House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Feb 1993

Column 144

aware of the tremendous unpredictability of demands on accident and emergency services, but all are agreed that one of the dilemmas in London is the inappropriate use of accident and emergency services by people who would normally go to a GP or a community nurse. The right way forward is by developing effective alternatives that local people trust.

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : It takes great courage and conviction to do what is right in the health service for people in London, and my right hon. Friend has achieved that today. Does she agree that the most important part of these changes is the development of the primary health care service, particularly in London? Will she add further to her statement on how she sees the flow of funding and the development of that service leading to the objectives that she has outlined today?

Mrs. Bottomley : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is exactly by effective and fast development of primary care that we shall achieve change. The London initiative zone offers the opportunity to pioneer and innovate and to find new ways to make sure that we have the primary care that meets the needs of Londoners. It is well understood that London has a greater number of homeless people, of people from ethnic minorities, of people with drug addiction problems and of people not registered with GPs. GPs have difficulties on premises ; there are more single-handed GPs and there are more older GPs. It is by finding new ways and new procedures for tackling those problems that we shall make progress. We shall set up a primary care forum, to be chaired by the chairman of the London implementation group, to take forward change swiftly. We anticipate spending £40 million extra on primary care services in the first year alone.

Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : Does the Secretary of State not agree with me that it is a bit of a farce to talk about consultation on the amalgamation of trusts between St. Thomas's and Guy's when the chair has already been appointed and the whole thing has obviously been sewn up? Would she clarify what she means in her statement by saying that those two hospitals are consolidating? Does she mean that one of them will close, whatever is said, and will she say what will happen to those people who depend on the accident and emergency service at St. Thomas's if that accident and emergency service should ever close?

Mrs. Bottomley : At present there is statutory consultation under way on the proposal for Guy's and St. Thomas's to join together as an NHS trust. We are then asking them to go out to consultation on an independent appraisal on site options. Radical change has to go forward in London. This cannot be achieved without difficult decisions being made and on the basis of the independent appraisal. We shall certainly want them to follow through the recommendations of that appraisal, but it will be within their responsibilities and for their decisions as an NHS trust.

The hon. Lady well knows that within her constituency there is the development of initiatives such as the West Lambeth community care centre. She well knows that that is the right way to provide a modern health service for her constituents. It is not possible for her to seek development of initiatives such as the West Lambeth community care centre, as well as having, within a short distance,

Column 145

500 hospital consultants at Guy's, St. Thomas's and King's. It is that sort of imbalance that makes hon. Members from outside London urge swift action.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon) : My right hon. Friend will recognise that her announcement today will be the cause of qualified rejoicing at Bart's, but I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who has been robust in his defence of Bart's, will recognise that we now have two viable alternatives to the disastrous Tomlinson recommendation to close Bart's and sell the site. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the consultation process is speedy and vigorous and, this time, is based on properly-based data?

Mrs. Bottomley : I can give my hon. Friend precisely that assurance. I think that St. Bartholomew's has now begun to face the economic realities. It will not be possible to persuade health authorities to send patients to hospitals that do not provide a cost-effective service. That is the reality of the NHS reforms that we have established. It will have to choose between whether it takes forward its ideas of becoming a small specialty hospital or decides to combine with the Royal London. There are strong arguments that, if it sees the future as being a centre of excellence, it will be by following the example of very many others and saying that it wants to pool the skills, resources and expertise of their teams. These decisions need to be taken swiftly, because we wish to avoid the spiral of decline outlined by Sir Bernard Tomlinson. The specialty reviews are to complete their work within three months, and the further proposals are to be ready within six months.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East) : The Secretary of State has said today that she is to initiate a new London primary health care challenge. She also said that she was looking to others to contribute to the fund. Is she prepared to tell us who those others might be? Are they to be the banks, or are they to be McDonald's and the other hamburger joints? Or are they to be the patients themselves? Having contributed to that fund, who is to decide the competitive basis on which the bids will be won? How many people in the local community will have a say in what happens at the local hospital?

Mrs. Bottomley : I am very surprised to hear the hon. Lady's prejudice against McDonald's. If McDonald's wishes to make a contribution to the primary care challenge fund, we shall certainly welcome it. We wish to have a great number of innovative ideas about where we can find premises. The real challenge for primary health care in London is the issue of premises. We certainly will explore the idea of family doctor premises becoming established in a wide range of places, and--who knows?--McDonald's may well be an option. I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. But, of course, it is a travesty of the amount of money that I have announced : £170 million over six years for capital development ; £40 million in the first year ; £7.5 million for voluntary organisations ; as well as the £1 million for the challenge fund.

Dame Angela Rumbold (Mitcham and Morden) : My right hon. Friend will know that I served on one of the previous investigations into the London health service, so

Column 146

I am more than well aware of the difficult decisions that she and her Ministers have to take in considering the London issue. I congratulate her on the very skilful way in which she has solved the problems. I believe that the answers that she has outlined to the House this afternoon will certainly provide much better services for London in the long term, and better services for hospitals outside London. I also thank her on behalf of my constituents, many of whom work in the Royal Marsden at Sutton, because they will be very relieved to understand that their jobs are secure for the time being. May I ask her, however, what she envisages for the specialty reviews? A little more clarity on those would be helpful.

Mrs. Bottomley : We shall be establishing forthwith specialty reviews in the six key areas of cancer services, cardiac services, neuro- sciences, renal services and paediatric services, to be chaired by an expert from outside London and with a manager from within London. They will report within three months. There will be further consultation on those reports afterwards.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her generous remarks. We have to see change ; we have to see change to a tight timetable. At the same time, we have to go through the proper procedures of consultation. I am very appreciative of the way in which most people in the service, most commentators and most professionals have well understood the need for change. No change is no option. We need now to carry it forward.

Ms. Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : Is the Secretary of State aware that it will come as a surprise to my constituents to discover that London is over-funded, in the light of rising waiting lists, cancelled operations, the mentally ill wandering our streets and a constant diminution of the services for geriatrics? Why is the right hon. Lady so concerned about saving money in the London area? The Royal Free medical school in my constituency can train a doctor for between £10,000 and £12,000 a year, as can the other London teaching hospitals, yet the universities of Oxford and Cambridge can only train for £18,000 a year. Is she perhaps not concentrating her sights in the wrong area?

Mrs. Bottomley : I am surprised that the hon. Lady for ever denigrates the achievements of the Royal Free hospital, because it is providing more high quality care to more patients. I have already informed the House that waiting lists are coming down. There is a 61 per cent. fall in the number of patients waiting for more than a year, and an 8 per cent. fall overall--

Ms. Jackson : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Order. I have to take points of order at the end of the statement, as the hon. Lady knows-- [Interruption.] Order. An argument about policy is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mrs. Bottomley : The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to develop better services for the mentally ill who, above all, need primary care services. They need more community psychiatric nurses, so that many of the changes that we propose will be nurse-led. Nursing will be the crucial professional group. London has twice as many consultants per head of the population as outside areas.

Column 147

There is a distorted budget in London, focusing on inappropriate priorities. We wish to introduce changes to allow people to achieve exactly those objectives.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Does my right hon. Friend realise that the House knows that she has an extremely difficult task? Does she know that I was under surgery only last Thursday for a leg and vein operation and, due to the brilliance of a young houseman at the Charing Cross hospital, Dr. Backhouse, who spotted a growth on my chest that has since proved to be cancerous, the professor of surgery there, Mr. Greenhalgh, has removed it all so that I have been given a clean bill of health--with much relief to the Chief Whip, I am told? Will not Charing Cross be given the opportunity, with the use of the internal market, to see whether Riverside health authority and North Thames health authority and surrounding areas can provide the necessary psychiatric and community care in west London which would then allow this immensely successful hospital to survive?

Mrs. Bottomley : I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend with us- -I am probably as delighted as the Whips are--and I share his tremendous commendation of the doctors, nurses and others who work in the national health service. We in Britain can have confidence that we have a national health service available to all and, of course, we wish that to continue. However, a few people believe it is possible to provide a cost-effective service in future without addressing the problems in London. We will consider closely all the options at the Charing Cross and the region and try to plan for the future. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, there are a number of beds for geriatric and mentally-ill patients for whom provision will have to be made. We cannot take forward our proposals by fudging every issue. We will take decisions in the interests of the national health service in London and elsewhere. I believe that all those who work in those great institutions know full well that change has to come. They wish decisions to be made and uncertainties to be brought to an end.

Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) : As one of the Members of Parliament representing Hackney, my concern throughout has been the level and quality of health care available to people living in Hackney. On behalf of those people, I must give one cheer to the announcement that stage 2 of the Homerton might be built, but I must stress how vital it is to health care in Hackney.

Will the Secretary of State say whether the £170 million being made available over six years is new money?

Finally, on redundancies, Conservative Members are quick to sneer when we talk about hospital workers, but let me remind them that thousands of hospital workers whose jobs are threatened are women, relatively low-paid workers, and often single wage earners in areas of high unemployment. Often, they are black women who came to the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s and who have given their lives to the British health service. Opposition Members should give a little more respect to, and be a little more concerned about, the issue of redundancies.

Mrs. Bottomley : I am pleased that the hon. Lady applauds the further plans for Homerton. We recognise that there is a need for further investment to serve that part

Column 148

of London. I am referring to the extra £170 million for primary care, apart from all the other announcements which I have made today.

I well appreciate the point which the hon. Lady makes about staff. When we first published the Tomlinson report we sent a newsletter to all staff in London. I am now sending another letter to all those who work within the service. Of course, uncertainty is difficult for them : they need to know the full facts as soon as possible.

We are setting up a clearing house to ensure that, across London, we look carefully at redeployment, retraining and the way in which we can most sensitively and helpfully handle the human resource question. Each year, there is a turnover of about 20 per cent. in nurses in London. I hope that it will be possible to keep the redundancies to a minimum.

Mr. David Mellor (Putney) : May I thank my right hon. Friend for what she said, and especially for acceding to the representations of a number of us that the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden should be allowed to continue their excellent work where they are? I am sure that there will be enormous relief about that.

I invite my right hon. Friend to recall that it was the London health consortium, under the last Labour Government, which first proposed that there should be a cut of 2,000 acute beds in London. Since then, the national health service has been transformed by the creation of hospitals of excellence throughout the nation. That makes this restructuring of London's health services--however painful--long overdue and necessary. I assure my right hon. Friend that she will have the support of all Conservative London Members if she proceeds as sensibly down that course as she has given evidence of doing this afternoon.

Mrs. Bottomley : I thank my right hon. Friend for so eloquently and effectively putting precisely the argument : we have to go forward with these changes. I thank him for his comments about the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden. We are persuaded that, together with Chelsea and Westminster and the associated institutes, there is scope for the development of a Chelsea health sciences centre. As special health authorities come into the market, we will protect the research component, but it is important that they play their full part and look for the savings and efficiencies which all other members of the health service family are exploring.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Will the Secretary of State guarantee to the people of south-east London in general and the users of Guy's hospital in particular that, as a result of her announcement today, the time between referral to a hospital and treatment will be shorter and a bed will be available when they need it, but that the retention of health care both at Guy's and St. Thomas', as a result of her carefully worded announcement, is still an option for the trust to consider and a possibility at the end of any review period which a new trust will start in a few months' time?

Mrs. Bottomley : I can certainly guarantee that, if not as a result of the announcement immediately, certainly the development of our plans for London's health service is intended precisely to provide better health care for London and Londoners.

Column 149

Often there has been a predominance of specialist services at the expense of routine local services which local people need, whether from the primary health care team or, when appropriate, the hospital. The hon. Gentleman will know that only a short distance from his constituency, at King's College hospital, 40 per cent. of the patients attending there would normally go to a GP or a nurse. We must achieve a better balance within London and across the country. On the proposals for Guy's and St. Thomas's, it really is a matter for the trust once it is established, if I agree to it, subject to consultation. Of course, I must preserve the legal niceties when the trusts go forward for their site appraisals.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the drop in waiting lists is tremendously welcome? Surely what matters to patients is not only the number of beds but the effective use to which they are put?

Mrs. Bottomley : How right my hon. Friend is. I agree with him.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : May I invite the Secretary of State to stop playing ducks and drakes with London and the rest of the country when boasting of good quality health care? Is she now aware that the Tomlinson report is seriously flawed in much of its analysis of the provision of beds in London and the use of accident and emergency departments because of the incidence of poverty and homelessness in London? Does she not recognise that increasingly inadequate primary care resources will probably lead to an increased demand for hospital places? Does she not think that it is necessary to halt the hospital closure programme and instead examine seriously the health needs of Londoners as a whole, including improvements in the primary and community care facilities, which receive only a small amount of money from her proposals?

Mrs. Bottomley : I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I am Secretary of State for the national health service. At present there is one hospital doctor or GP to every 500 people in London. The national average is one to every 1,100. There are twice as many consultants in London. All the figures are out of balance. In my view, the Tomlinson report, following as it did the King's Fund report, in which representatives of all political parties were involved, makes a powerful case which any responsible Secretary of State would want to see taken forward.

Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North) : I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two questions. First, people in my constituency and throughout London are proud of the specialist hospitals in London, which are renowned not only in London but throughout Britain and the world. Is she aware of the depth of feeling about that in London? Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that 2,500 hospital beds in London would be taken away. Although I warmly welcome the £10 million to cut waiting lists, I have to battle every day to get people into hospital. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people in London will be slightly cynical about the idea that there is a quick way into hospitals in London?

Column 150

Mrs. Bottomley : My right hon. Friend is right when he says that there is great respect for the specialist hospitals. However, the issue is not necessarily the buildings but the skills of those who work there. I sometimes think that my job is supposed to be an arm of the Department of National Heritage. I do not see it in that way. There are strong cases for ensuring that specialist skills are part of a wider team with a wider range of skills, expertise and back-up facilities. That is the thrust of the Tomlinson report.

My right hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of his constituents in getting a hospital bed. That is pertinent to the lack of primary care in London and the use of accident and emergency departments where otherwise people would use a GP. It was estimated by one of the teaching hospitals that up to 15 per cent. of the beds were occupied by people who elsewhere would have been cared for in the community. Of course, we must get primary care right, but the combination of rationalisation of specialist services, contracts leaving London and the development of primary care will make such changes absolutely essential.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : I understand the difficulties of the Secretary of State when she makes decisions about London, but let me put it on record that it is not a case of the rest of the nation against London. I have had representations from constituents in Northern Ireland specifically about the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear, the Royal Marsden and St. Bartholomew's hospitals. I should like the Secretary of State to consider another aspect. How will the students who are being trained obtain sufficient experience and hands-on treatment in the medical schools of London if we scatter the hospitals and research facilities for the nation?

Mrs. Bottomley : To start with the hon. Gentleman's final point, he is probably well aware that many of the London teaching hospitals have difficulty in putting enough cases through for the medical students to see. That is the dilemma. The rationalisation of the medical schools and the associated hospitals is given high priority by the Higher Education Funding Council. We want to see curriculum changes in undergraduate education. We need better primary care facilities in London to enable students to learn.

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is totally in line with our proposals. I understand his point about sentiment and loyalty to particular institutions. The issue is not the obliteration of units and teams ; it is the appropriate location of teams in a setting where they can make a contribution, along with others with different skills and expertise. That is the way forward if we are continue to have a centre of excellence, famous not only in this country but also in the world.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her policy will be to the benefit of such hospitals as Addenbrookes--a teaching hospital--and Papworth, both of which are located in the fastest-growing area of the country and are just as excellent and important as London hospitals, which are in an area of declining population?

Mrs. Bottomley : My hon. Friend has the privilege of being served by two first-rate hospitals. It will certainly be to the benefit of everyone in the country when we no longer

Column 151

have to subsidise London to the extent to which it is being subsidised at the moment. We estimate that, this year, we are subsidising the London institutions to the tune of £50 million. Next year the figure is likely to be £100 million. As contracts are taken away, as patients wish to be treated outside London, the London hospitals will be left with very heavy, fixed overhead costs. Nobody is served when health resources are invested in buildings and an expensive infrastructure rather than in patients.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : Does the Secretary of State agree that we should be discussing the report "Making London Better" rather than her statement? The report outlines clearly the fate of the London hospitals--death by a thousand cuts. The Secretary of State will not admit it to the House, but that is the Government's intention.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is wrong that the internal market should determine the pattern of health care in London, as well as in the rest of the country, which will suffer the same fate, as is detailed in paragraph 9 of the report? Does she agree that the Royal Brompton, the Royal Marsden, St. Bartholomew's and Charing Cross hospitals should not be left at the mercy of the market, to wither away on the vine, as is detailed in paragraph 62 of this report? Does the Secretary of State agree that special health authorities should not be exposed to the vagaries of the market and to certain destruction, as is detailed in paragraph 85 of the report? Does the Secretary of State agree that the 20,000 health workers-- nearly the same number as in the case of the miners--who will lose their jobs are not satisfied with the safeguards that she has announced to the House? Does she agree that any funding for London will be recycled money lost by London as a result of the introduction of weighted capitation? If that is not the case, where will the money come from? Will it be top-sliced from the regions? Will the Secretary of State confirm that UCH Middlesex and Great Ormond Street will remain in existence, that they will not be scaled down or eradicated? In this respect, I refer her to paragraph 66 of "Making London Better".

Does the Secretary of State accept that she has done nothing to arrest the decline of the health service in London and that her proposals on community care are pathetic in the extreme and will desperately disappoint GPs and primary health care workers in London, who can take no comfort from the pathetic provision of only £28 million a year to introduce and improve services?

Mrs. Bottomley : The hon. Lady's remarks are such irresponsible, misleading gibberish that I shall not bother to respond to them. She has been engaging in distortion. She cannot have listened to any of the constructive and helpful discussion that we have had this afternoon. I suggest that she read the report rather more carefully. I confirm that our proposals are based on four central principles--that people who live and work in London must have ready access to the full range of services that they need ; that services must be of a good standard and cost-effective ; that the internal health market should work in London as elsewhere ; and that high-quality medical education and research must be sustained and fostered. Those are the principles of this report, and they are the principles that we shall see executed.

Several hon. Members rose --

Column 152

Madam Speaker : Order. We must now move on.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that there is a time problem, but several London Members, including myself, are confronted with the closure of Queen Charlotte's hospital and with the proposed closure of Charing Cross hospital, which would have a dramatic effect on my constituency. We have not had a chance to raise these matters. May I ask for an urgent debate? As the Secretary of State herself said several times, this is not just a London issue but a national issue. The debate that I seek should take place in Government time and should be arranged soon.

Madam Speaker : I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at the fact that I have been unable to call more Members. I went carefully through the list of hon. Members in whose constituencies there are hospitals that are affected, and I attempted to call them. I also attempted to call Members for constituencies throughout other regions, as this is, of course, a national issue. The number of Members that I was able to call was limited by reason of long questions and, I may say, long answers. The House shares my disappointment at my having been unable to call more Members.

Ms. Glenda Jackson : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question that I put to the Secretary of State referred to the Royal Free hospital medical school. Much to my surprise, it seems that the Secretary of State does not realise that there is a Royal Free hospital and a Royal Free hospital medical school. She chose to centre her reply on the Royal Free hospital. She implied that I had been critical of the service provided by that hospital. In doing so, she insulted not me but the medical and nursing staff

Madam Speaker : Order. I heard the exchange to which the hon. Lady refers. She must know that it is a matter for argument, and not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand your difficulties with regard to the business of the House, as that is, unfortunately, the responsibility of the Government. The problem is that Londonders have no means of expressing a view before the Secretary of State starts radically altering and closing hospitals throughout London. There will be no consultation. No health authority covers London. There are no elections to the bodies concerned. I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to use your best endeavours to ensure that there is an urgent debate in which all these issues can be discussed before the Secretary of State goes ahead and implements a policy that has no support from the people of London.

Madam Speaker : Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, know that the business of the House is not a matter for the Speaker. I have no doubt that these issues will be raised with the Lord President of the Council during business questions.

Road Traffic (Amendment)

Mr. Keith Vaz presented a Bill to amend section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 : And the same was read a First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February 1993 ; and to be printed [Bill 137.]

Column 153

Justice

4.47 pm

Ms. Jean Corston (Bristol, East) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice in connection with criminal proceedings in England and Wales ; and for related purposes.

For many years the only thing ever said in this country about our criminal justice system was that it was the best in the world. There cannot be many people who would make such a claim now. Most people could recite part of the litany of cases involving the miscarriage of justice--the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Winchester Three, the Cardiff Three, the Tottenham Three, Judith Ward, Stefan Kiszko.

The Guildford Four were set free in 1989. Since then more than 50 people have been released from prison, their convictions having been set aside or found to be unsafe or unsatisfactory. All those people were victims of miscarriage of justice.

Last November the National Association of Probation Officers and Liberty, both of which have given me advice and assistance in the preparation of this Bill, published a dossier of 163 cases in which there was some doubt about the safety of the convictions. Further, there cannot be an hon. Member who has not received letters from prisoners protesting their innocence. Many of them give rise to disquiet and unease. The House should also be aware that such prisoners pay a high price for protesting their innocence. The parole system is based on acknowledgement of guilt. Any prisoner who maintains innocence of the crime for which he or she is convicted will usually serve a longer sentence than the guilty.

In order to understand why my Bill is vital in restoring confidence to our criminal justice system it is necessary for me to describe the present procedure in cases of alleged miscarriage of justice. A convicted person appeals to the Home Secretary, who alone has the power to refer an individual case to the Court of Appeal for consideration. The case is then considered by the division of the Home Office known as C3. In reply to written questions from me, the Home Secretary confirmed that, during 1992, C3 received 790 representations alleging miscarriage of justice and that 178 were under active consideration. The average time taken to investigate a case was 41 days, although on 1 February this year, 27 cases had been outstanding for more than 12 months. During the whole of 1992, the Home Secretary referred just seven cases in respect of conviction back to the Court of Appeal. The House will also know of the diquiet arising from the Home Secretary's recent refusal to refer the case of the Bridgewater Three.

Another disquieting aspect of the present procedure is that, after the C3 investigation, the Home Office sends the papers to the relevant police force, and neither the convicted person nor his or her legal representative has a right to see the police comment or evidence. Such decisions should be independent of political control. It is not unknown for Home Secretaries to be determined not to be seen to be soft on crime, particularly when they have to face a baying Tory party conference.

Among those who have given support for an independent body are two former Conservative Home Secretaries, the present Foreign Secretary and the right

Column 154

hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Furthermore, in his second report on the Maguire case, presented to the House on 3 December 1992, Lord Justice May said :

"new independent machinery must be set up to carry out all those investigations and inquiries which the circumstances of a given case may require. It will be necessary for this machinery to be set up by statute. It will no doubt have its own procedural rules, but subject to these it should have the power and resources to investigate any conviction which may merit such an inquiry. These will no doubt include the fullest power to call for documents and other exhibits and to be able to enforce their production."

He went on :

"if, upon the completion of the investigation, it is concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, whatever machinery is set up will no doubt enable the case and the result of the investigations to be referred to the Court of Appeal"

My Bill provides for the establishment of just such a statutory body--the criminal justice review board. The Lord Chancellor will be required to appoint 12 members to the board. They will include people with knowledge of the criminal justice system, those with knowledge and experience of the supervision or aftercare of discharged prisoners and a psychiatrist. The board will have a proper representation of women and people from ethnic minorities. Any convicted prisoner may refer his or her case to the board, provided that they have been through the Court of Appeal procedure or there has been unreasonable delay. The board will have power to appoint a case officer to investigate any application where it considers it is justified, and the case officer will have wide powers of investigation, search and seizure. At the end of the investigation, the case officer will be required to submit a report to a panel of board members, chaired by a High Court judge.

If the board then considers that there may have been a miscarriage of justice or that the case raises an arguable point of law, it and it alone can refer the case to the Court of Appeal, where it will be treated as an appeal against conviction. The appellant will also be entitled to receive written reasons for the board's decision. The Bill further provides that, following any criminal conviction on indictment, all the evidence should be preserved. We are too familiar with miscarriage of justice cases where it is not possible to bring proceedings against, for example, police officers who have behaved improperly, because evidence has mysteriously disappeared. For far too long, honest police officers have paid the price of suspicion and disbelief because of those who bend the rules to get a conviction.

We should also treat with caution the assertion that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has ensured that the incidence of miscarriage of justice will be rare. There is an emerging body of evidence to show that that faith is misplaced.

Some may argue that there is no need for the House to consider the matter at present, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, chaired by Lord Runciman, is currently conducting its inquiry and will report to the House in the fullness of time. There are those who may agree with the former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who said that royal commissions took minutes and wasted years. But it cannot be denied that, even with a fair wind, implementation of any recommendations could not take place before 1996 or 1997. Further, we are entitled to assume that the Runciman inquiry will come up

Column 155

with proposals to ensure that there will be no miscarriages of justice in the future. My Bill will ensure that past mistakes are rectified ; past wrongs righted.

For too long, the protestations of innocence from behind prison walls have been as silent screams. It is about time we ensured that those pleas can be properly heard, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Jean Corston, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Stephen Byers, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Mr. John Battle and Ms. Glenda Jackson.

Justice

Ms. Jean Corston accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice in connection with criminal proceedings in England and Wales ; and for related purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Column 156

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 6

C onfidentiality of trade union's register of members' names and addresses- -

. After section 24 of the 1992 Act there shall be inserted "Securing confidentiality of register during ballots. 24A.--(1) This section applies in relation to a ballot of the members of a trade union on--

(a) an election under Chapter IV for a position to which that Chapter applies,

(b) a political resolution under Chapter VI, and

(2) Where this section applies in relation to a ballot the trade union shall impose the duty of confidentiality in relation to the register of members' names and addresses on the scrutineer appointed by the union for the purposes of the ballot and on any person appointed by the union as the independent person for the purposes of the ballot.

(3) Any duty falling upon a branch under this section by reason of its being a trade union shall be treated as having been discharged to the extent to which the union of which it is a branch has discharged the duty instead.

(4) The duty of confidentiality in relation to the register of members' names and addresses is, when imposed on a scrutineer or on an independent person, a duty--

(a) not to disclose any name or address in the register except in permitted circumstances, and

(b) to take all reasonable steps to secure that there is no disclosure of any such name or address by any other person except in permitted circumstances,

(5) The circumstances in which disclosure of a member's name and address is permitted are--

(a) where the member consents ;

(b) where it is required for the purposes of the discharge of any of the functions of the Certification Officer or of an inspector appointed by him ;

(c) where it is required for the purposes of the discharge of any of the functions of the scrutineer or independent person, as the case may be, under the terms of his appointment ;

(d) where it is required for the purposes of the investigation of crime or of criminal proceedings.

(6) Any provision of this Part which incorporates the duty of confidentiality as respects the register into the appointment of a scrutineer or an independent person has the effect of imposing that duty on the scrutineer or independent person as a duty owed by him to the trade union.

(7) The remedy for failure to comply with the requirements of this section is by way of application under section 25 (to the Certification Officer) or section 26 (to the court).

The making of an application to the Certification Officer does not prevent the applicant, or any other person, from making an application to the court in respect of the same matter." '-- [Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.57 pm

Next Section

Home Page