| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I said not that I did not know about it but that no proposal for an academy in that constituency had come forth to us. It is untrue to say that the department has placed any pressure whatever on any school to apply for academy status in that area.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, why are those rich enough to put up £2 million to sponsor an academy also necessarily in a position to choose all members of its board? Given the considerable public money going into the academies, in both capital and current terms, what public accountability is there when the board is chosen by the sponsor?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, the academies are inspected and accountable to Ofsted and local parents in exactly the same way as other schools. It is not a question of being rich; many of the organisations sponsoring academies are charitable ones that do not themselves have substantial income but raise it specifically for these purposes.
25 Apr 2006 : Column 72
The model of governance does not give the sponsor all the representatives on the governing body, as the noble Baroness said, but the right to appoint a majority. That is closely modelled on the voluntary-aided system of governance for schools, which goes back a long time, governs all Church schools in this country and is held to be perfectly satisfactory for them.
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that creationism will not be taught as an alternative to Darwinism in science lessons in any of these institutions?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, in science lessons, academies, like other maintained schools, are expected to abide by the national curriculum. The national curriculum fulfils the noble Baroness's aims.
Criminal Justice: Compensation
2.56 pm
Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, on 19 April, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the abolition of the discretionary scheme for the payment of compensation following a miscarriage of justice, together with a number of other changes to the approach of payments under the statutory scheme, some of which will require legislation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are there not two quite separate issues that we have to consider: the victims of crime and the victims of miscarriages of justice? Does the Minister agree that both are entitled to compensation? How much do the Government envisage will be saved as a result of this hastily considered measure?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the measure was not hastily considered. I agree with my noble friend that there are two categories: the victims of crime and those who suffer as a result of a miscarriage of justice. Both are entitled to compensation, and our proposals do not change that.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, in that case, would it not be wise to maintain the existing system of discretion, allowing the assessor to consider individuals on a case-by-case basis, rather than abolishing it altogether? In reality, we are talking about a sum of no more than about £8 million a year. It is perfectly okay to skew it in favour of victims of crime, but we ought not to forget that others are just as much victims of the criminal justice system.
25 Apr 2006 : Column 73
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is why we are keeping the statutory scheme, about which I think the noble Lord knows a considerable amount. The discretionary scheme pays out large sums to a relatively limited number of people, who have claims barely distinguishable from those of others who have been found not guilty or had charges against them dropped. We are seeking to regulate the system, so that there is better parity of treatment between those who suffer the dreadful hurt of becoming a victim and those who have the terrible experience of suffering a miscarriage of justice. We want parity, and this is a way in which to help get it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, why should the discretionary scheme not be of general application?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the discretionary scheme was created, as noble Lords will know, to deal with exceptional circumstances. The way in which it has operated has been somewhat unusual in that, as noble Lords will know, the discretionary scheme has unlimited compensation. That means that we have had some very unusual consequences. For example, someone was convicted of murder and it was, rightly, discovered that he had not been represented properly and that the defence had not put forward "diminished responsibility". The conviction was quashed, and the matter returned to court. Subsequently he was convicted of manslaughter, yet he was still on those facts entitled to considerable compensation for the wrongful conviction of murder. We think that we should address that anomaly.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness absolutely right in what she has just said? Is it not the case that the discretion has not always been used wisely, so far as the general public can see? In some cases, those whose convictions have been quashed, clearly on a technicality rather than on any question of innocence or guilt, have been very grandly compensated. If she were saying that the Government's proposals would deal with that matter, she should be confident that most of us would support that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. I know how unusual it is, and, therefore, I celebrate it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, another aspect to be considered is the "not proven" verdict used in Scotland. Am I right in assuming that in that country there are strong misgivings about that verdict?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know there are issues in relation to the Scottish system. Noble Lords will remember that when Lord Justice Auld reported on the issue in 2001 he suggested that we
25 Apr 2006 : Column 74
should consider amending the statutory test of "unsafe" as the ground for quashing a conviction, so as to clarify whether and to what extent it is to apply to convictions that would be regarded as safe in the ordinary sense but that follow want of due process before or during a trial. He said that at the time. We are now undertaking a tripartite ministerial review to see whether we should take the issue further. We shall look at this for the very reasons that my noble friend has identified.
Conventions: Joint Committee
3.02 pm
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It proposes, accepting the primacy of the other place, the creation of a Joint Committee of Lords and MPs to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament which affect the consideration of legislation.
The Motion refers in particular to four key conventions: the Salisbury/Addison convention; conventions on secondary legislation; the convention that government business should be considered in reasonable time; and conventions governing the exchange of amendments between the two Houses. The Joint Committee will, of course, be free to consider other conventions which it thinks fall within its terms of reference.
This Motion reflects the Government's manifesto commitment to,
"a review conducted by a committee of both Houses . . . [to] . . . seek agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords".
If the House agrees to the Motion today, the other place will be invited to agree these terms of reference and appoint its Members. This House will then be invited to appoint its own Members, following recommendations by the Committee of Selection. As is usual, the method of working would be entirely up to the Committee. The committee would be expected to complete its work by Friday 21 July. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That, accepting the primacy of the House of Commons, it is expedient that a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament which affect the consideration of legislation, in particular:
(A) the Salisbury/Addison convention that the Lords does not vote against measures included in the governing party's manifesto;
and that the committee should report by Friday 21 July 2006.—(Baroness Amos.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |