| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that those who practise to deceive do, indeed, weave tangled webs. One of the tangled webs that they weave is the use of offshore havens. I believe that it would be good advice to investors in any country to look at the extent to which the companies in which they seek to invest use offshore tax havens and the extent to which they seek to complicate, and therefore to obfuscate, the nature of the financial control. I believe that that is all good advice for investors, wherever they may be.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to tax evasion and not tax avoidance. Will the Minister say whether he believes that the Government have in place adequate
measures to deal with tax evasion in these offshore centres? If he believes that they have, will he say what effect those measures have had?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we pursue tax evasion at every possible opportunity. We are frequently criticised for the complexity of the Finance Act and of our tax legislation. Much of that complexity arises from the necessity to do precisely what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said—to pursue tax evasion. We do not apologise for the complexity when it is necessary for the effective pursuit of tax evasion.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, there is concern both in Britain and in the United States about the use of offshore credit card accounts as a means of tax evasion. Are the Government paying particular attention to that and are they also collaborating with the United States on the use of Caribbean tax havens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not familiar with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is making. However, I shall become closely involved in it as I pursue the draft Gambling Bill, which is now before a Joint Committee, because clearly offshore credit cards are a particular risk there. I take seriously the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and I shall pursue it.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister put up a spirited defence of complicated tax legislation. However, that was not the question that I asked him. Will he say whether the measures that have been put in place are effective against tax evasion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are generally effective, but people find ways of getting round them. The lawyers and accountants available to the private sector are paid more than the lawyers and accountants available to the Government. Sometimes they are ahead of us, but we catch up.
EU Students at British Universities: Loans
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether European Union students at British universities will enjoy the same access to student loans for the payment of fees as British students.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we are planning to abolish up-front payment of fees for full-time undergraduates from 2006. From that date, European Union students will have access to loans for payment of fees on the same basis as British students.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she confirm that, at any
one time, approximately 10,000 students from the European Union are resident in the UK as students and that each of them would therefore be eligible in 2006 to take up a £3,000 loan? Can she tell us how the Government propose to pursue the repayment of the loans from those students?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's first question, I cannot confirm that 10,000 students from the European Union are resident in the UK because, in fact, 35,000 students—35,641 to be precise—come to our universities in order to study. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that the Student Loans Company already has in place a system to collect maintenance loan debts from those who live outside the UK. It is exploring, and continues to explore, ways of building relationships with other European states, including those which may join the European Union in the future. That system will continue to operate successfully when the changeover takes place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have had personal experience of the great difficulty involved in collecting money from someone who has returned overseas. Can the Minister tell me whether any system will be in place whereby a surety or a guarantee in this country will be required? Will the loans be covered under English law? What will be the jurisdiction and what action will the Government be able to take if the money is simply not forthcoming?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are already a number of systems available through existing international money transfer facilities offered by financial providers. International trace agencies are used by the Student Loans Company, which is used to tracing students and recovering debt. There are also issues that we can pick up through legal and commercial recovery systems, if need be. These are well established routes that have been successful.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will British students at European universities be able to avail themselves of these loans?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. There are currently 6,290 UK undergraduates studying in the European Union.
Angela Cannings
3.11 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, with permission I wish to make a Statement on the case of Angela Cannings.
Yesterday's judgment in the Court of Appeal in the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings has serious and far-reaching implications. The judgment has demonstrated that, in relation to unexplained infant deaths, where the outcome of the trial depends exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious
disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unsafe to proceed. I share the unease expressed by the Court of Appeal in relation to such convictions.Following similar reported comments of concern by the Court of Appeal at the conclusion of the hearing of this tragic case in December, I asked for all cases potentially involving sudden infant death syndrome to be identified as quickly as practicable. To date, some 258 convictions over the past 10 years have been identified involving the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of an infant aged under two years by its parent.
Those cases will be considered further as a matter of urgency to establish whether any, and if so, how many, bear the hallmarks of a conviction which the Court of Appeal judgment yesterday indicated may be unsafe. I expect this process to be completed swiftly over the coming weeks. I propose that in all cases which appear to meet the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal the convicted person will be informed of these developments as soon as possible. The possibility then will be for the case to be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or for the convicted person, with legal advice, to consider an appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has the power under the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 to consider whether the convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
I am particularly concerned about cases where the defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is still being served. We have so far identified 54 such cases which may involve sudden infant death syndrome. These will be accorded the highest priority.
I have already spoken to the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and will be meeting him in the coming week to discuss how the review of these cases can be expedited. I have also asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 ongoing cases involving an infant death of the sort described in yesterday's judgment.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.14 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for repeating that Statement. But does he find it extraordinary that he has to be dragged to the House to repeat word for word—I believe he changed three words: "today", "today" and "today" were changed to "yesterday"—a Statement he made in written form only yesterday? He had to be dragged to the House purely in response to a Question tabled by my honourable friend Dominic Grieve in another place.
Clearly the Speaker thought the matter important enough for a Question; obviously the noble and learned Lord thought it was important, because he said that the case has "serious and far-reaching implications". Therefore would it not have been better had he volunteered a Statement to the House from the start—I believe that he was present yesterday—rather than first making a Written Statement and then
repeating that Written Statement in the manner of an oral Statement to the House? I have never known that in my 25 years in this House.This is an important matter. I understand from the Statement that some 250 criminal cases are involved. There are 54 women still in prison. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how the review will be structured and what urgency will be given to dealing with those cases where the convicted are still in prison? With what urgency will he be able to deal with them and ensure that they are released as soon as possible?
Will he tell the House how long the Criminal Cases Review Commission intends to take in its review of the case and whether that is a further review over and above the review that the Government are mounting? Still on criminal matters, will he comment on the various adjustments that have been made to both the burden of proof and standard of proof in various Criminal Justice Acts in recent years? Does he agree that this matter shows how dangerous that can be? It would be best if we could see in all criminal cases the need to maintain the rule that no one should be convicted unless—I stress—the prosecution can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
I turn to the civil aspects. We understand from what I suspect was a rather ill judged interview in the Sunday Telegraph with Margaret Hodge—whom I gather is called the "Minister for Children"—that some tens of thousands of cases might be affected by the evidence of Sir Roy Meadows and others. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how many cases there will be; whether the Government will appoint a judge to review all those cases; what note they will take of the GMC's review into the evidence of Sir Roy Meadows and others; and whether legal aid will be available to all those involved?
It may be, as the so-called Minister for Children said, that it will not be possible to return those children to their parents. Even so, they have a right to have their cases reviewed, because they are entitled to have the stigma of their children's removal removed from them. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how those civil cases will be resolved?
Finally, following what I described as her rather ill judged interview in the Sunday Telegraph, what advice will the noble and learned Lord be offering to the Minister for Children, particularly in regard to her statement that it would not be possible to return children to their parents? Is that the case for every case?
3.20 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement by the Attorney-General, although we agree that it would have been better if an oral Statement had been made yesterday. This is clearly a high profile matter that has caused great public concern. It would plainly have been appropriate for the Statement to be made orally.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that these cases show the vital importance of ensuring that the innocent are not convicted and that the law does not assist in convicting them? Does he agree that the prosecution must avoid using experts who have a personal commitment to a contentious view; and that it is the prosecution's job to put a case fairly and in a balanced manner before the jury, which should not involve the use of committed experts where their views are open to question?
The case recalls to mind the Orkney case some years ago which came under Scottish rather than English jurisdiction, where children from several families were taken away from their parents and some parents put on trial on the basis of what appeared ultimately to be the wholly inaccurate views of experts who believed that the children were being abused by families through satanic rituals. How quick will the review be? There are 258 cases. Some of those 258 will probably be found to have been rightly convicted, but it is clear that many appeals will be allowed; some may involve mothers who have spent years in prison wrongly convicted of a heinous crime.
Resources must be made available to ensure that appeals are heard as quickly as possible. Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give any timescale? Do the Government intend to compensate those who have been convicted on the basis of discredited evidence put forward on behalf of the prosecution? What about babies who have been separated from their families and taken into care because a previous sibling has died unexpectedly? The mother may not have been prosecuted but taking away the baby in those circumstances is a hideous punishment for a crime of which the mother has either been acquitted or not been charged.
Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General assure the House that unless there are grounds for suspicion over and above the fact of the unexplained death of a previous baby, babies will not be removed from their families? Will steps be taken to restore children already taken away to their birth parents? Removing a new-born baby from birth parents and taking it into care is immensely damaging both to the child and to the child's family. Surely, removal should happen only where there is not just a risk but a substantial risk that the baby will become a victim of murder.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for welcoming the Statement. I may have missed it, but I did not notice that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did that. I would have hoped that Members of the House would welcome the fact that within a very short time of an important judgment being given, I was able to announce an important review and to give an indication of the steps I was proposing to take and was taking in order to deal with that matter.
I take my responsibilities to this House very seriously. That is why yesterday I ensured that I put in the House by way of a Written Statement details of the
steps I was taking. I am glad that noble Lords and other Members of the two Houses are interested to know more on this issue and want to ask questions about it. I am happy to answer questions, but perhaps I may respectfully suggest that it is simply a political point to complain about being dragged to the House when I have made such an effort both to identify the steps that should be taken and to take them.I shall move on to the other questions raised. The noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, asked, very understandably, about the time the review would take. As I have said, before the judgment in the Cannings case was produced but as a result of comments made by the Court of Appeal, I asked to identify as quickly as we could all the potential cases which might fall within the category which the Court of Appeal has now identified; that is, a category of case where the conviction is based exclusively or almost exclusively on contested, disputed, expert evidence. The interdepartmental group that I set up in the light of the Sally Clark case was able to identify 258 cases.
I have made it clear that it is extremely unlikely that more than a small proportion of those 258 cases fall within those criteria. Those are cases of infant deaths; infants killed by a parent in the past 10 years. Sadly, in some of those cases there will be clear evidence of violence having been used by a parent on a child, and such cases do not fall within that rubric. The most urgent step is to deal with the cases that I have also identified where a parent is currently serving a term of imprisonment, to consider those cases and to identify which may fall within this category so that they can be reviewed urgently and as the highest priority. I shall want to see the other cases identified. As I indicated in my Statement, I hope that that process of identification will be completed within the next weeks.
As to the next step, again, as I have indicated there are two possible courses: first, for the defendant himself or herself to consider appealing to the Court of Appeal, which may be possible—that may depend on what has happened before—or secondly, for the matter to be dealt with by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I have therefore spoken twice with the chairman of that commission and, as I have said, I shall meet him again in the next few days to discuss how the commission can be in a position to expedite such cases that come before it. I agree with everything said by both noble Lords about the importance of urgency in relation to these cases.
As I indicated in my Statement, I asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 ongoing cases in which the same issue may arise. I am very pleased, but not the slightest surprised, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has already issued guidance to his Crown prosecutors asking them personally to review all such cases within the next 28 days and to send them to him so that he can consider them and decide whether any such case should be pursued. I am not at all surprised by that immediate action by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I turn to the other points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked whether this is in some way indicative of problems resulting from a change in the burden and standard of proof in various criminal statutes. I am not aware of a change in the burden or standard of proof in any of the criminal statutes. The burden of proof remains very clearly on the prosecution. The standard of proof, except in those exceptional cases where the burden is upon the defendant to prove, remains for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant so that, as is said these days, the jury feels sure. As far as I am aware, that remains true in all respects and I regard it as a very important part of our justice system.
Still on the question of the criminal cases, before I turn to the other cases, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whether this case shows the vital importance of the courts not being used to convict the innocent. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to convict the guilty but to ensure that the innocent are acquitted. Whenever we have a circumstance in which that does not appear to be working as it should, we in the justice system must pay the closest attention to it. That is why I have acted as I have done in this case.
The noble Lord raised the question of experts. Experts need to be used in many cases. Frequently, without expert evidence in criminal cases, it would not be possible to bring a criminal to justice. The noble Lord is right to say that it is important that when experts give their evidence to a court they should do so objectively, dispassionately and impartially and should put their own expert experience before the court, not some personal commitment to a particular cause.
There is one other matter with which I should deal which touches on the criminal cases. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also asked whether the Government intend to compensate any persons who have been wrongly convicted. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me; it is too early to make a Statement in relation to that as we are simply on the eve of considering these cases. It is a proper question to raise and no doubt is one to which we shall return in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, both raised questions about civil cases. As noble Lords will appreciate, such cases raise different issues and different considerations. In a criminal case what matters is, "If you cannot be sure on the evidence that someone is guilty, that person must go free". In children cases, the paramount consideration is always the welfare of the child, which gives rise to different considerations. DfES Ministers, who are responsible for children at central government level, are considering the implications of this judgment for care and adoption cases. I am sure that as soon as they have reached a conclusion they will announce whether any—and, if so, what—steps need to be taken in relation to those cases. Noble Lords will know that it is not simply central government who have a responsibility in this area; indeed, if anything it is much more local authorities which have a responsibility in
relation to child cases, and other cases are matters between private citizens. So, the role of central government is much more limited than in the case of prosecutions. I hope those answers deal with the questions raised by the two noble Lords.3.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is not the function of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to concern himself with the Family Division. Can he tell us whether the Official Solicitor is taking or contemplating taking action to investigate this situation through the family courts? On one other matter, the Attorney-General has quite rightly said that there have not been specific changes in recent legislation; for instance, the Criminal Justice Act 2003. But what has been sought to be done and admitted by the Home Secretary is that he wishes to shift the balance between the prosecution and the defence. That is why we had long debates about the admission of previous convictions, bad character, propensity and the like. So there is substance in the proposition that we should watch with great care the extent to which we yield to proposals to alter the balance between the Crown and the litigants, be they criminal or civil.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page