| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mullin: After representations from a number of people, including me, the commission received a large part of what it was asking for. It is in the process of recruiting many extra caseworkers. It may not have everything that it wants but it should be able to make considerable process in reducing the backlog.
Mr. Garnier: I am pleased to hear that. The cases that will benefit from the Bill becoming law must be very few in number. There will not, therefore, be a long queue, at least in this discrete area of cases that may or may not need to be referred. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. I apologised to the hon. Lady privately because I may not be present when she replies, if she is to do so, because of a constituency engagement in Leicestershire--quite near Gartree prison, as it happens--at midday. I apologise to her, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House if I am not in my place to hear the concluding remarks.
The additional money and caseworkers of which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has spoken will be vital, but the requirement will not be much added to by the Bill. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has so far heard only of the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon, and if he is complaining about these matters, he has little to worry about.
As at the end of April 1999, as I understand it, the Criminal Cases Review Commission had 444 cases under active review, but it still had 1,176 cases awaiting review. That is a bad set of figures. I hope that, with the Minister's agreement, the money to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, referred will assist the commission in dealing with the backlog.
I am told that at the end of December 1998, the length of time that an applicant had to wait for a detailed review of his or her case averaged two years. Mr. Hay Gordon
has been waiting since 1952 or 1953. 1952 was the year in which I was born--forty-six and a half years ago. If I were Mr. Hay Gordon, I would be the first to approach my constituency Member of Parliament and invite him or her to press for the Bill. I am delighted that the noble Lord Ackner in the other place was quick to take up that cause.
The House has a history of passing some legislation as a result of a knee-jerk reaction. I shall not list the Bills that the present Government or the Government whom I supported passed in response to press campaigns and single-issue pressure groups. There have been some good Bills that may seem to benefit only one individual. This is one such Bill. Whereas the other place allowed it to be properly considered, with all-party agreement, I trust that the House--
Mr. Maclean:
I hate to correct someone as distinguished as my hon. and learned Friend, but the 15 or 20 minutes discussion in the other place was not quite full consideration. It behoves us today to give the Bill more time than that, as we are dealing with a crucial issue of justice relating to a human being. That is no criticism of the other place, which came to the correct conclusion in passing the Bill to us. We need to consider it properly.
Mr. Garnier:
My right hon. Friend has his views on the matter, which he must defend if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the question of time, I am bearing in mind the forty-six and a half years that Mr. Hay Gordon has awaited the opportunity to go before some form of appellate jurisdiction. I am bearing in mind, too, the other cases, about which we may not know, of people who were convicted of being guilty but insane between the end of the second world war and the enactment of the mid-1960s legislation. I am bearing in mind the ease with which Parliament, which is sovereign, should be able to pass a relatively self-explanatory, humane and civilised Bill.
I do not want to provoke my right hon. and hon. Friends into taking up more of the time of the House by intervening on me. I urge them to consider carefully what we are about, and the advice that we have received not only from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, but from the distinguished and learned Law Lord, now retired, Lord Ackner.
My right hon. and hon. Friends should consider also the words of our noble Friend Lord Taylor of Warwick, a barrister of some experience in the criminal courts, and of the noble Lord Thomas of Gresford, who has considerable experience both as a solicitor and as a barrister practising in the criminal courts. His remarks in the other place are particularly instructive. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who looks a little puzzled, will study them carefully. There were other speeches there from a layman, our noble Friend the Earl of Portsmouth, who has followed the issue with considerable care.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is still looking puzzled, may not be a regular reader of The Guardian. I used to work for it; I declare an interest in that respect. My right hon. Friend will find that the issue is not just a lawyers' ramp. It is not just a matter of some half-baked
single-issue pressure group getting up and grabbing hold of parliamentary time and legislative power. This is a properly thought-out Bill which requires to be passed into law, and it commends itself to all hon. Members, regardless of their party allegiance.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for indulging me yet again. He is seeking to impress the House with a litany of very important people, and telling us that they think that this is a good Bill. If the matter is as important as my hon. and learned Friend has so eloquently argued, and if it has the support of so many eminent people, why has it taken to long to get here?
Mr. Garnier:
My right hon. Friend has been in government. He knows that every Government will have one excuse or another for not finding it convenient to introduce a particular piece of legislation. If something needs to be done, a Government will find time for it to be done. If something does not need to be done, I have found, amazingly, that Governments will find good reasons for it not to be done.
Mr. Garnier:
My right hon. Friend should not draw me on that--especially as I am about to head off for Leicestershire--or I shall be here for a good while yet.
It will be easy for my right hon. Friend, a man of huge Government experience in at least three Departments, to stand up in due course and explain why the Bill should not be given assistance by the Government. It is a private Member's Bill, but it has been given the assistance of Government--or at least, for once, a Government are not hindering a private Member's Bill. If that is the case, it will only add to the feelings of high esteem which I have for the Minister, my London Member of Parliament.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill):
As I mentioned earlier, Iain Hay Gordon is my constituent. His fight to clear his name has been going on for an extremely long time. That is most unfortunate, especially as he does not keep in very good health. He has been desperate to move matters forward so that he can try to clear his name, because he is afraid of going to his death without having managed to do so. That cannot be attempted until the Bill is passed.
The Bill seems to have the support of the entire House. It passed through the other place without difficulty. We are speaking of a minor amendment which arises because of an earlier error. It is clear that for the sake of justice and right, the Bill should go through today.
Having waited so long for Parliament to do what is right, we have a chance today to put right a grave wrong to my constituent. He will be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and to those who have taken up the matter in another place.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Bill's promoter, and to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for the way in which she has come to this House on a Friday to defend the rights of her constituent. I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said and I was intrigued to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), a distinguished Queen's counsel, setting out his thoughts in detail.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |