House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Apr 1995

Column 904

provide a perfectly good opportunity, were the Scots so minded, to rectify that omission--makes it all the more inexcusable.

My interest in this matter arises from the fact that I receive quite a lot of letters from prisoners in Scottish gaols who allege that they are innocent. I have no way of deciding one way or the other, but it is obvious to me that there is a problem in Scotland. I am delighted to hear Scottish Members, who are more qualified than me, say that there is definitely a problem. Following the release of the Birmingham Six, hundreds of people wrote to me from gaols, not only in this country but around the world.

I compiled a dossier of the 40 or 50 most interesting British cases, which I presented to the relevant Secretaries of State. I presented letters to the Home Secretary personally, sent some to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because a few cases arose there, and sent to the Scottish Office details of four or five cases that arose in Scotland.

I received a very courteous response from the Home Secretary. Indeed, over subsequent months I have had detailed responses to most of the cases that I raised. The Minister signs most of them and he knows that officials have gone to a lot of trouble to examine the cases included in my dossier, but I have yet to get anything substantial from the Scottish Office.

My letter to the Scottish office, raising the four cases of Thomas Campbell, Raymond Gilmour, Peter Hurtt and Joseph Steel, was sent on 15 April 1994. I heard only silence, so on 10 June I wrote again, saying:

"Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I sent to you on 15 April . . .

I have no record of a reply and I would be grateful to hear from you on this matter."

On 9 July, I received a letter, which was not very detailed, from Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. This year, after hearing nothing further, I wrote again on 29 March, saying:

"I would be grateful to know what progress has been made". I have not received a reply and I think that is pretty appalling. It is about time that the Scottish Office snapped out its complacency.

6.45 pm

Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend the inconsistency of the conduct of Scottish Office Ministers? On Friday morning, the Under- Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas -Hamilton), came to the Dispatch Box to give a couple of us Opposition Members an assurance that he would amend the Children (Scotland) Bill in the light of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill promoted by our hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). Why cannot a similar assurance be given with regard to this new clause and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. Mullin: That is a very good question. I think that the short answer is, because there is no Minister here to give that assurance. The Government could not if they wanted to. They are not even aware of the arguments that are taking place.

In addition to the four cases that I raised in my dossier, I have recently talked to people who represent Stuart Gair, a constituent of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), a Minister in the Home Office. I am not touting for business; I do not want constituents of other hon.

Column 905

Members coming to me and asking me to help spring them from gaol because they allege that they are there wrongly. I receive hundreds of letters, many of them desperate and some with a covering note saying such things as, "Please find enclosed 300 pages of background reading."

No one is looking forward more than I am to the commission being set up and to it being seen to work. I am even less qualified to assist Scottish prisoners than most. I believe that the Stuart Gair case has been the subject of a documentary on Scottish television, which certainly raised serious problems, but that there has been no sign of progress on that case either.

I do not allege that the Scottish system is any worse than the English system. I make no complaint about the fact that any legal system makes mistakes. What I have always complained about is the absence of a mechanism for putting them right. We are trying to do something about that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. What is good enough for them in one form or another ought to be good enough for Scotland. I hope that some action will be taken shortly.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring forward an order within one year of the passing of the Bill to make provisions for Scotland similar to those in part II of the Bill. That would require either establishing in Scotland a body similar to the commission and with similar powers or the extension of the ambit of the commission to cases tried in the Scottish courts. Such an order would require to be made by statutory instrument and be subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr. Michael: I should be grateful if, before going any further, the Minister would explain why he is responding to this debate. The new clause has been moved by a shadow Scottish Minister and surely a Scottish Minister should be responding. Neither a Minister from the Home Department nor I should be taking part.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Home Office is responsible for the Bill and, in Committee, he may recall, Home Office Ministers dealt with it. However he may dislike it, that is the position.

I suggest that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is right. The new clause is not the way in which to legislate for Scotland. If I were a Scottish Member--it is extremely dangerous for any English man to mention a word on a Scottish subject--I think that I would complain very strongly about such a matter being put forward in this way. Having said that, of course I understand the frustration mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), which has been echoed by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and others in this debate. They want something done and I quite understand that.

I cannot agree that consultation is wrong. The Secretary of State for Scotland issued a discussion paper in February 1994, which was similar to those issued by my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Northern Ireland, seeking views on what the options should be for change. The fact is that the responses to that paper, unlike the papers in the rest of the United Kingdom, revealed no widespread support for change. In the face of such a result, a Government would deserve criticism if they were to forge ahead and try to

Column 906

impose any solution. One clear message emerged--that there should be further consideration of those difficult questions for Scotland. As a result, on 10 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced the appointment and membership of the Sutherland committee to consider the issues in greater detail. The committee is expected to report next year. Hon. Members will know that a similar amendment was debated only yesterday, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office understand the urgency that some Members feel, although those people must recognise that there are many other views on the matter as well as theirs. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot support the new clause. Were I to do so, that would certainly not be in the interests of Scotland.

I fully appreciate the thinking behind amendment No. 42, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and before introducing the Bill we carefully considered the necessity of legislating to give the commission access to material that might be held by Scottish public bodies. However, our discussions and consultations had some effect on our decision, and we saw no need to extend the commission's clause 16 powers.

We believe that it would be rare indeed for material relevant to the commission's activities to be held solely by a public body in Scotland and not to be available from another source, or for the commission to be denied ready access to such material if it were found.

Normal practice--I know that the hon. Member for Upper Bann does not like normal practice, but it works, and in that respect it works well--is that where material relating to an offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland is found, it is passed to the appropriate authority. I hope that, in view of what I have said, hon. Members will not press the new clause further.

Mr. Mullin: I quite understand that the Minister might not want to accept the new clause tonight, but perhaps he will consider introducing a suitable measure in the House of Lords. Failing that, there may still be time to put something in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, if that is the appropriate way to go about it.

Mr. Baker: The proper thing for me to do is to refer the debate to my friends and colleagues in the Scottish Office, who will understand the urgency that many hon. Members have expressed. That will form part of the consultation that is currently taking place.

Mr. McFall: We have had a worthwhile debate. As other hon. Members have said, and as the Minister has realised, it was born out of frustration. The Minister's response reveals that there has been a certain smugness in the Scottish legal establishment. When the issue of miscarriages of justice was at its height in England and Wales, people in the Scottish establishment felt that such things would not happen in Scotland.

Such things might happen in Scotland, and some extremely senior legal people there would tell us that it has already happened. When Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk, who is a member of the Sutherland committee, said that a body should be set up fairly quickly, we realised the urgency required. But the Government's

Column 907

definition of urgency is puzzling. It seems to mean that they set up a committee that will report in two years' time. That is not urgency, and the Opposition know it.

We have not had a full debate on the subject tonight simply because, with due respect to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is here, no Scottish Minister has turned up. That is scandalous. It shows the apathy of the Scottish Office that it did not see fit to send one Minister to the Government Front Bench even to listen to the debate. I ask the Home Office Minister to take back to the Scottish Office the message that the Opposition are willing and ready to consult on the issue. We see it not as a party political issue but as one that attacks the body politic of the legal system in Scotland--one that, if left long enough, could be cancerous. We do not want that situation to prevail--

Dr. Godman: If we are fair-minded, we must admit that the smugness to which my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred is less noticeable than it was. Moreover, there are a few radical minds among the members of the Law Society of Scotland who would like the changes to be made.

Mr. McFall: Yes. I am talking about the smugness in the Scottish Office, although the legal fraternity has also been subject to a certain smugness. But there are many senior people in the law in Scotland to whom that comment does not apply. A few weeks ago, I spoke to several judges who realised the urgency of the situation. An eminent Queen's counsel, Gordon Jackson, has written an article saying that something needs to be done, and many people recognise that fact.

My main attack is on the smugness of the Government. We have had no real debate tonight because the Scottish Office has not thought fit to come here and discuss the issue. My new clause was tabled to tease out the Government's thinking and to offer the services of the Opposition to find a solution. The Government have not responded, but when people outside read Hansard they will realise the Opposition's good intentions and the Government's apathy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

The Commission: grants to individuals

` .--(1) The Commission may make a grant to any individual whose case has been referred to the Commission for consideration or who wishes the Commission to consider his case--

(a) on the grounds that the case raises an issue of general principle which should be tested and considered in the public interest, or

(b) by reason of any other special consideration--

(2) The powers under this section shall be exercised only-- (a) under regulations drawn up by the Commission and approved by the Secretary of State, and

(b) from within the Commission's agreed budget.

(3) Grants made under this section shall be applied only to the specific purposes agreed by the Commission which may include obtaining advise or assistance from a solicitor or counsel or such other person as the Commission may specify--

Column 908

(a) to prepare a submission to the Commission,

(b) to conduct an investigation requested or guided by the Commission,

(d) to make representations to the Commission on whether a person's conviction should be referred to the Court of Appeal.'.-- [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause deals with a power that we seek to add for the commission to make grants to individuals in special circumstances, where the commission feels that there is a good reason to give special consideration to making money available. The individuals whom we have in mind are those who allege that they have been the victims of miscarriages of justice.

On Second Reading of the Bill, we cast doubt on the Government's calculations of the costs of its operation. Indeed, we pointed out then that if we aim to ensure that people have the capacity to be represented at the outcome of the commission's consideration of their cases, when matters come to court and when decisions are taken, the explanatory and financial memorandum was extremely lightweight. The paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill provided to assist us on Second Reading lumped together a whole range of activities and demands on the work load of different aspects of the criminal justice system, with only one passing reference to the costs of legal aid, as follows:

"This increase in the workload of the courts and the widening of the powers of the magistrates courts to reopen cases is likely to give rise to total costs of about £1.7 million (including court and prosecution costs and legal aid)".

It is open to doubt whether that is a correct estimate, and it is certainly questionable whether adequate support will be available for individuals in all the circumstances that may arise. At present there are often gaps, and it is clear that people who seriously believe that they have been victims of miscarriages of justice cannot obtain legal aid or other forms of support to undertake the work of providing the evidence necessary to get a court to consider their case, or to persuade the Home Secretary that there is a case that the Court of Appeal or his Department should consider further. That is a serious problem, which has been illustrated by a variety of organisations, including Liberty and Justice. Many of us in the House have cause to be well aware of the shortcomings of the system, as a result of having dealt with individual cases involving our constituents.

So there is a gap which is not filled by the Bill. As I read the Bill, the commission does not have the capacity to choose to make a grant in circumstances in which it believes that something needs to be done to correct or avoid the continuation of a miscarriage of justice.

New clause 10 does not seek to confer a wide discretion. It confers on the commission only the power to act within the budget that is made available to it. The power is equivalent in many ways to the power given to the Commission for Racial Equality when it was established. Therefore, there is a precedent for the provision of such a power.

Column 909

The purpose of new clause 10 is to allow for a power to

"make a grant to any individual whose case has been referred to the Commission for consideration or who wishes the Commission to consider his case".

It sets out the limited grounds on which such a grant might be made. The first is

"that the case raises an issue of general principle which should be tested and considered in the public interest".

It is surely in the public interest that justice should be done and be seen to be done, and that miscarriages of justice should be dealt with. So there is that public interest requirement.

7 pm

The second ground is:

"by reason of any other special consideration".

It is not possible to anticipate the experience that will develop as the commission undertakes its work. The new clause also limits the grant-making power to:

"under regulations drawn up by the Commission and approved by the Secretary of State".

So the new clause does not take things outside the control of the Home Secretary and it limits grants to within the commission's agreed budget. Ministers have no reason to fear that a wide gap is being driven through proper controls or financial accountability. The new clause ensures that within the legislation there is a possibility to make grants and that new legislation will not be required if, as we suspect, such a power and such a system comes to be needed in the fullness of time.

As subsection (3) of new clause 10 says, we are looking at specific purposes such as the preparation of a submission to the commission, which can be difficult and onerous in some circumstances, undertaking an investigation in circumstances in which the commission felt that it was best undertaken by or on behalf of the applicant rather than directly by the commission, responding to statements, reports or opinions disclosed by the commission or making recommendations to the commission on whether a person's conviction should be referred to the Court of Appeal. There are circumstances in which the commission might find it extremely helpful to enable that process to take place.

The new clause does not impose obligations or onerous duties. It ensures that powers are provided in the Bill that can be triggered should the need be revealed in the fullness of time. I suggest that it is also an opportunity for the Minister to deal with the point that I made at the beginning of this brief speech. The other means of providing assistance to individuals is the existing legal aid system, which is not changed by the provisions of the Bill or, indeed, of new clause 10. There will be occasions on which individuals will seek to go through the existing legal aid system in order to prepare a submission to the commission, conduct investigations which might lead towards a submission, respond to the statements, reports and opinions of the commission or make representations to the commission. It would be helpful if the Minister gave us some reassurance about the way in which legal aid issues will be dealt with in practice.

The Law Society has expressed concern that lawyers will be required to be involved in certain processes if the commission is to be effective and the whole structure that

Column 910

we seek to create in the Bill is to be as effective as we all want it to be. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify that, as well as to respond to a new clause which we have carefully limited in its scope and direction so that Ministers have no fears about allowing the Bill to be amended. The new clause makes the Bill far-sighted and enables it to cover eventualities that might arise in the future. In that light, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: Now that the hordes of rebellious Scots have been crushed and have retreated from the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman and I can return to the constructive dialogue that we have had throughout the debates in the Committee and in the Chamber tonight. I am grateful to him for explaining the intentions behind his new clause. Although he makes a careful and beguiling case, I regret that I am unable to accept it.

First, I am not sure what is meant by

"an issue of general principle which should be tested and considered in the public interest"

in subsection (l)(a) of the new clause. It could easily be argued that the cases most deserving of funding were those in which there was no issue of general principle beyond the issue of whether there had been a miscarriage of justice in the particular case in question. Nor am I sure what other special considerations may be thought to be relevant. In any case, there seem to be a number of practical difficulties with the scheme proposed.

If the commission were to pay out money to applicants, it could and probably would add significantly to its costs. According to the hon. Gentleman's new clause, they would be met from within the commission's existing budget, but it would have to be a budget much bigger than we would envisage setting if it did not have to pay out grants. It would also be a burden on the commission's resources in terms of the amount of time that it would take to draw up the regulations, to consider each application to see whether it met the conditions set out in subsection (1), and to ensure that each grant was used for the specific purpose agreed by the commission. The Public Accounts Committee would be the first to condemn us if we gave a grant-making power to such a body and that body did not have full and detailed scrutiny mechanisms to make sure that the money was properly and wisely spent and the Government knew what was going on. So I am afraid that we would need a great palaver of machinery, rightly so, to satisfy our requirements and those of the PAC. I do not think that we want the commission to get bogged down in that sort of work.

In Committee the Opposition moved amendments in which they expressed their view that if the commission troubled itself with the few cases that it would have each year of people appealing against their sentence, it would be an inappropriate use of the commission's time. For the reasons that I advanced in Committee, I believe that it is an appropriate use of the commission's time, but I must admit that the Opposition's arguments tonight are weaker than those which they advanced against us in those circumstances.

I do not believe that the proposal in the new clause would be an effective use of the commission's time. Nor do I believe that the new clause is necessary as both potential applicants and those whose cases are under consideration by the commission will be able to apply for

Column 911

legal aid to obtain the assistance of solicitors in making representations to the commission under the existing green form scheme. That is the main point.

The hon. Gentleman asked for my assurances. I am delighted to give them. Legal aid will continue to be made available to people who make applications to the commission through the green form scheme. This scheme will assist convicted persons to make representations to the commission, both at the original application stage and following the disclosure of material gathered in the course of the commission's investigations. I know that whenever I clarify something about the Bill, the hon. Gentleman says that I have made a tremendous admission and moved the Government's position considerably. I do not think that I have, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that he has won a marvellous concession from me tonight, I am happy to accede in the interests of brevity.

I note that subsection 3(b) of the new clause would enable the commission to make a grant for an investigation which was requested or guided by the commission. That again is unnecessary. The costs of the commission's investigations will be met by the commission or, if it requires the appointment of an investigating officer from a police force, by the force which conducts the resulting investigation. Costs of inquiries made by investigating officers appointed by public bodies other than the police will be met by the public body which originally investigated the offence in question. No additional provision for investigations by applicants is therefore necessary. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, particularly my firm assurances on the availability of legal aid to applicants, the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is not necessary to push the new clause and will be willing to withdraw it in as nice as possible a Celtic manner, of which he and I are both exponents.

Mr. Michael: The Minister is trying a new approach on me--charm. I look forward to seeing whether, within the charm of his response, there are one or two nuggets. He sought to reassure us about the availability of legal aid in respect of the different activities to which I referred: the preparation of submissions to the commission; the conducting of investigations responding to items, statements and other matters that are disclosed by the commission; and making representations on whether a person's conviction should be referred to the Court of Appeal. I am grateful to him for that reassurance. I hope that, once the commission starts its work, the reality turns out to be as generous as the Minister's words this evening. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we must wait and see. His words will have been noted by all those interested in such matters. Either they will be taken as the touchstone for how those matters are dealt with or they will return to haunt the Minister in the fullness of time.

The Minister has misread the new clause. If the powers are not needed, they need not be implemented. If he is right to suggest that things will be so perfect in the scheme of affairs that he set out, the provisions would simply be unused. But if, as we suspect, there are anomalies and difficulties, Ministers will say that we must wait for an appropriate opportunity to amend the legislation before they can put those matters right. The new clause provides the opportunity in advance to ensure that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to put matters

Column 912

right as soon as the problems are recognised by Ministers, or Ministers receive recommendations from the commission in the light of its experience.

I am sorry that the Minister has seen fit to reject this constructive new clause. The proposal may be debated further in another place and the Minister may have had an opportunity to reflect on this short debate by the time one of his colleagues deals with further discussions on the Bill. In order that we may progress to other issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15

Defrayment of police expenses

`.The Commission shall defray any reasonable costs incurred by any police authority in the carrying out of inquiries or investigations by any of its police officers in pursuance of a direction given by the Commission under the terms of this Act.'.-- [Mr. Beith.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 7, in schedule 1, page 23, line 25, at end insert-- `The report shall include a breakdown of the costs of investigations during the relevant year, including--

(a) the Commission's own costs,

(b) the costs falling to each police authority, and

Mr. Beith: The explanatory and financial memorandum appended to the Bill when it was first presented to the House was seriously misleading because it implied that there were no additional costs to public bodies other than those specified, which the commission would incur and which are provided for. Police forces carrying out investigations which the commission directs them to carry out will incur enormous costs. Some investigations may cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, which will make a significant mark on those police authorities' budgets.

Police authorities are newly created authorities of a quite different form from the previous local authority committees and joint committees which ran the police service outside London. The Home Office has given the new police authorities budgets and they are just beginning to implement that system. Because they are new, they will not have accumulated reserves; nor can they call on the general reserves of a local authority, as might have been possible under the old system when they were local authority committees. Thus they have no recourse to alternative financing if they are hit by the significant costs of an investigation.

7.15 pm

The Association of Chief Police Officers raised concerns from the beginning about how the costs were to be met. Most police authorities are under severe pressure and believe that the new budgets cannot achieve the level of service that the Home Office assumes, partly because of difficulties such as the high cost of police pensions, which in many authorities are significantly higher than the figures assumed by the Home Office when it set out the budgets. That is for a series of reasons, such as the pattern

Column 913

of retirement relating to the years in which officers were recruited in larger numbers and the consequences of the Sheehy report, and it is one of many factors which lead many police authorities to say that their budgets are under severe pressure.

The Home Secretary has told police authorities that they are free to appoint extra officers under the new system. But they can do so only if they reallocate funds from other parts of their budgets. The Home Secretary recognises that his budgetary provisions do not assume funds for additional officers, but says that forces which reallocate within their budgets and make prudent resource decisions should be able to provide for additional officers. But what will happen if a force does so having said that it will make no provision for any investigation which the commission may direct it to carry out? I am glad that the Home Secretary is here to tell us what his response will be if a police authority tells him, "The commission that you set up requires us to conduct an inquiry costing £500,000, but you earlier advised us that we should adjust our budgets so that if we need extra officers we can appoint them. We have appointed extra officers and have no money left in our budget to finance an investigation on that scale, so if the commission directs us to do so will it please tell us who will pay for it?" The current assumption in the Bill is that the police authority must nevertheless find the money out of non-existent reserves and without the capacity to bring in an extra levy or a supplementary council tax in the middle of the year to cover it. So how is that money to be found?

Furthermore, police authorities can be capped individually if their expenditure is above what the Home Office considers appropriate. They may already have been capped. What does a capped police authority do when the commission directs it to carry out a major inquiry, either into something that has happened in its own force in the past or into something that has happened in another force where the chief officer has recognised--he cannot be forced to do so--the merits of the matter being investigated by another force? Investigations will be passed around like parcels at a party as police authorities say that they cannot afford to do any more because they have no more money in their budgets.

Investigations can be extremely costly. Pay, overtime, travel, allowances, paperwork and computer costs all need to be funded. Through overtime or some other means, officers must carry out the work of other officers diverted to an inquiry, who may have important investigating or management roles within the police force concerned. Unless we make provision for reimbursement to the authority of the cost of an inquiry, the clause will take officers away from dealing with crime and preventing crime, and may do so disproportionately in some forces. A small force with a matter from its own area to investigate may be hit disproportionately. One of the smaller police forces might emerge as particularly good at carrying out inquiries so that officers have to be brought in from another force. However, it may quickly realise that that is not a good idea. Developing a skill, facility and reputation for carrying out inquiries in other police force areas will be disastrous if the effect of doing so is to clobber the police authority budget and take officers away from operational duties in tackling and preventing crime.

Column 914

We remain extremely concerned, therefore, at the lack of proper financial arrangements for police authorities. If arrangements are not made, officers will be taken away from important front -line duties without the authority having the means to make up the gap. We all recognise that police officers must sometimes be diverted into that work as it is an important part of the criminal justice system, as they are now, under arrangements with the Home Office. The new authority may, however, be more onerous in its demands as to what the inquiry should involve. I think that the Minister conceded that because the commission, he claims, has power of supervision, it may well make more exacting requirements in some cases than the Home Office has done hitherto.

The Government have also recognised, in their funding and assumptions about the commission, that there will be a bulge--perhaps even a rush--of applications in the first year or two, arising from the backlog in recent years. That will similarly affect police authorities. However, no provision has been made for the extra quantity of inquiries that will land on them, at a greater rate than currently occurs because of anything that the Home Office might ask them to investigate. More inquiries will take place and more costs will be incurred by more police authorities.

That appears to us to be a serious deficiency in the way in which the matter is being approached, and one which will work to the detriment of fighting crime. I therefore ask the Minister to resolve the matter and tell us how authorities are to fund that work.

Mr. Michael: I agree with many of the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), especially about the inadequate estimate of the impact of costs that will arise as a result of establishing the new organisation.

As I said earlier, I am worried about the likelihood that the cost of undertaking investigations has been seriously underestimated, and that the Government have sought in effect to cut the impact on the Government's budget by shifting the burden to local police authorities.There is something curious about the idea of rewarding increased competence in an activity by giving additional burdens to those who develop that competence. It should surely be the other way round.

I wish to deal specifically with amendment No. 7, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It seeks to make the matter of cost transparent. It seeks to ensure that, in each annual report, figures are given of the costs of investigations in the relevant year.

In the amendment, we suggest three pieces of information; first, the commission's own costs; secondly, the costs falling to each police authority; and thirdly, the costs falling to any other body during the year covered by the report. The last element--the costs falling to other bodies- -may be relatively small and insignificant, and providing that information should not be onerous; nevertheless, it should be there. I should have thought that the other two elements ought to be there as a matter of course, so accepting that they should be required on the face of the Bill should give no problem to the Minister.

First, the commission, if it is being competently managed, should be able to identify and analyse its own costs and the way in which its resources are being used. To require on the face of the Bill that the commission should provide that information merely ensures that the

Next Section

Home Page