| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure in how many more ways I can say this: we accept that it is an important issue. It is important that people have assistance with communication where they need it, so that they can participate in society. I repeat the point that I was making: it is down to people at the local level to assess those needs and to meet them when they need to do so. In relation to children, if there are special educational needs and an assessment is made, there is then an obligation on a local authority to respond to that assessment appropriately.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that people without speech and communication, especially children, suffer horrendous difficulties, compounded by loneliness? The Government gave £21 million in the past five years to help such people. That was regarded as a vital supplement. What is the difference between the past five years and the next five years? Why has the supplement now become not so vital?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it was always intended that the programme would be time-limited. We now know from the experience of that programme that a lot of work has been done with local authorities to enable them to learn lessons from it. There is a good stock of CAP case studies showing how agencies have worked together in support of children with significant communication difficulties. All local authorities can learn from that experience.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister has made it clear that, so far as the Government are concerned, ensuring that those in need receive the help that they require is down to decision-making at a local level. Am I right in thinking that there are no nationally agreed criteria or systems for providing communication aids and that even now there is considerable variation in provision between different sectors, which results in major problems? Will the end of the communication aids project not mean a postcode lottery appearing in this area?
Lord Warner: My Lords, guidance has been given in The National Service Framework for Long-term Conditions. The function on communication is central to themes in our document Improving the life chances of disabled people. We take the issue very seriously. We have allocated increasingly large resources to local authorities for social services and to the NHS in relation to health needs. We expect people to use the national service frameworks and guidance to meet the needs in their local communities.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what assessments the Government have made of the number of people on
27 Mar 2006 : Column 539
incapacity benefit who could undertake work if they were provided with adequate communication equipment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have that information immediately to hand, but I shall look into the matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this would be a good topic on which to invite the health inspectorate and the social care inspectorate to do a joint inspection to see how well the systems are working at local level? As the noble Lord indicated, it is a matter for local services, and it would be helpful if the inspectorate could assess how well they were working.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am certainly willing to look into the issue with my colleagues. I remind the noble Lord that in our White Paper, Our health, our care, our say, the new director of adult social services and the directors of public health were identified as key in advising on how local authorities and PCTs would promote the health and well-being of their local communities. This is one of the issues that we would expect them to pay attention to.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to research conducted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, a significant proportion of young people coming into the criminal justice system has significant communication difficulties but that the sample work conducted in a particular institution has not been rolled out throughout the prison system? Does he think that it is important to measure the communication difficulties of people in the criminal justice system and to do something about it?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of the general problem, and I will certainly draw the points that the noble Lord has made to my colleagues' attention.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I accept that the Minister is absolutely right to say that this is a problem with a local solution, but the Government have none the less taken on board the need for numbers of doctors, nurses and therapists—in this case, speech therapists. What assessment have the Government made of the need for speech therapists, and are they up to strength?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am delighted to tell the House that between December 1997 and 2004, the number of speech and language therapists employed in the NHS increased by 1,684, or 35 per cent.
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that for two years, until last July, a trial pilot of speech and language therapists, funded by the Helen Hamlyn Trust, was run in two young offender establishments with the plea that the Government should pick up that bill because of the enormous good work that they would do. Since then,
27 Mar 2006 : Column 540
there has been nothing but silence because neither the Home Office nor the National Health Service has been able to agree who might pay for the vital people to do that vital work.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I would be delighted to look into the communications issues and get someone to reply to the noble Lord.
Criminal Justice: Scientific Investigations
2.52 pm
Lord Hunt of Chesterton My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a recent technical witness.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure fairness and cost-effectiveness in scientific investigations in criminal trials in light of the cost and outcome of recent trials.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, the Government are committed to fairness and cost-effectiveness in cases involving forensic science and expert witnesses. Lessons learnt from recent trials, particularly those involving infant deaths, have resulted in a number of initiatives, including the publication of guidance to experts, which I announced to the House on 14 February this year. That guidance sets standards for the use of experts in criminal trials across the justice system.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Are Her Majesty's Government aware of the bias in current procedures, as costly scientific investigations by the prosecution are not open to inspection and comment by the defence experts at their planning stage? Because the results are disclosed only on completion of experiments, the defence, with limited public funds, needs to do its own studies and experiments. Therefore, will the Government encourage trial judges to follow the practice of some civil trials and insist on more openness in scientific investigations in order to reduce costs and ensure greater fairness to both parties?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend about bias in the system. At the end of the day, the issue is always going to be whether the prosecution has proved a case beyond reasonable doubt. I am aware of the case in which my noble friend appeared. I know that in that high-profile case some of the investigations that the police carried out resulted in invitations to the defence to participate and observe those experiments. Others took place at an earlier stage while the original investigation was taking place. Obviously, I agree with my noble friend that it is important that when the case comes to trial there is as
27 Mar 2006 : Column 541
much agreement between the experts as possible; and openness between the experts is one of the ways to achieve that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in the new protocol in complex criminal cases, the exchange of expert scientific reports is required at a preliminary case management hearing. Experts must meet and identify points in agreement and points in dispute. Does the noble and learned Lord not think it desirable, where expert evidence is in dispute, to require the judge to test at a preliminary case management hearing the methodology behind the conclusions of both sides—its theoretical and experimental basis; whether it is subject to peer review; its known error rate; and the degree of acceptance of a particular theory in the scientific community? Would that not give experts on both sides time for reflection, for further investigation with all the material available and for review? That would be far better than having it all thrashed out at trial in front of the jury.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |