| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will push the boat out a bit too far if he goes into constitutional matters. It is a Third Reading debate on the Bill.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful. I was getting a bit carried away with my argument about retrospection. I had better limit it, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly point out, to the Bill itself.
Again, there are precedents. At the risk of provoking my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border again, I asked for examples of retrospective legislation. I have a list, but I am now quite nervous about quoting from it in case he picks me up on it. Suffice it to say that the research that I have commissioned suggests that it is permissible, and there are precedents for a retrospective approach when it is deemed justifiable.
The promoter of the Bill said in his admirable speech that, in a sense, that was the whole justification for the Bill. It is based on, we think, a single case. We are not sure; there may be a few others. In a sense, the whole point of the Bill is to look back, to look at the particular circumstances that prevailed at the time, to identify the lacuna, and then to say, "We will now legislate in 1999 for something that happened a very long time ago and for a glitch, or gap in the law, which has only fairly recently emerged, to the disadvantage of one known individual, although there may be others."
Mr. Maclean:
My right hon. Friend is correct. There have been numerous examples of retrospective legislation. I had the privilege of studying the list as well, but I could not find any examples relating to individuals. The examples related to teachers' pay and conditions, vaccine-damaged children and London Regional Transport--I could not find one case of retrospective legislation dealing with a single individual.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I keep coming back to it: we must concern ourselves with the Third Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful. That brings me neatly to the issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, which I will characterise as antiquity and, therefore, efficacy. He touched on the point in a different way, admittedly.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
Before my right hon. Friend moves from the point about retrospection: I have listened to his arguments with interest, as I have to the arguments of other Conservative Members, but I am not really convinced. Surely any matter of law that deals with matters of appeal is, by its very nature, retrospective. In that instance, he cannot hold it against legislation dealing with appeal matters that it is retrospective. Is it not inevitable?
Mr. Forth:
That is partly the case, but there is a problem, which I am coming on to; I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. Surely, there is one thing that we have to consider, because we are talking about a proper judicial process, not just a quasi-judicial process. One of the factors that it is incumbent on us to consider with great seriousness is the extent to which we think it efficacious and viable to allow a review to take place, when, by definition--we are defining it in this case, or it is defined for us--the material factors will be so far in the distant past as to be possibly unreliable. That is
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
Is it not for the review to discover whether the facts are uncertain, or too long ago? It surely should not be denied the opportunity to consider that case.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not think it is as obvious as he suggests. I had the same problem in respect of the war crimes legislation some years ago and I would contend that when one is dealing with events in the distant past, the evidence becomes less reliable. As my hon. Friend points out, there is an element of judgment and we are making precisely that judgment today. In making this proposed change in the law and inviting a review process which inevitably will have to deal with events in the distant past, we must consider how comfortable we are with the likelihood that that will lead to a proper process of justice.
I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South will sum up the debate. I could almost write his speech for him now--or at least part of it. I suspect that he will say that he has been involved in a number of cases that deal with exactly this matter. That might set my mind at rest as it is an important factor.
Another point that I wish to make in my preliminary remarks involves money. I address these comments mainly to the Minister, who I hope will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We look forward to her contribution as it will help to set in context a number of issues that have arisen in the debate, and no doubt will arise again. However, this is a particular matter for the Minister and I am alerting her and any others who may be in a position to assist.
A key element in the debate are the additional responsibilities that the Bill places on the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It has been admitted--rightly, in my view--that the House has no influence on the priority of the work of the CCRC. That is a matter for its judgment. However, knowing a little about these matters, I suspect that the CCRC could possibly be influenced by the Minister. It might even be influenced by reading these proceedings. It is obviously the wish of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that it should be so influenced. No doubt she has assiduously made her own representations in that regard and I wish her well with them. However, I wish to make a narrow point about money and staff.
My information is that the commission has calculated that it needs something like 60 case review managers in order to process new cases and reduce the backlog. It has been claimed that the Government have given extra money to the CCRC. In February this year the Government announced plans to give the CCRC an extra £1.2 million to employ more caseworkers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. This is a debate about a limited extension of the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is not a general debate on the work of the commission.
Mr. Forth:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have enabled me to move on to the substance of my remarks, having dealt with the preliminaries. I shall now turn to the Bill itself, and I am sure that you will approve of my doing that. [Interruption.]
Mrs. Fyfe:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know what is amusing some Opposition Members, but I do not share their amusement, given that they are discussing the human rights of a constituent of mine. Perhaps they could be brought to order, or bring themselves to order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will take on board what the hon. Lady has said.
Mr. Forth:
With the greatest charity, let me say that if the hon. Lady were here more often on a Friday she would realise that our proceedings are often a little more relaxed and that that often allows us to proceed on a consensual basis. I would regret that consensus and good spirit being interrupted in any way and I hope that the hon. Lady would not be party to that.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
Let me put the mind of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) at rest. Many of us are here today because we share her concern for her constituent. That is why we support the Bill.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces what I said. The way in which the House works on Fridays and deals with private Members' Bills is a little different from the normal run of events, as you know better than almost any of us, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Maclean:
I would merely point out that on the last occasion the Bill was before the House and those of us who are always here on Fridays expedited its passage through to this stage, I do not recall the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) being here, worried about her constituent's rights.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am having difficulty in persuading hon. Members to speak to the Third Reading of the Bill. We cannot debate who was here last Friday or the previous Friday.
Mr. Forth:
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now get stuck into the Bill itself. I can reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Maryhill that it will not take long.
My references to the Bill relate to my introductory remarks. Clause 1(1) states that
Another concern on which I would welcome the comments of the Minister or the promoter of the Bill--and probably both--relates to clause 1(2)(b). Subsection (2) states:
"the Criminal Cases Review Commission may at any time refer the verdict to the Court of Appeal if subsection (2) below applies."
The Bill gives a very wide remit to the CCRC. It is important that we acknowledge that we are broadening the original remit of the commission very widely indeed.
"This subsection applies if the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the verdict would not be upheld were the reference to be made and . . . it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the making of the reference."
That is an extremely wide and permissive phrase. It crosses my mind to question whether it is wise to give that degree of latitude. As we all know, exceptional circumstances can be defined in almost any way. There is no limitation and no further reference to that provision. It simply gives the commission the power to make a judgment as to what exceptional circumstances are and links that to its ability to make a reference.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |