns, which I hope the Minister can address. The first and most serious is an issue that I raised yesterday.
The review that the Minister has asked local authorities to carry out involves only cases in which
"a final care order was made in the past which involved harm to the child or a sibling, and in which the grounds for making an order depended exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between medical experts about the cause of harm."
When I asked the Minister why she was restricting the review to cases in which there was a serious disagreement between medical experts, she explained that this was because she was
"mindful of the Cannings judgment, which was very narrow indeed."
That means that the review leaves out cases in which there was no serious disagreement between medical experts, but where we now have strong grounds for
34WH
supposing that the medical evidence offered, although uncontested, was unsound. In criminal cases, which are what primarily concern the Court of Appeal, medical evidence is likely to be contested. A competent defence team will produce rival experts to try to convince the jury that the prosecution has got its case wrong.
I am not a lawyer, so I tread carefully in this area, but it seems to me that that does not necessarily happen in all family cases, perhaps because the family do not feel up to the ordeal of challenging the evidence, because they cannot find a suitable expert prepared to argue against the likes of Professor Meadow, because social services departments threaten the family with further action, possibly criminal action, if they contest the family court proceeding. The last point is particularly serious, and I ask the Minister to address it. I have spoken privately to the Solicitor-General about this—she is aware that there is a considerable issue here, and perhaps the Minister could address it in her response.
As I understand it, the Minister's review offers nothing for families where there is uncontested medical evidence. All she feels able to say is that she has
"no doubt that local authorities will, in cases where one particular individual was the sole expert in the proceedings, act in a sensible and rational manner and review them."
In other words, she seems not to be asking local authorities to review cases in which only one medical expert was involved, but she hopes that they will, none the less, review them. This seems a rather curious position to take—if she wants the cases reviewed, why does she not spell it out? Why this game of cat and mouse? Perhaps she can explain this position of not asking local authorities to review cases but hoping that they will. Surely the Court of Appeal judgment raises sufficient doubts about the theories of, for example, Professor Meadow, to justify a review of cases involving only his evidence.
The Minister was careful in her response yesterday to avoid mentioning Professor Meadow by name, and kept referring cryptically to "a particular individual", until she was eventually challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). She then said that it would be inappropriate
"to pass judgment on all the cases in which Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence, and in particular those involving children, before the General Medical Council has examined Sir Roy Meadow's professional competence and his evidence."—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 38––46.]
In my experience, waiting for the GMC is a bit like waiting for the next ice age. The complaints brought against two other experts in the Sally Clark case by my predecessor, Martin Bell, to the GMC three and a half years ago, have still not been dealt with. I do not wholly trust the medical profession to judge itself in these matters.
The Court of Appeal has delivered a damning verdict on the judgment of Sir Roy Meadow's evidence. Lord Justice Judge warned of the dangers of "an extensively dogmatic approach" and said very clearly:
"What is abundantly clear is that in our present state of knowledge it does not necessarily follow that three sudden, unexplained infant deaths in the same family leads to the inexorable conclusion that they must have resulted from the deliberate infliction of harm."
Lord Justice Judge also reminded us that the Court of Appeal had, in the Sally Clark case, been critical of Professor Meadow and his use of statistics, in particular

35WH
his now infamous claim that the likelihood of two sudden infant deaths was 73 million:l. That judgment, in Lord Justice Judge's words,
"served to undermine his high reputation and authority as a witness".
If that is the view of the Court of Appeal, why does the Minister feel that she still needs to wait on the GMC? Surely it would be sensible to ask local authorities at least to review all cases involving Professor Meadow's evidence, whether it was disputed or not, rather than relying, as the Minister seems to want to do, on the good sense of those local authorities to do so anyway.
If the first and most serious concern is the narrow scope of the review that the Minister has ordered, my second concern is what the Minister said about reuniting adoptive children with their birth parents. I fully accept that this is an extremely difficult area, and that the interests of the child must be paramount. However, I ask the Minister and, through her and this debate, the courts and local authorities to be as flexible as possible.
The Minister says that the scope for reopening existing adoption cases is extremely rare. Even the newspaper headlines today say, "Hodge rules out adoptions reversal." I understand that she quite properly does not want to give false hope to families, and that adoption is supposed to ensure permanence and finality for all involved. I can see that reopening adoption cases that are years old is very unlikely to be in the best interests of a child, even if a tragic mistake has been made. As a parent, I am not sure how I would react if my child had been taken away from me on the basis of false or misleading evidence. I can see that it is in the best interests of the child to be left in place.
What about more recent adoptions? What about those that took place a month ago or sometime last year? Are we really saying that it is impossible to unpick such cases when they are very recent? We should at least consider the option of trying to put families back together. One irony of the Sally Clark case is that she has been reunited with her family, even though she served time in prison for the murder of two of her children. Other families who have been before family courts may not have that option available to them. To borrow the Court of Appeal phrase, we must not be over-dogmatic in our approach, but there may be so many pressure groups and entrenched interests in the world of adoption that we may fall into the trap of being over-dogmatic.
Several hon. Members touched on my third concern—the role of local authorities in the review process. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said that
"bureaucracies are often ill-placed to review their own past assumptions and the errors flowing from them."—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 40.]
It is sensible to ask local authorities to review cases, as they are the only ones in a position to do so quickly. It would also be sensible to provide an external audit to make sure that they are carrying out their responsibilities rigorously and independently. Not all social services departments are as good as they should be. Some may have poor record-keeping; and others may be institutionally unwilling to revisit the decisions that they have taken.
36WH
The Minister says that she is confident that the independent review officers in local authorities provide sufficient independence to give her "confidence in the procedure". What about the confidence of parents? The hon. and learned Member for Redcar said that local authorities were the adversaries of parents in the vast majority, if not all, of such cases. Understandably, parents may be less trusting of local authorities in that process than the Minister. Would it not make sense for her to appoint a senior independent figure or panel to provide an external audit and oversee the process to guarantee its independence and thoroughness?
Finally, I raise a broader issue about how we allowed such a huge miscarriage of justice to occur in the first place. I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer. but I feel that all too often our legal and medical establishments get swept along by new-fangled theories and fads. Perhaps they are just like the rest of us. It seems to be the case particularly in the sensitive area of child abuse.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is the latest in a long line of theories that has now been discredited. Child abuse is, of course, a real and serious problem and we should do everything we can to stop it and root it out, but is it not time to heed the words of Dame Butler-Schloss 17 years ago? Her 1987 report after the Cleveland child abuse scandal warned of excessive reliance on expert opinion by local authorities and social services departments without sufficient corroborative evidence. The report said that it was important that social workers should not act solely on the basis of medical diagnoses, yet local authorities and courts continue to be blinded by the evidence of experts such as Professor Meadow without looking for corroborative evidence. How many more cases such as those of Sally Clark or Angela Cannings must we suffer before we as a society learn the lesson?
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. It is my intention to call the first Opposition spokesman at three o'clock. There appear to be five hon. Members who wish to catch my eye. If that is the case, I would like to call everyone, but it is in the hands of hon. Members. I hope that they will bear those time constraints in mind.
2.25 pm
Vera Baird: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing the debate, and on the diligence with which he has advanced his constituents' interests and joined others with a common interest to oppose this miscarriage of justice. I applaud the clarity with which he set out his concerns.
I am in the unique position in this Chamber of having cross-examined Professor Meadow. His is not just the latest of a recent set of theories. He has advanced his arguments for an enormous length of time. I cross-examined him in l988. It is not unkind to say that he invented Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and I do not use that word in a pejorative sense. He created it and has lived on it ever since. He was a permanent professional witness in cases where he felt that the syndrome—now highly questionable—existed, which is a difficult model.
It seemed that Professor Meadow was called into cases where there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that would answer the question of whether

37WH
injuries or deaths of children were accidental or deliberately caused by a parent. He was called in to say, "Now that I have looked at one of these parents"—almost invariably the mother—"she resembles the type of person who does injure their child." That was about the size of the evidence that he gave. It was an extra difficulty for anyone labelled as a sufferer of Munchausen syndrome that he asserted that a characteristic of the syndrome was that people who had it denied that they had it. Consequently, one went in circles trying to get out from under the expertise that he proffered, which was dangerous indeed.
I have to say, not necessarily in Professor Meadow's defence, that during the case in which I cross-examined him there was compelling evidence that one of the parents had been involved in harming children, so I suppose that there must be something in his theory. However, the matter has been troubling and it calls into question, as the hon. Gentleman said, the way in which the courts approach such evidence.
There is no doubt that such witnesses become very arrogant. Professor Meadow is the world expert in the subject, to whom everyone defers. Judges do not try to restrict that way of behaving. It is clear, as Lord Justice Judge said, that matters have become too dogmatic in the cases of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings. By that stage, I think we have gone beyond arrogance and dogmatism. We have stretched things so far that Professor Meadow, a paediatrician, is talking about statistics in front of a court that does not question his ability to do so for one moment. It is not his field at all. The Royal Statistical Society referred to his one in 73 million figure, which has already been mentioned, as a complete error, but he was allowed to give such evidence despite the fact that he was a paediatrician and not a statistician.
One problem with professional evidence is that it is hard for anyone who is less professional and less expert properly to judge it, or properly to restrain such experts from going too far. We now have the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, which is intended to accredit competent forensic practitioners. Its register relies upon peer review, but that would not have saved anyone from Professor Meadow, because it was not easy to review his work. One cannot engage in a peer review of the work of the man who has invented the syndrome and taken it forward himself. There is no peer to review it; thereafter, we can have only disciples. It is a difficult and problematic notion.
I shall not stray far from the subject of professional evidence but, in order to illustrate the importance of the debate, I should mention that other kinds of expert evidence can cause similar difficulties. I shall not give too many anecdotal examples but, in cases as recently as 2000, DNA could be checked down to about six strands only. Professional expert witnesses on both sides would agree that the figure might be one in double-figured millions, but they would still claim that it was one person and not another. DNA can now be taken down to 10, 12 or even 14 strands. In one case that went to appeal, the figure used at the original trial showed that it was either the accused person or the 37 million and first person after him. However, because in the intervening
38WH
three years, analysis went twice as far, the Court of Appeal was able without hesitation to say that it was not him. Expertise moves on, whether good or bad.
Ms Ann Coffey: Can my hon. and learned Friend help? I am not a lawyer. One thing that perplexes me is that in the original trial there was presumably a defence lawyer, a prosecution lawyer and a judge who at the end of the case gave a summing up. From what I have read, it appears that, when someone gives evidence as an expert witness, all of a sudden nothing else happens in court. Does not the defence challenge the expert witness? Does not the judge give guidance on the evidence when summing up?
Vera Baird: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Those steps are gone through in a number of cases. I am sure that Professor Meadow would be opposed by another paediatrician who would say that the evidence was not as clear as suggested. He may not call into question his theory about Munchausen by proxy syndrome, but he would say that the person did not fit that syndrome so neatly as suggested. Judges always have a duty to tell juries that we do not have trial by expert. They will say that the jury must decide which expert is right but that if they cannot decide they must give the benefit of the doubt.
It is an immensely difficult task and we have to countenance the fact—I shall return to it briefly—that for the past 20 years Professor Meadow has taken judges along with him. Most, if not all, of the cases that the hon. Member for Tatton mentioned were not jury trials, but cases in which the decisions were taken by the judges, who followed the professional evidence to the end. In my view, that causes a further problem.
Mr. John Burnett: The hon. and learned Lady always speaks on these matters with the greatest knowledge and experience, and in such measured terms. However, although I am sure that she is right to say it, I was surprised to hear that in a number of cases no one was called to challenge the evidence of experts such as Professor Meadow. My experience as a lawyer is not in that field but in taxation and planning, but whenever expert evidence has to be given in such cases—perhaps because more money is at stake—experts are always available to challenge the expert evidence.
Does the hon. and learned Lady believe that it is unacceptable to have only one expert witness at a trial? There should always be experts for the other side, and they should be properly funded.
Vera Baird: Again, that is a very important point, but difficulties can arise where one instructs an expert intended to oppose someone such as Professor Meadow and discovers that he agrees with him. Professor Meadow is leading his disciples. He is the predominant theorist on paediatric death. He is a teacher of many other paediatricians. The matter is not always as straightforward as it might appear at first sight. I heartily agree that expert evidence must always be properly funded in cases where it is required, but there can be pitfalls.

39WH
One can frequently be placed in the position—this may have been mentioned—where the only available challenge is what counsel can conjure up by way of cross-examination.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Lest it be thought that those representing the families were negligent in the way they presented their cases, I suggest—the hon. and learned Lady may agree with me—that in many cases there was nothing they could do to put up an expert on what is ultimately a matter of opinion and where there was probably no medical evidence as to what caused the child's death in a physiological sense. Therefore, they would have had to rely on other material and cross-examination. Yesterday, I raised the anxiety that the only cases being reviewed are those where other medical evidence was advanced.
Vera Baird: Again, I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made yesterday that it may not be sufficient. I had a tentative solution yesterday, to which I shall return briefly at the end, if I may, although I feel that the Minister has made a balanced and sensible announcement as to the right way to proceed.
We are countenancing difficulties that judges have had even over the past 20 years—as far back as my memory goes and perhaps longer—dealing with the power of such expert evidence. We must raise the question of what jurors are supposed to do, since they have far less training than judges in analysis, concentration and evaluation. Is it the position now, as Lord Justice Judge said, that if the outcome of a criminal trial depends on the serious disagreement between reputable experts, it will be unwise and therefore unsafe for prosecutions to proceed? If that is the case, what is the position in civil cases, where the only way to proceed on a lesser burden of proof is to do something as drastic and difficult as to take someone into care and then have them adopted? Is it to be that if there is a dispute between experts it is safer for social workers and local authorities not to proceed? That is a dangerous position in which to leave children and the issues are extremely complicated.
Mr. Robert Key: May I take the hon. and learned Lady back a step in the process and ask her to share with us her experience of the role of the police in investigating such cases? Certainly in the Angela Cannings case it was suggested that the police had made up their minds at an early stage that it stood to reason that three deaths must be murder.
Vera Baird: Professor Meadow has been treading the boards for 20 years saying that that is the case. It is probably difficult for anyone to take their judgment out of context and to think in another way. In the end, they had resort to Professor Meadow to see whether he could assist their position. There was no sign on the face of it—I will have to defer to the hon. Member for Tatton—of any lax investigation by the police. They appeared to be unable to decide what was what and so turned to expert evidence that was intended to help.
40WH
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. May I quickly raise one or two other concerns? The first is what we do about expert evidence. Secondly—I shall put this in a much lower key—what are we to do about the judiciary? There have been not just one or two appeals but the failure at trial. There is no doubt that a large number of the judiciary have been carried along by evidence that they probably should never have been carried along by. Cases yet to go to the Court of Appeal will represent the same model. Not only have experts been allowed to become, as Lord Justice Judge puts it, too dogmatic but, as I said, they are allowed to stray out of their area of expertise on the basis that, if they are superhuman about paediatrics, they must know about everything else and we cannot criticise them.
Another factor, which is hugely important in this case, is that most of the judiciary have been taught by Professor Meadow that this is the right approach to sudden infant death, because he was the lecturer of choice at the Judicial Studies Board for a long time. Therefore, there is not only the current problem but the problem that many of the judiciary continue to believe that Professor Meadow has something to say about paediatrics that they should follow. Although they will be well aware of the position today, once people are trained and enmeshed in a framework of thinking, it is quite difficult to get them out of it. Should we be trying to do something about that?
I come back to the point that there has not been the adversarial position of expert against expert that one would hope to find in most cases, mostly, one imagines, because of the phenomena that I have described: the leading opinion of the day tends to direct those behind it to some extent; or, as others have canvassed, people feel that they cannot oppose someone so mighty and powerful or, for many other reasons, do not do so. Therefore, the case has folded and has never been contested under the pressure of evidence from experts who may be called into question.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to think carefully about what I suggested yesterday. Social services departments are now being asked to look religiously and carefully through all their cases to find those that are subject to this kind of evidence and decide whether there should be a fresh hearing. It is almost inevitable that, once one has been in an adversarial position, with the best will in the world and with the best of intentions, one remains in it. Is it sufficiently independent just to settle for that? That, of course, does not cover cases where there has not been an adversarial position. It would be a long and difficult task for social services to go through all their uncontested files and ask "Which of these thousands had Professor Meadow in them?"
Would it not be a good idea to look at the other side, too? There has now been a great deal of publicity and many affected parents will know that they were subjected to that kind of evidence, but many may not. Many may not know the name of the expert who gave evidence against them, or the reason why their children were taken away. It will be a hard task for the Minister to tell everybody in the deepest, darkest corners of the world that they are in this situation and should look again at their child's case. If she were to ensure that a notice went out to all the family law solicitors registered

41WH
on the Law Society's panel, who are bound to have represented most of those affected by that kind of evidence, they could simply be told that, if they had such cases, they might like to look at the appeals of Cannings and Clark and may want to open their files and give their clients further advice. That would protect against all the dangers that arise from this slightly one-sided position. I commend that option to the Minister as something that she might seriously consider. None the less, I compliment her on her balanced judgment about the way in which we should go forward.
2.43 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I shall be brief. I have just three questions for the Minister, but first I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on his persistence in this matter and on obtaining today's debate.
Yes, Sally Clark's father remains a constituent of mine. I knew Sally Clark when she was a schoolgirl, attending the same school as my daughters in Salisbury. It came as an enormous shock to the whole community that this should have happened. Similarly, Mr. and Mrs. Cannings are constituents of mine and were popular in the community. It also came as an enormous shock to us all when their case occurred.
The three questions that I have for the Minister are straightforward. First, it is clear that prosecutions are continuing in the courts almost as if nothing had happened. Angela Cannings's solicitor, who is also my constituent, recently told me that he has two similar cases ongoing in the Crown courts and 10 more in the pipeline. What guidance have judges been given in the handling of those cases that should be treated with caution following the Cannings case? It is important that the public know what is happening.
Secondly, following the review, will the Minister issue guidelines, in good time, on how claims for compensation will be assessed? There will be compensation claims. What advice will local authorities be given? How will they be told to settle the claims? Will it be made clear that they should try to expedite those payments and not drag things out for years on end? Given the pressure on local authority resources and the Deputy Prime Minister's threats of capping, will those payments come out of ordinary social service budgets, or will the Government make available special resources over and above the normal local government settlements?
Thirdly, in the Chamber yesterday, I asked the Minister how social services departments could properly review those cases in which the evidence was heard in camera. She said that we would have to trust the professionals to take a common-sense approach. She is right about that, but can she confirm that suitably anonymised records have been made public in some of the cases that were heard in camera? Following the cases of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark, have judges been offered any advice as to whether that practice might be extended in the cases that have been referred to this afternoon, as opposed to the criminal cases involved? Those are the steps that we should and can take incrementally to improve the understanding of the situation and to ensure that the Government provide proper advice to all concerned.
2.46 pm
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I rise to speak warily, as there are so many people with expert knowledge in the Chamber, such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who has a professional background in child safety, and the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who have direct knowledge of this matter from the cases of their constituents, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings. We must also remember the telling case of Trupti Patel.
We have specifically been discussing expert evidence and the problem that arose from Sir Roy Meadow's evidence, but it is incumbent on us, as parliamentarians, to put into context our resolute and steadfast desire to protect children and to reaffirm the principles contained in the legislation on children, which we all support, whether or not we were in Parliament when it was introduced. Having recently become a mother, I know what the hon. Member for Tatton meant when he talked about being a parent. I sat for night after night considering the cases of those three women, wondering how I would have stayed sane in the same situation. When it comes to issues of child protection, especially those cases in which children have been adopted for many years, we know that the tenet set out in the legislation is that the best interests of the child should prevail.
While there are undoubtedly many wrongs, as those three cases illustrate, we must also put into context the small minority of figures and cases that we are talking about. People who do not have that insight may think that we are talking about thousands of people. Many parents may erroneously believe that their circumstances will somehow change. It is clear from the guidance in the Minister's balanced and well thought out statement yesterday that there are, in the family courts, somewhere in the region of 400 cases such as those that we are discussing, of which, I am led to believe, about 100 do not involve adoption. If those numbers are spread over the 150 or so social services councils, we are talking about very small numbers. It is important to clarify that.
Many hon. Members who have been in Parliament longer than me, or who have expert professional backgrounds, will be aware that, sadly, many parents do harm children. We must recognise that the overwhelming evidence is that the greatest harm that happens to children is perpetrated in the home.
What happened to those three women was a tragedy, and it is undoubtedly evident from the way in which expert evidence has been used that other cases will emerge, for which I am sorry. However, it is still the case that children are actually hurt and sometimes killed in the home by their parents. As a constituency Member, I have dealt with two cases of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. I am relieved to say that neither case was one of infanticide; however, both were serious, and they were dramatically different.
I want the Minister to concentrate on the fact that we will never be in a situation where we can rely on anything other than expert evidence. One of the problems that I had early on in my parliamentary career, which our social services department also had,

43WH
was the singular lack of choice of expert evidence. At that time only one person was prepared to talk to the council about Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
In one of the cases in my constituency, many decades of historical evidence were sadly available, which meant that the expert was not needed. There was undoubtedly a danger to the unborn child who eventually had to be removed from the parents. However, in the other case, which involved a very young Asian woman with a family background of not very high educational achievement, I am worried to this day that justice was not done. That does not mean that there were not serious problems that needed intervention from social services. However, in one case the diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by proxy was undoubtedly clear over decades of evidence from the medical profession that had tracked that family and those parents; in the other, the diagnosis was so weak that it was lamentable.
It is incumbent on all of us who deal with child protection issues to keep the matter in context. My heart goes out to the three women who are most in the public mind: Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar has spoken eloquently about the dangers of using singular and flawed expert evidence that is not questioned and scrutinised in the way. that would be necessary for justice to be done. However, it is incumbent on us all to realise that, sadly, we live in a world where children are not protected by the people who should care for them the most. We must not raise false hopes.
We heard yesterday from hon. Members who have adopted children. Trauma and turmoil must be going on in every adoptive parent's mind. They must be wondering whether their children, whom they take care of to the best of their ability, whether they are three, five, 15 or older, will somehow be wrenched from them.
We must ensure that at the end of the day we are very precise about what we do. We should review, as the Minister has suggested, those open cases that we can actively determine now. We should leave it to the Attorney-General to review the 258 cases on which he has embarked. We should look urgently at how expert evidence and singular expert evidence are used in a court of law. Let us not—especially not as a Parliament that has seen the publication of the most important Green Paper, "Every Child Matters"—lose sight of the fact that it is our job to ensure that children are protected everywhere by everybody.
2.53 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on her statement. Child protection is an extraordinarily difficult area and it arouses strong feelings. Parents are often afraid that at some time a social services department will come and lift their children for no reason. Strong feelings also emerge in the community at large. One need only look back at headlines over recent years to see how society reacts when it feels that a child has not been sufficiently protected. Some of the difficulty for people who work in that area comes from the fact that it is often not straightforward: there is often not clear evidence to show that a child has been abused. There may be no
44WH
marks, no bruises, no visible evidence, which is why expert witnesses are so attractive. They seem able, in a situation in which there is no clarity of evidence, to give clarity. That is their power. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is right in what she was saying about that. I also agree with her that dealing with expert evidence per se is not enough. We have to have a court system that is robust and in which the knowledge has to be invested in everybody in the judicial process hearing cases such as the Cannings case.
I entirely support the Minister's decision not to open adoptive cases. "Cases" is a word used when we are describing children. It is a difficult equation when talking about a concept such as justice, which we all adhere to, but sometimes justice for parents does not serve the best interests of the child. It would be absolutely wrong to open those cases in which children have been through a long process—as someone who has worked in adoption, I know that it can be a long process, one into which a lot of thought is put—and placed in families, only for that placement to be disturbed two or three years later. We cannot always have a perfect circle and perfect justice. I would entirely support the idea that we do not disturb adoptive placements.
Irrespective of everything else, the interests of the child must be paramount. Sometimes that is difficult when put alongside parents' rights. I am not sure we will ever have a perfect solution, which is why I believe that in this very difficult area and circumstances the Minister has presented a very balanced and fair way forward.
2.56 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), because it has been a very timely debate—whatever the reason for the timing? It gives us a much better chance to raise further questions.
Rather than going into the details of the legalities, which have been so admirably covered, we need to think about what lessons can be learned, what questions should be asked and what is the best way forward. I would like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Members for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) that the child's interests are paramount and that all the professionals must not be discouraged from investigating any alleged child abuse. It is a tremendous problem in our society. It may be the downside of some of the points that we have to talk about in this case.
We have heard the statistics so many times: one in 73 million for two sudden infant deaths in one family—on that basis, I cannot do the arithmetic to get it up to three sudden deaths. However, the statistic totally ignores the fact that there may be unknown genetic or other factors that predispose a family to sudden infant deaths. It is invalid. With hindsight—always very clever—we see how that false statistic had such a dramatic effect on all the media reports, and it is very difficult to believe that it did not influence judgments at the time.
It has now emerged that there was a history of sudden infant death in Angela Cannings's family. Her great grandmother and grandmother both lost babies in unexplained circumstances, suggesting that there might be a genetic link. There is also the claim that the effects

45WH
of a drug called Cisapride have resulted in hundreds of cases of wrong diagnosis worldwide. Although this drug has now been withdrawn from the UK market, I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be an investigation into it and any bearing that it might have on child deaths attributed to Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
It is now clear that when several child deaths occur in the same family there should not be an automatic conclusion that the dead infants were deliberately killed. There has to be an evaluation of the many other factors that might have contributed to the deaths. However, great weight was placed on Professor Sir Roy Meadow's theory and evidence over the years, and this may well have blinkered the people dealing with the child abuse cases. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, but with so much weight being given to a particular aspect, I wonder whether they might not have picked up all the other clues. The Court of Appeal judgment is very clear, that
"the prosecution of … parents for murder should not be started, or continued, unless there is additional cogent evidence, extraneous to the expert evidence …which"
leads to
"the conclusion that the infant … was deliberately harmed."
However, we still have to ask the same questions as far as the family court is concerned: what will be the role of expert witnesses, and how will they be handled in the future? I do not have the knowledge, but I have the questions here.
Given the fact that there could be thousands of cases in which some form of injustice has occurred, the Minister has been in the unenviable position of deciding the best way forward. I share her concerns as well as expressing my sympathy for all the families that have been involved in this. I would like to thank the Minister for the clear and logical statement yesterday, and wholeheartedly agree with her underlying premise that the children's interests must be paramount. However, questions remain about how far we can proceed.
I asked a question yesterday about a national helpline, because I believe that there needs to be more publicity regarding help, advice and perhaps even counselling for all the people caught up in these tragedies. Some families have described themselves as going through hell. The Minister said:
"If birth parents are worried, they should take their own legal advice"—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 39.]
I am emphasising that and perhaps taking it out of context, but it is not good enough—people need more support than that. I am aware that every local authority is required to have an adoption support services adviser, but would everybody who might want advice know that? Will anybody who believes that their children were falsely taken away from them want to go back to that same local authority for advice? I ask her to give more thought to this issue of how those troubled people get help and support.
Social services departments throughout the country now have the task of reviewing cases directly or responding to the Attorney-General's review. I presume that the same staff who were instrumental in children being taken away from their parents, and in some cases arranging adoption, will carry out the review. Given the circumstances, and the fact that we now know that
46WH
undue weight was given to certain expert witnesses, will the Minister give consideration to the points that I raised yesterday on monitoring councils, and indeed to the helpful remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) suggesting the involvement of the Law Society's family law practitioner group?
The president of the Association of Directors of Social Services said in a press release in January:
"No child will have been adopted or taken into care solely on the basis of expert witnesses. Decisions to recommend their adoption and being received into care will have been made by courts who will have ascertained that the cases pass all the other welfare tests contained within children's legislation."
I want to place it on the record that I admire the professionalism of all those involved in child protection, but I have a niggling doubt about the blinkering effect, and not being able to see the wood for the trees. I wonder whether an external review of a sample of cases might be considered. I take on board what the hon. Member for Tatton has said about those cases in which expert evidence was not challenged, and it is a concern that these matters are not really being considered. The Minister said yesterday that care orders are reviewed every six months. Will she give some additional guidance for those six-monthly reviews? More could be done there.
I asked a question yesterday that did not work out very well, given the time span, so if the Minister will forgive me I will expand on it slightly. I am concerned about investigations into the deaths of children who have been adopted. Has there been any research on the links between such children and families allegedly affected by Munchausen syndrome by proxy? Perhaps that clarifies my point. Such research would throw further light on the evidence that Sir Roy Meadow gave and would provide more information. Come what may, we must learn from all these events.
Mr. Grieve: I doubt whether such research would be very beneficial, as sudden infant death syndrome, or cot death, occurs in the first few months of life. It is most unlikely that there would be meaningful statistics about the incidence of death for children who survived long enough to go through the care and adoption process.
Mrs. Brooke: I am aware of the short time span, which is why I believe that such research would not be an enormous piece of work. Some children are placed quickly. If there were such a threat, it would be interesting to examine it.
I wish to join those who point to the need for resources for social services departments. We know how hard-pressed they are. It is incredibly important that this enormous piece of work is done thoroughly.
The issue of compensation has also been raised. Again, I add my voice to those urging the Minister to consider how it will be provided. It is important to make a statement as soon as possible. It is almost impossible fully to understand the trauma that would result from unpicking cases in which adoption has taken place. However, visitation rights will be incredibly important. I hope that she will encourage everyone to be as flexible as possible while taking on board the best interests of the child.

47WH
This has been an important debate and there are many questions to be answered. I hope that the Minister will continually review the whole process, as there will be changing aspects and further questions as we go along. Most of all, we must respect the fact that many people are troubled and damaged as a consequence of a miscarriage of justice.
3.7 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing this debate, which is very important and particularly opportune in the context of the Minister's statement yesterday. I wish to avoid repeating too many of my comments in response to that statement, but several matters have been touched on this afternoon that are of relevance when we consider, first, how to deal with the serious problem that has arisen in respect of children who have been taken into care or adopted, and secondly, how we might avoid a repetition of such events.
Let me begin by discussing the Minister's announcement on what she and the Government will do about what has happened in the context of family cases. I am delighted that she announced a review of cases. I am sure that it will go a long way towards enabling miscarriages of justice to be remedied. I fully accept that turning the clock back may be impossible if, for instance, a child was adopted some time ago. She was perfectly right to make that point clear. I do not want to get bogged down in the initial discussion about what happened before the announcements of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, but it was unfortunate that she did not wait to tell the House about her plans before telling a national newspaper. I believe that it distorted some of the things that she said, which is perhaps an illustration of why it is dangerous to do that rather than telling us first.
On the reviews, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made some important points about the nature of child care cases. As the Minister knows from my comments yesterday, I am concerned that we are being too restrictive in relation to the categories of cases that will be reviewed. I fully understand that it makes sense, in theory, that they should be the cases in which there was a clash of medical evidence. However, I fear that there will have been many cases—I was pleased that the hon. and learned Lady echoed this-in which, in practical terms, the evidence of Professor Sir Roy Meadow went unchallenged. It was, after all, not evidence about the physical condition of a child. It was evidence relating to a theory, with some statistics thrown in. Such evidence is difficult to challenge.
Speaking to professional colleagues of mine, I detect—this is no more than anecdotal evidence, and I could not look up the statistics, because I would not have access to them—that there will have been, first, many cases in which the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service combined with the local authority to commission Professor Meadow to give an agreed report; and secondly, many cases in which families decided on perfectly sensible legal advice that although they would challenge other areas of the case,
48WH
and indeed cross-examine Professor Meadow, they would not, in the light of other circumstances, try to find an expert opinion of their own to counter it.
There must be a serious danger that, if we confine the review cases to those outlined by the Minister, we will miss many other cases that need to be reviewed as well. Of course, they can still be reviewed if the family goes to court, but as the Minister acknowledges, the reason for asking a local authority to carry out a review is that there is a clear understanding on the part of the Government that there is an onus on the local authorities, helped by the Government, to remedy possible miscarriages of justice.
I ask the Minister to speak to her advisers about the matter and consider it further. The issue is serious. We are likely to find that the more articulate families—those with better resources—will start to bring challenges, and it will then become clear that those cases need to be reviewed as well. I have not the slightest idea how many cases might fall into that category, but I have an absolute gut feeling that there will be some.
I want to deal with the other point that I raised, about local authorities reviewing themselves. The Minister is quite right: there is no criticism of local authorities as such in relation to what has happened. They went on expert advice. However, she must be alive to the realities of the limitations on local authority social services, especially in relation to child care. I have been dealing with one local authority close to me over the past nine months in relation to a child in care. It has struck me forcefully that every letter that I write is replied to by a new key worker for that child. The turnover of staff means that there will be difficulties relating back to what was going on when the events took place.
Assumptions come to be made in bureaucracies, and having been taken down one road, with a particular set of assumptions, it may be difficult to shake off that mindset and start to take an independent and critical view of what was done in the past, even if it was done properly and with the best of intentions. The Minister mentioned yesterday that there was an independent review officer who might be able to help. She may be able to amplify that. There needs to be a transparent measure of independent scrutiny. Reasons need to be given, to families in particular, so that people understand what is happening if local authorities decide that a case does not require reopening.
In the short time available—I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond—I will turn to one or two background issues. How did we get ourselves into this mess? This is not the first time this has happened. The Cleveland child abuse case was a telling example of how one gets oneself into such a hole. Anxiety about children being sexually abused was widespread in the country and there was the belief that sexual abuse was under-diagnosed. I even remember the name of the doctor: Marietta Higgs. She came along and said that it was possible to make a definite diagnosis of child abuse based on a particular kind of physical examination. As soon as that news came out, the local authorities in that part of the world leapt on the bandwagon and said that the development provided an answer to what had previously been unanswerable. It was only when the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) stepped in and said that all common sense had been

49WH
abandoned that common sense slowly returned. By that time, however, a huge amount of damage had been done.
I am conscious of the fact that we are under a requirement to protect children, but with all respect to the hon. Members for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey), there is a blame culture in our society, and we as MPs are partly responsible for it. There is a belief that somebody must be responsible for everything and that nothing should remain inexplicable. Taken together, those views have become powerful forces in initiating what turn out to be witch hunts. We then latch on to the people who will help us to carry them out, and I am afraid that that is what appears to have happened in the case of Sir Roy Meadow. He provided an answer to a question that had previously been unanswerable, and the mantras that he recited overcame our anxiety about inexplicable cot deaths. I fear that the same will happen again unless we constantly remind ourselves that judgments in human society are fallible and that some things will always remain unexplained. Much as we may wish to protect children, we must accept that the benefit of the doubt lies with families. When a child's death is unexplained, we should not interfere lightly in family members' relations with other siblings.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to misrepresent what I said. Having dealt with child protection issues for a considerable time and in considerable depth as a Member of Parliament, he will agree that he is talking about the minority of cases. I was trying to put on record the belief that we must not, as a result of such cases, go against the huge amount of sterling work that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have done to get people to acknowledge how big an issue child abuse by family members is. I was separating the two issues, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar also eloquently made the point about unchallenged expert evidence.
Mr. Grieve: Of course I agree with the hon. Lady, and I did not want to misrepresent her. We are talking about a minority of cases, and child abuse is a serious problem in families. The problem is that situations such as the one that we are discussing can damage the entire system of protections against child abuse, and miscarriages of justice can undermine its credibility. That is why we must be so careful.
I wish to give the Minister ample time to reply, and I apologise for going slightly over time. These are important issues, and I look forward to continuing to co-operate with her on them. However, we must start thinking carefully about how to avoid a repetition of such tragedies.
3.17 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing the debate, which, fortuitously, takes place on the day after my statement.
I want to say three things about why I took some time before making yesterday's statement. First, I felt that it was more important to get it right than to get it out fast.
50WH
The issues with which I had to deal were extremely complicated and touched on the lives of many children, their birth families, and in some cases their adoptive families, so I wanted to get them right. Every time one sits down and thinks about them, other issues arise. I am sure that hon. Members have also done a lot of thinking about these extremely complicated issues.
Secondly, I wanted to consult, and before coming to the House yesterday I consulted widely with all the stakeholders—the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Association of Directors of Social Services and those responsible for the justice system. I felt that it was important to have that process of consultation.
Thirdly, let me explain one of my reasons for giving the interview to The Sunday Telegraph. When the House or the Government attempt to reach decisions on such complex issues, it is important that we share some of the complexities with the wider public. Of course, the House is the place where we discuss and decide on issues, but the wider public also have an interest. I was attempting in that article to raise some of the difficulties with which we have to contend.
The hon. Member for Tatton asked whether the scope of the review was too narrow. We have had to operate within the confines of the judgments in question, as is appropriate. It would be inappropriate for the Government to come to a judgment about people such as Professor Meadow or anyone else before the relevant authorities had validated it. Hon. Members would have criticised us if we had come to those judgments before the General Medical Council, the courts or any other body charged with making such judgments had reached a decision. We had to work within those confines. We have made the review wider in that we have gone beyond those instances where a child has died. We have asked local authorities to review those care cases in which the disputed medical evidence was the principal reason for the decision to take care proceedings. That is already widening the judgment.
I accept the difficulties with the credence given to Professor Meadow that a number of hon. Members have raised. However, we do not know whether he was right or wrong in many of the cases in which he gave expert evidence; nobody has challenged his judgment in every case in which he was an expert witness. We also have no knowledge of all the cases in which he was involved.
Mr. Burnett: I am sure that the Minister will concede that no one, not even the greatest expert, has a monopoly of learning and wisdom, so that in any case with such profound consequences every expert should be challenged by another expert.
Margaret Hodge: That is an interesting presumption. One of the issues that I have been discussing with the president of the family division is whether it might not be better if there were not always contested expert evidence given in cases and whether agreed expert evidence might not be given across the parties. People are moving in that direction, because in that way the exceedingly difficult judgments that our judges or juries must make to determine who among those giving contested medical evidence is right are not left to the lay

51WH
person. The hon. Gentleman says that there ought to be contested medical or expert evidence given in cases so that judges or juries can consider the different points of view, but the argument that agreed expert evidence can be more helpful in reaching a proper decision is equally valid.
Professor Meadow's evidence is still under question, which is why we must await the outcome of the GMC inquiry, frustrating as that might be to some hon. Members and to families whose children's future hinges on it.
Given the absence of certainty about the credibility or otherwise of Professor Meadow's evidence, if we had extended the inquiry to consider cases in which only one expert witness was called, we would have had to go further and consider cases with all other expert medical witnesses. That would have opened the parameters of the inquiry too far. The judgment was difficult, but I think that we got it about right.
I share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and others about adoption. It would have been wrong for us to try to reopen cases in which, because of the interests of the child, adoption orders are unlikely to be undone. Opening a review would have been beyond the parameters that we set out in our statement yesterday, and would have given false hope. It would also have greatly concerned a huge number of adoptive parents and adopted children, who may be safely settled in their homes.
I also have to be very conscious of my proper role as the Minister for Children, in which I have authority over the way in which social services departments conduct themselves. The decisions taken by courts are theirs to take. If a court has taken a decision about an adoption order, and if all the individuals concerned in that adoption, be it the birth parent, the adoptive parent or the adopted child, believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice, it is right that they should return to the courts so that they can feel that justice is done.
The hon. Member for Tatton also made a point about the role of local authorities. We have introduced several mechanisms that will ensure that local authorities act properly and objectively, taking into account the interests of all parties. Most authorities now have advocacy arrangements as well as an independent reviewing officer. All authorities will have advocacy arrangements by April this year. Those are two examples of existing mechanisms that will ensure that we can protect the interests of all those who have an interest in the issue.
52WH
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) asked whether we should write to the Law Society to draw its attention to the Cannings judgment—a point that she made yesterday—to encourage it to communicate with former clients. I am considering that possibility with colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs to see how we can take that further.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made several detailed points. I can tell him that the president of the family division will issue to judges advice arising from the Cannings judgment.
Several hon. Members mentioned claims for compensation. That is it matter for individuals, but I will keep it under review and see what happens. Each case will be very different, and we will have to monitor them. The president of the family division is also considering whether she can make the anonymised records more public in the judgments made in the family courts around these proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale talked about lack of choice in expert evidence. One of the dangers of swinging the pendulum too far against expert evidence is that we discourage many medical experts from engaging in the very important work of investigating cases in which there is a suspicion of harm. We want to ensure that we safeguard children. I agree with her point that people are now unwilling to participate in such work. Not enough paediatricians are prepared to engage in work relating to allegations of child abuse. That is why I went out of my way yesterday to state the very great support that we give to all professionals, be they police officers, paediatricians or social workers, in the work that they do to safeguard children. I reiterate that we, as a society, must recognise that contribution and continue to support them in that work.
Finally, the interests of children must be at the heart of everything that we do, as several hon. Members have said. I must be sure that I constantly pursue my legitimate role as Minister for Children, which is to look after those children who come into the care system, while others have the job of looking after children in other areas.
Children are abused, and we cannot walk away from that. We face the difficulty of achieving a balance. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) quite rightly states that judgments are bound to be fallible. We have to accept that, but we must be prepared to learn from our mistakes and absorb new knowledge, and especially medical expertise, as medicine changes so quickly. That will ensure that at all times we have the best possible evidence for making the very difficult judgments that have such a huge impact on the lives of children, their parents and their adoptive parents.

Children's Fund (Somerset)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a great pleasure to have this debate, although it seems a little harsh on the Minister for Children to have to respond to two consecutive debates.
I suspect that many of our constituents and some right hon. and hon. Members have only a hazy concept of the children's fund and what it sets out to achieve. I do not intend to criticise it, its objectives or the way that it operates in Somerset. Quite the reverse: it is a most valuable tool for performing some important tasks that would otherwise slip between the responsibilities of the statutory agencies.
If we are serious about helping disadvantaged children in a wide range of spheres we must have such funding, particularly in a county such as Somerset, which often loses out on mainstream funding because it does not meet the criterion of inner-city deprivation. Contrary to the established view, I would argue that to be a poor child in a rural area is to be much more excluded than a child in similar circumstances in an inner-city area.
The fund has already accomplished a significant amount in Somerset. I will not read out all the schemes operating in the county which are on the very long list of those paid for by the fund. In my town of Frome there are schemes to support the transition of children at year 8 in the middle school system; summer activities on the Mount estate, which is one of the more disadvantaged estates; breakfast and after-school clubs; and Frome inclusion partnership, which provides one-to-one support for five to 13–year olds. In the wider rural area, particularly in south Somerset, there are schemes that deal with at-risk children and bullying; schemes that provide support for children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves involved with the women's refuge in Yeovil, which, although located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), also serves mine; and schemes for young carers, who are often forgotten about.
On a county-wide basis, there is support for the youth offending team. That is desperately important if we are serious about fighting the causes of crime, which means intervening at an early stage to help young people avoid getting into a criminal way of life. A restorative justice team works within schools to provide a new and, many would argue, better way of dealing with young offenders and with traveller children, which is a significant issue throughout much of my constituency.
I hope that I have provided an overview of a very successful and worthwhile partnership that is very much in line with the Government's stated objectives for young people, as set out in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters". They include the hope that young people will grow up healthy, emotionally secure and confident; that they succeed at school and stay out of trouble; that they live in a safe place; and that they have the opportunity to succeed in achieving their dreams. Those are exactly the objectives that we would want for our own children and all the other children in our communities. That is why the issue is so important.
Somerset has developed a n effective local preventative strategy. All credit is due to Barnardo's, the lead agency in Somerset, and the statutory and the
54WH
voluntary agencies that co-operated with it. Indeed, that seems also to be the view of the Government, whose Government office for the south-west commended the local team on its delivery plan. It was praised for its strong management board, which devised a comprehensive and carefully crafted programme of services to meet local needs. That is in all ways a good news story, something to applaud and something worth while—so why am I having this debate?
I am not here entirely to celebrate the work of the children's fund in Somerset, as the Minister will quickly appreciate. The first person to visit my surgery in Frome two or three weeks ago was Margaret Binney, a lady whom I know reasonably well. She is a tower of strength in the local community and works tirelessly in all sorts of ways in community education and with people who are disadvantaged. She has recently been giving her time voluntarily to a two-week summer school serving children in the most disadvantaged wards in Frome. It was attended by more than 70 children and, by all accounts, was a great success. It was hugely appreciated by the children and their parents.
Margaret Binney was distraught because she had learned that the scheme, which she thought was going from strength to strength and which she hoped to expand in the coming year, was facing a 24 per cent. cut in funding. She said that all her hard work, optimism and enthusiasm were not to be rewarded. She was followed at the same surgery by a succession of other constituents who had been involved with children's fund activities. They all confirmed the situation faced by the fund in Somerset and all expressed concern about the consequences for the scheme.
The Minister will know that Somerset is involved in a wave 3 scheme—we often seem to be latecomers to many programmes, but better late than never. As a result, the scheme did not start until April last year. The programmes were developed on the basis of a promised £3.6 million over three years, starting in April 2003, with an average annual allocation—that is how such matters are now accounted—of £1.2 million.
The organisers of the programme took careful account of the advice that they received from the Government office for the south-west, which was to build up the funding gradually. They were told not to spend every penny in the first year because the business of letting contracts and making other arrangements would mean that it was not feasible. It was suggested that they built it up in the first year, go for full funding in the second year and then back to an average of £1.2 million in the third year. That is exactly what was done, based on the experience in the south-west of the first and second wave in Bristol and Cornwall. Not only did the organisers plan expenditure on that basis, but they made contracts with other providers to make it a reality.
The first sign of a problem—I shall set aside for a moment the clawback of underspend, which I understand; I am not asking for the impossible—was a warning from the Department for Education and Skills last autumn that the figures previously announced might not be met in full. The reality is that they are not going to be met anything like in full. The Somerset children's fund schemes have been told that they face cuts of 15 per cent. below the average annual allocation

55WH
in 2004–05 and 33.3 per cent. below AAA in 2005–06. As a result of the profile of spend, with that hump in the middle, next year we face a 24 per cent. cut.
That is distressing in a number of ways, not simply because of the worthwhile schemes that now might not go ahead, but because of its impact on those who provide and run the schemes, whose enthusiasm we need and whose encouragement should be a high priority. It is also distressing for the children themselves, who had raised expectations which they now find dashed. I understand—the Minister will correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick—that the problem of funding the scheme over the next couple of years is national. My attention has been drawn to the editorial in the February edition of Children Now. It is not desperately friendly towards the Government on the impact of the funding problem, although it is supportive of their intentions, which is exactly my position. I, too, am supportive of the intention, but concerned about the consequences.
Children Now makes an important point: if we are to achieve the things the Minister wants to achieve in her Green Paper—most reasonable people would support the completion of those plans—we need the trust, enthusiasm and skills of people not only in the professional sector and the statutory agencies, but in the voluntary sector as well. The editorial says:
"The Government needs to retain the trust of professionals and managers in the statutory and voluntary sectors for its proposed reforms to stand a chance. At the moment it is squandering that trust".
I suspect that the Minister has good news and will tell me that money has been found. There was a verbal announcement last week of an extra £20 million across the country. I hope that she confirms that figure today. It would be very welcome. I do not know which back pocket it came from. Perhaps she will tell me—or perhaps not—but at least someone has recognised that there is a problem. However, the money will still not meet the needs of the schemes around the country. It will improve the funding in Somerset, but we will still be below the AAA level and well below the contracted amount. So there will still be substantial cutbacks in programmes next year. That is a disaster in all sorts of ways.
I draw attention to the situation in Somerset because I feel for my constituents when they come to see me and say how disappointed they are with the situation. My duty as a constituency MP is to bring that to the attention of the House and to tackle Ministers on it. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that additional figure because it is important. I understand that it has not yet been put in writing to the various schemes around the country, but I hope that it soon will be.
Perhaps the Minister will explain why we are in this situation. Has the statutory sector within the DFES swallowed up the funding; is it a knock-on effect of the difficulties that we all acknowledged with schools' funding last year; or is it a result of the impact of higher or further education? What is eating into the Minister's funds in that way to result in such a change? Can she continue the three-year rolling funding programme? The worst thing that can be done is to promise people
56WH
three years' funding and then change one's mind after one year. That is no way to run anything. I am afraid it smacks of—I will not say incompetence because difficult decisions have had to be taken—the fact that somebody somewhere along the line has got the sums wrong. That problem should be recognised.
What will happen next year? I understand that the £20 million is a one-off payment for this year. Perhaps the Minister will tell IT e that it is recurrent expenditure. That would be helpful in relation to forward planning, but perhaps it is not recurrent. Will she confirm that it is the Government's view that the children's fund is achieving their objectives? If it is, are they prepared to supply the financial and political backing to make it work? Will they provide the assurance, which the voluntary and the professional sector is waiting to hear, that such a situation will not be allowed to happen again? There must be a clear funding stream available in the Department which the Minister can control so that she ensures that it gets to where it is needed.
I finish with the conclusion of the letter from my constituent, Margaret Binney:
"In Britain today we seem to have fallen into the trap of cutting everything that is good and successful. Please can you tell the politicians to stop offering new initiatives without proper thought as to where sustainable funding will come from? It is essentially very cruel to raise people's expectations only to dash them almost immediately."
I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is. not the situation today, and that it will not be the situation in future, if we are to support such worthwhile schemes.
3.46 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate. I hope that I can give him the assurances that he seeks. I endorse what he said about the importance of the children's fund. It is one of the Government's exciting and successful innovations to invest in services for a group of children who often miss out: the five to-year old group.
We have developed services for under-fives, we do quite a lot to provide for children in their teenage years, but we often forget about services for the crucial five to 13-year-old group, at which the children's fund is directed. The fund has been successful in building lots of exciting projects that support children, most of them run by the voluntary sector. They provide key support for children before things go wrong. We provide preventative services that are crucial in ensuring that children can meet their potential and do not fall through the net into greater difficulties, increasing the demand on public services and damaging their life chances.
That process is important, and it is why we emphasised the shift to prevention in the Green Paper entitled "Every Child Matters". I see a future for children's fund activities within a world in which children's trusts, which we hope will be in place in most authorities by 2006–08, have the responsibility and funding to support such projects in every community, determined locally and meeting local needs, aspirations and priorities. That is how we anticipate that developing. The children's fund sets the tone and demonstrates the sot of policies that will work in the context of our new proposals for children's services.

57WH
I pay tribute to the Somerset children's fund. Barnardo's, which runs many of the children's fund partnerships for us throughout the country, is doing a very good job. A lot of good projects have begun in Somerset. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned one or two. I have been told about a couple of programmes in Somerset, such as Somkids, which is a parenting course for families with children aged five to 13 who have early signs of emotional difficulties. The course helps parents to understand and to listen to their children. It will help children feel happier and more confident about themselves. Groups for children and young people run alongside the parenting groups.
The other scheme that was drawn to my attention and sounded very good was the Minehead middle school transition service, which supports children and parents through the transition from first schools to middle school, in years 4 and 5. There arc two liaison workers, who spend every morning in first schools getting to know the pupils and supporting them in year 5, in September. That is a targeted service for those in the eight to 10-year-old group who are experiencing special educational needs or learning difficulties, who may be subject to bullying or antisocial behaviour or who may themselves have shown some criminal behaviour. Again, that is a good project.
I pay tribute to what is happening in Somerset around the particular needs of people such as traveller children, those from ethnic minorities, children living in temporary accommodation, children with learning and physical disabilities, those with hidden disabilities, children in rural isolation and refugee children. Those are all very good things, which we want to sustain.
I come to the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about funding for his particular children's fund. He is right to say that there has been an impact in Somerset and Frome and in partnerships across country. I sincerely regret and recognise the problems that there have been in the funding of the children's fund and the uncertainties that that has caused in partnerships not just in Somerset but across the country. I sincerely apologise for those difficulties and I assure him, you, Mr. Amess and other hon. Members that we are working hard to get stability back into the programme, and to ensure that the budget is better identified and better managed from here onwards.
Let me explain why we have got ourselves into this situation. We embarked on the children's fund some three or four years ago. The funding is for very small voluntary organisation projects on the ground in every community. It took some time to get those projects off the ground. Therefore, in the early years of the children's fund, there was a considerable underspend. I am sure that you, Mr. Amess, will know that that has been drawn to the attention of hon. Members in the House every now and again.
To deal with that underspend, some sensible decisions were taken, as well as some perhaps less sensible ones. Sensible decisions were taken to top-slice some money for projects such as the summer play schemes for children in danger of getting involved in crime, or to fund some of the work that we are doing around information referral and tracking systems, which are part of the Green Paper proposals. Some money was used for contact centres for children who were not living with both their parents—their parents were separated or
58WH
divorced. That was sensible. We never cut the money and it has not been used for other purposes. It was always used in the preventative area for the five to 13year-old age group.
There were still fears that we would underspend the budget, so we gave allocations to partnerships that represented over-programming—15 per cent over-programming, more money than was available—and we allowed partnerships to carry forward underspends. The mix of allowing over-programming and carrying forward underspends led us into some of the financial difficulties. It meant that we were heading for an overspend—not that we were removing the funding that was available for these particular projects on the ground in local communities—and that we were in danger of spending more than the £450 million that we had been given by the Treasury towards children's fund activities. That is why we started looking at how we could cut spending plans to stay within the budget framework that we had been set by the Treasury.
Having taken those earlier decisions, however, I recognised that, for many partnerships, that change halfway through meant that projects that thought they had secure funding suddenly faced cuts. That is why I am pleased to confirm that we have found extra money for 2004–05, which will bring the allocation back to the £160 million that the partnerships were expecting. It will mean that, on our present plans, we will actually spend during the three-year period in excess of the £450 million that was allocated by the Treasury. With the additional £20 million, we will probably spend closer to £470 million.
We hope by the end of this week to give information to individual partnerships about how the additional national resources can be used locally. The Somerton and Frome partnership will then have a clearer indication of the resources available to it for 2004–05.
Mr. Heath: I am pleased with what the Minister is saying. Can she tell me whether any view has been taken on the spending profile that was urged on the partnerships by the Government? Will it be recognised in the allocation of additional funds? It seems critical that spending bulges are recognised.
Margaret Hodge: We recognise that problems may still exist for authorities that were in the so-called wave 3 programme, because of the way in which they profiled expenditure, with less spent in 2003–04, much more in 2004–05 and gradually declining amounts in 2005–06. It is to deal with such problems that we will set aside from the additional moneys a small contingency figure. It will be mainly but not solely available to authorities in the wave 3 programme that are facing particular problems. Again, we will make that clear to partnerships such as Somerton and Frome when we write to them at the end of this week.
The hon. Gentleman asked about 2005–06, which still leaves us with some difficulties. I want to approach that in a collaborative way with all the stakeholders: the large voluntary organisations, the many small voluntary organisations that have initiated good projects out of the funding and the local authorities and others who have an interest in the matter. I understand that everyone is keen to get some indication of the funding

59WH
that will be available for 2005–06, so that they can start to plan effectively. Therefore, we have set a figure of £110 million for 2005–06, but I emphasise that final decisions will depend on the outcome of our discussions with partnerships and, of course, on the outcome of the spending review on which we are just embarking.
I hope that I have given some certainty to the hon. Gentleman and to people in his community who have been very distressed by the instability caused by decisions that were taken by the Department at an earlier stage. I leave him with this reassurance. The projects and programmes that have been initiated through the children's fund are vital. If we are to shift the emphasis of what we do from intervening when things go wrong in children's lives to preventing things from going wrong, these small, targeted, preventative programmes in local communities are utterly central. That is why I wish to engage in discussions and collaboration with the organisations on the ground and the partnerships to consider how we can best achieve stability in the next two or three years and how we can then sustain the effort and projects into the new world when children's trusts will drive children's services in every community.

Asbestos Claims
4 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I thank Mr. Speaker through you, Mr. Amess, for giving me the opportunity to stage this short debate today. It is a debate that I wish I did not have to initiate or contribute to, because it concerns the firm of Mclvor and Sons Ltd. in Birkenhead, which was established in 1864 and until recently employed 25 people. It has now shut its doors and called in the liquidators, and it is the circumstances of that liquidation that I wish to debate with the Minister today.
In a sense it is appalling that I am having to ask for a debate on this issue, but it is doubly appalling given who I am debating with. I have said before, although I do not say it often now because it may damage her political future, that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is clearly our most attractive younger Minister. If one were thinking of putting money on who would go near the top, one would be wise to put money on her. Yet I hope that she will draw two important lessons from today's debate and that the Treasury will not only answer letters more efficiently but will be more receptive to the policy issues raised. I shall now detail the backbone of my complaint.
The person who ran Mclvor contacted me in mid-June and I immediately inquired in the House of Commons Library which civil servant in which Department was in charge of the asbestos claims procedure. I have no complaint to make against the Library, because within days I was told who the person was, and I phoned the Treasury on a number of occasions to ask to speak directly to him. During that week, he was endlessly away from his desk, no doubt quite properly: civil servants, like the rest of us, are entitled to holidays.
The weeks went by and I was still not getting a reply from the Treasury, though people were promising me one, so a month later I wrote to the Chief Secretary to ask him whether I could meet the official to talk about the moral hazard faced by the firm that I represent in Birkenhead and all the other firms in the country with asbestos claims. Even though premiums were paid to a company called Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd., that company did some very unpleasant footwork with the premiums, set up a holding company, shunted into it all the main asbestos claims and then took the rest of the business off and let the company sink. My constituents and others, who had paid in even when they did not have to, found that the insurance cover that they had bought was of no value.
To their half credit, the Government said that, if a firm goes bankrupt because it does not have the cover that it has paid for goodness knows how many years, the taxpayer will pick up the cost, but if the firm survives, it must meet the claims itself. Therefore, there is an incentive in the system for firms to go bankrupt and perhaps re-establish themselves later, minus the debts. This was a firm that had managed to survive all sorts of Government policies since 1864, but it was defeated by this one.
As I said, I asked the Chief Secretary whether I could meet the civil servant in charge of policy, because it is the policy that needs changing, so that we can overcome this

61WH
moral hazard and firms can receive some help with their claims while still being allowed co continue trading. I wrote to him on 17 July. My office and I then made a number of calls to his office asking whether I would receive a reply. As a result of those phone calls, the Financial Secretary wrote on 4 September to say that she was the Minister responsible and that she would reply.
I phoned the Financial Secretary's office and then wrote again on 16 October asking for a speedy reply. I still received no reply, so finally in. December I tabled a question asking whether I would get a reply to any of the letters that I had written. At that stage she replied to me. However, because McIvor's had told me how difficult the circumstances were—its bankers were beginning to question whether it should continue trading—I asked her Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), whether he would look at the papers and brief her, given that I was not keen to rely on the Treasury's internal post any longer.
Unfortunately, the first batch of letters did not arrive, so I re-copied them to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who then referred them to the Treasury. By that stage, seven months after I started the correspondence, my constituent told me that the banks had sent in the liquidators. Those liquidators told my constituent that not only did they have to deal with his liquidation, but in the same area they were dealing with a similar liquidation of a company that had paid all its premiums to Chester Street Insurance Holdings and now found itself without cover for its workers who might make claims against it for asbestosis. That firm had similarly gone bankrupt.
Up to the point of bankruptcy and closure, no taxpayers' money would be made available to help those firms meet claims, which they wished to meet, should any of their past or current employees claim that their health was damaged by working for them. Both firms gained no help; both have gone out of business. The work force and previous work force of both firms are now covered by the Government's guarantee on behalf of taxpayers. Therefore, I want to raise only two issues.
An apology does little good to those 25 people who lost their jobs in Birkenhead and who might not have lost their jobs had the Treasury responded from mid-July with even the modest efficiency that the Chancellor accuses the rest of British industry of when it comes to productivity. We might not then ha re needed this debate today. We are not after apologies. First, there is clearly something wrong with the way in which the Treasury deals with correspondence from Members of Parliament, let alone everybody else.
Secondly, and even more important, there is the policy issue that I tried to raise with the Treasury in mid-June: is it acceptable to have a scheme that offers no help to those firms that in the past have paid all their insurance premiums to Chester Street Insurance Holdings, only to find that that company ripped them off, put their liabilities in a company that it allowed to fold and then walked away with all the other business that it could make a profit on? Is it sensible to have a system that helps those decent employers—or rather the work force of those decent employers—only when we have managed to smash the employer on the floor and
62WH
that employer has closed the business? Should we not be looking at developing the scheme and eradicating this moral hazard?
Would not a better use of taxpayers' money have been to help meet not all—that was never what was asked for-but part of the cost of the asbestosis claims of past employees? That would have meant that the firm did not have to go out of business. Would that not have been better than the taxpayer meeting all the claims after it had gone out of business? We have destroyed really good, productive jobs in the meantime. We are talking about a firm that began operations in 1864 and has provided people with family wages in Birkenhead since then. It closed for business, needless to say, on Friday the 13th of February.
4.10 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. I know that he is not looking for apologies, but I apologise profusely for the way in which his correspondence was treated and the fact that the issue was not dealt with immediately in July, or beforehand. That is inexcusable. I hope he will accept those apologies. I am extremely sorry that the firm in his constituency, about which he wrote to me, became insolvent in the intervening period. Clearly, the situation is entirely unsatisfactory.
The Government have enormous sympathy for the victims of industrial diseases, such as asbestos-related diseases, vibration white finger and industrial deafness, which are particularly unpleasant and distressing for both the sufferers and their families. We are sensitive to the anxieties of those who may have come into contact with asbestos in the past and live with the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be affected in the future.
The underlying principle, which we should not lose sight of, is that employers are responsible for securing the health and safety of their employees while they are at work. When employers are found to have failed in that regard, they are liable to compensate employees who are injured or made ill at work. It is for the employer to meet that liability. Employers' liability insurance enables employers to insure against the costs of compensation payable to those employees who are injured or suffer from a disease as a result of their work. It provides greater security to employers in relation to costs that could otherwise result in financial difficulty, and means that employees know that resources will be available for compensation even when employers have become insolvent or have limited resources of their own available. It supports the right of employees who suffer from injury or disease as a result of their work to be fairly compensated and the responsibility of employers to fund the true costs of their business—the "polluter pays" principle.
Under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 it became compulsory from 1972 for employers to insure against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by employees arising out of, and in the course of, their employment in Great Britain. That point will become relevant when I come to consider the case in my right hon. Friend's constituency.
The Government are committed to encouraging better health and safety in order to reduce costs to firms from injury, illness and absence. In the past months the

63WH
Government have worked with business, the insurance industry, lawyers and unions to review and improve the operation of employers' liability insurance.
My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I consider the history of the Chester Street insolvency. Yet again, it is particularly relevant to the case in his constituency. He is aware of the uncertainty that was caused in 2001 as a consequence of the insolvency of one insurer, Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. That was particularly worrying for victims of asbestosis and other industrial diseases and their families, whose employers had insured with Chester Street. It was worrying when the exposure occurred prior to 1972, when employers' liability insurance became compulsory. The Government worked extremely hard, in partnership with the insurance industry, to end the uncertainty. The arrangements were set out in May 2001 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
When an employer still exists and is solvent, or its liabilities have been carried forward to another business, that employer or successor business is liable to pay any compensation due for workplace injury or disease. The employer or successor will have a right to full reimbursement from the financial services compensation scheme, applying the rules applicable under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, if the liability was covered by compulsory insurance. Employers who are sole traders or partnerships will have a right to reimbursement of 90 per cent. if the liability was covered by non-compulsory insurance. Where the employer is insolvent or no longer exists and there is no successor business now liable, under the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend, the Government are meeting their liabilities to former public sector employees, and the insurance industry is covering claims from former private sector employees.
Broadly speaking, those private sector employees of insolvent companies are receiving compensation in three ways. First, the financial services compensation scheme is making payments in accordance with the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 for awards made against employers, or settlements agreed by employers, prior to Chester Street's insolvency in January 2001. Secondly, the insurance industry, via the Association of British Insurers, has funded equivalent payments for awards or settlements made between Chester Street's insolvency in January 2001 and the commencement of the financial services compensation scheme on 1 December 2001. Thirdly, the scheme is funding payments—under transitional arrangements provided for by the Treasury when the scheme began—for cases where the liability of Chester Street to the employees concerned was not determined until after 1 December 2001.
In all, more than £25 million has been paid in claims against Chester Street by the Policyholders Protection Board and subsequently by the financial services compensation scheme between 2001 and 2004.
Mr. Field: The firm to which I referred voluntarily insured before it had to. As the Minister knows, one evil of this disease is that the symptoms do not become apparent until decades later. Those companies that were
64WH
good enough to insure their employees before the introduction of compulsory insurance are not covered by the measures that the Government have since announced. The measures cover the period since compulsory insurance.
Ruth Kelly: My right hon. Friend is right, and I will come on to his specific point. He raises the particular issue about arrangements for companies that took out employers' liability insurance with an insurer that is now insolvent and unable to meet claims. He is concerned about whether employers should receive compensation if they would otherwise become insolvent as a result of meeting such claims. It is an incredibly complex situation, with different funding streams pre-insolvency, post-insolvency and pre-and post-financial services compensation scheme. It bears telling the full story before dealing with the specific point that he raises.
The financial services compensation scheme acts as a safety net for customers of finance sector companies. It compensates such customers if an authorised company is unable to pay claims. It covers insurance, deposits and investments and is funded by a levy on the financial services industry. I understand from the scheme that where an insurer has become insolvent before 1 December 2001, the scheme will apply the provisions of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 to determine whether compensation is due to the employer, subject to certain transitional provisions. Under section 6(4) of the 1975 Act, which relates to certain compulsory insurances, the scheme will offer 100 per cent. compensation to policyholders for employers' liability insurance claims incurred from 1 January 1972, when such insurance became compulsory.
Under sections 6(6) and 8(2) of the 1975 Act, which relate to other non-compulsory insurances, the scheme is able to pay 90 per cent. compensation to policyholders who are in partnerships or are individuals. The Act does not permit payment of compensation in respect of non-compulsory insurance to policyholders that are limited companies. Therefore, limited companies are not eligible for compensation in respect of non-compulsory, pre-1972 employers' liability insurance, as my right hon. Friend is aware.
Where the insurer has become insolvent after 1 December 2001, I understand from the scheme that it will apply its own rules in determining whether compensation is payable. For compulsory insurances, the position remains that all policyholders will be able to receive 100 per cent. compensation. Broadly speaking and subject to certain transitional provisions, for non-compulsory insurances, including pre-1972 employers' liability insurance, the scheme will pay compensation of 100 per cent. of the first £2,000 of any claim and 90 per cent. of the balance to individuals and small businesses. In addition to small partnerships and individuals, small companies are eligible for compensation, but large partnerships will be excluded from receiving it. The relevant criteria are set out in the financial services compensation scheme rules.
Those new rules, however, apply only in relation to policies purchased after 1 December 2001, when the FSCS came into force. In respect of policies purchased before that date, my right hon. Friend makes an important and valid point, which is that the FSCS rules that determine eligibility and compensation levels will

65WH
more closely reflect the payments that were available under the 1975 Act. That means that, in respect of policies purchased before 1 December 2001, large partnerships will be eligible for compensation in respect of non-compulsory insurance. All companies, other than small companies, will continue to be excluded from compensation in respect of the pre-1 December 2001 non-compulsory insurance policies. That is the gap that my right hon. Friend identified.
I understand the concern that my right hon. Friend raised about the situation of companies where insurances are not compulsory—for example, the distinction between employers' liability insurance before and after 1 January 1972. He set out the consequences for a company in his constituency and he made a compelling argument about moral hazard. I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to views on the subject today. As I explained, companies are generally excluded from compensation under the financial services compensation scheme. except for relevant compulsory insurances. Under the 1975 Act, any policyholder is eligible for compensation for relevant compulsory insurances. Employers' liability insurance policies were compulsory after 1 January 1972.
Before 1972 there was no obligation to take out employers' liability insurance, and those who chose to take out insurance did so aware of the risk that if the insurer collapsed, the liabilities would fall back on them. It is possible to argue that it is right that employers should take primary responsibility for settling claims resulting from their own business activities. It has been put to me that any change to those arrangements would impact on the costs of the compensation scheme and would be reflected in insurance premiums. I have been led to believe that such costs could be significant if solvent, larger businesses were included, where they are not obliged to take out compulsory insurance policies. It is difficult to estimate the impact of that on insurance premiums, but it could be substantial
There is an argument to be made about small companies. My right hon. Friend made his point eloquently and persuasively, and we failed to consider the issue adequately in the first instance. Given that, I promise to ensure that after this debate my officials will liaise with him and with the Financial Services Authority, which determines the rules for the FSCS, to see if the gap can be filled by a change in the rules, or whether allowing retrospection for the group of companies that he mentioned would have unintended consequences in other areas.
Mr. Field: I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking, but before she concludes, will she undertake to impress on those who are to be party to those discussions that we are talking about the most noble group of companies? Those companies did not
66WH
have to do what they did. They cut their profits and their directors' take-home pay because they wanted their employees to be covered. They did not expect—none of us did—that Chester Street Insurance Holdings would devise such an evil little scheme to dump its insurance on to a company that was going to fold. We are not talking about the worst parts of British industry, but about people who should be held up as a model. We want employers to go the second mile, not just the first. I hope that this will be given emphasis in the discussions. We are talking about people who went two miles, when most employers went no miles.
Ruth Kelly: I accept my right hon. Friend's point. It is important to look at the individual circumstances of firms when they were prepared to take out non-compulsory insurance pre-1972. It is only right, however, as I am sure he will accept, that we balance that consideration against the potential cost for the financial services compensation scheme of meeting all retrospective claims in the manner in which he suggests. It is impossible for me today to know how those two considerations will weigh against each other. However, I pledge to my right hon. Friend that my officials will liaise with him and with the FSA to consider the issue seriously and keep him fully informed as that discussion progresses.
Mr. Field: Much as I welcome all this, I am slightly worried. Would it be possible for the Minister to specify a date by which she will come back to me?
Ruth Kelly: I can promise my right hon. Friend that within a month officials will liaise with him to keep him informed of any progress, if any has been made. They will at least let him know the situation. Following this debate they will pursue their inquiries with the FSA, which is responsible for the FSCS rules, to determine whether they have been set in the appropriate manner, and whether there is scope for improvement. I am not suggesting that we, in principle, accept my right hon. Friend's case, merely that we will investigate to see whether the rules have been set appropriately and whether the case has been made adequately.
It is certainly the case that the FSCS rules are extremely complex, but it is the FSA, rather than the Treasury, which has primary responsibility for setting them. I would urge my right hon. Friend to take up his case directly with the FSA, as well as with the Treasury, as I am sure that he will want to hear for himself the arguments that they are making. I hope that the debate has been of some value to him and, as promised, I will keep him in touch with developments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock.