---

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only does that matter have resource implications--that important point may have to be developed--but the relevant material, witnesses, evidence and so on will necessarily be that much less reliable, given the age of the cases? Is not that a factor that we shall all have to bear in mind as we consider the efficacy of the Bill?

Mr. Luff: Characteristically, my right hon. Friend makes a point that I was seeking to make rather better than I would have done. He is right and that is one of the central challenges for the House during its consideration of the Bill. The Minister must satisfy us that the case in question is one of only a very small group. Is her estimate of the number of cases three or four, which was the estimate made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he opened his remarks? If her estimate is 10, 12 or 15, the nature of our consideration would have to change and a much sharper problem would be posed for the CCRC.

23 Jul 1999 : Column 1482

Mr. Mullin: I do not want to prolong this agony. I did not say that I knew of three or four cases; I said that I knew of one and that I had heard someone say that there might be two. It is very unlikely that there will be as many as three or four and it is perfectly possible that the case in question will be the only one. The hon. Gentleman talked about assurances that I have given. The assurances that I have given on miscarriages of justice over the years have largely proved reliable.

Mr. Luff: With characteristic modesty, the hon. Gentleman sets out for the House his track record on these matters; I think he has a great deal about which to be modest. He has a good reputation on these issues and I congratulate him on it, but the Bill has not been scrutinised thoroughly elsewhere, so we need to know what assessment the Government have made of the likely work load on the commission that will flow from the Bill. I am told that the commission is adamant that it will not sacrifice thoroughness for the sake of speed. It is right to take that view, but I fear that achieving thoroughness in such a case could be particularly demanding.

In November 1998, the Home Secretary rejected the bid for £1.3 million additional funding. We are told that additional money has been forthcoming, although my information was that the only money available was for information technology. It appears that, as well as capital funding, revenue funding will be available for additional caseworkers. That is good, because the commission is clearly doing important work. I would certainly want my constituents to have access to it in cases of miscarriage of justice. However, the statistics are quite alarming and it is important that the House is aware of them.

I think that my most recent information comes from a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee from the CCRC; if that is not the case, I apologise to the House. The backlog of more than 1,000 cases is growing at a rate of more than one a day and, by definition, the cases that the commission considers are serious. The backlog is huge and each and every case is a matter of considerable concern to the individual affected by it. Standing here in the Chamber today, I have no way of prioritising the case of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon over those other 1,000 cases.

In its evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last December, the CCRC said:

"The October 1997 memorandum to the Committee noted the very severe problems that had been posed by the CCRC's initial caseload, but hoped that the case completion rate might soon reach the case intake rate."

In other words, the commission's waiting list--to use a topical term from another area of the public policy debate--is growing steadily. The CCRC went on to say that the

"CCRC casework experience to date, and caseflow analysis, combine to demonstrate clearly that the CCRC cannot achieve casework breakeven, and minimise the case accumulation, on any reasonable timescale unless substantially increased resources are allocated to it."

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has already been advised that it is not our business to offer the CCRC any order of priority for its work. We are here merely to pass a necessary amendment to the Bill arising from an error that was made at an earlier stage. It is as simple as that.

23 Jul 1999 : Column 1483

Mr. Luff: I admire the way in which the hon. Lady is fighting for the interests of her constituent. I want to be persuaded that the Bill should be enacted because her constituent should have the justice that he is lacking and I hear what she says, but the message sent out at the end of his speech by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was that the commission should give that case priority. The nature of the case suggests to me that he may be right--I do not know enough about the cases before the CCRC to reach that judgment--but if similar cases arose, we would logically have to support the commission giving them priority over other cases, which may be of great importance.

Mr. Maclean: Surely there is another valid point. We are being asked to pass the Bill using a slightly expedited procedure. There has been no debate on Second Reading. The CCRC may not be able to consider the case for three years--when it has cleared its existing backlog--which is an argument for suggesting that the Bill's provisions could be part of a Government Bill next year. We would then have more time to consider such a Bill clause by clause.

Mr. Luff: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but I do not share that view, although I understand why he has expressed it. I want the Minister to give a clear explanation of why my fears are misplaced. The House would then be able to give the Bill speedy passage, rather than delaying it unnecessarily. I am sure that the hon. Member for Maryhill does not want her constituent to wait another year, even for the opportunity to put his case to the commission. Subject to the assurances that we receive from the Minister, I hope that we can give the Bill speedy progress, but it is important that we understand the extent of the problems that the commission faces as we do that.

On 16 December 1998, The Guardian said:

"MPs who fear a repeat of the Child Support Agency shambles are to summon Home Office Ministers to explain why they refused a plea for an extra £1.3 million for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to attack the mounting backlog."

I do not know whether those words are a briefing from a member of the Home Affairs Committee or the florid prose of The Guardian, but this is clearly a matter of considerable concern to the Committee and it is right to be concerned.

The Bill centres on the Iain Hay Gordon case. We are informed that his may be one of two, three, four, or however many cases, and we have already debated that matter. I have looked at the background to the case and I understand why the hon. Member for Maryhill is so concerned about it. I shall not weary the House with an account of it, because that would clearly be an inappropriate use of our time. I was, however, slightly amused by an article in The Herald of 27 April last year, which states:

"A political row is brewing over the refusal of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to begin an investigation into an alleged miscarriage in the case of Glasgow man Iain Gordon, 66 . . . Mr. Chris Mullin, the veteran campaigner against injustice and chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has written to commission chairman Sir Frederick Crawford to demand an explanation for the commission's handling of the case . . . Mr. Mullin, Labour MP for Sunderland South, called for Sir Frederick's resignation when it was revealed last August that the £88,000-a-year chairman of the new body was a freemason in

23 Jul 1999 : Column 1484

the Gordon case. Mr. Mullin has accused him of appearing to have taken 'a narrow view of your responsibilities and one that is certainly at odds with the intention of Parliament when the commission was established'."

Mr. Mullin: I cannot be responsible for what is in The Herald, but I certainly did not call for Sir Frederick's resignation. I did, at the time of his appointment, express surprise that a Birmingham freemason had been put in charge of this particularly sensitive commission, but Sir Frederick has done a pretty good job during his two years in office and I have no complaint about him.

Mr. Luff: I am not and have never been a freemason, but I am suspicious of the hon. Gentleman's suspicion of freemasons. I was, however, delighted to hear his tribute to Sir Frederick and I am sure that he will be pleased as well. A degree of guilt probably lingers in the hon. Gentleman's mind. It is excellent that he has sought to expunge it by presenting the Bill and recognising that the commission was not guilty of failing to do its duty, but simply did not have the statutory ability to perform that duty.

Let me return to the fundamental point. The Iain Hay Gordon case provides us with a useful example, but we should take it only as an illustration. We should not see it as our reason for acting; we must act on principle. The question of whether Iain Hay Gordon was or was not the victim of a miscarriage of justice is not for the House to consider. It is a matter for the due process that will follow if the Bill is passed. The question that we should consider is the question of access to the powers of the commission. I believe that the House should grant such access only if it is absolutely clear that an intolerable burden will not be placed on the commission.

Is this a single case? Single cases are regularly used to shape law in this place, but I feel that they should be used only to illustrate it. Another question--one that the Minister should answer--is this: what precedent are we setting if we pass the Bill? Are there other lacunae in the wording of the legislation that established the Criminal Cases Review Commission? Are there other issues that need to be addressed? Will passing the Bill give rise to a raft of private Members' Bills dealing with other inadequacies, or is this, as it were, a one-off case of a one-off case?

---