House Of Lords
Friday, 7th July 2000.
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
Life Peerages (Appointments Commission) Bill Hl
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [ Appointments commission]:
moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert ("which shall include the need to secure proper representation of women and minority ethnic groups").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because, unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Lipsey cannot attend the House this morning. However, it appears that my name has not been added to the Marshalled List.
I can assure noble Lords that I shall be brief in my explanation of the reasoning behind the amendment. We should like to place on the record how important we believe it is for this House in the future to become truly representative of the society for which it legislates. That means that we should increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the House. The amendment would place a statutory duty on the Appointments Commission to secure that representation.
While supporting, in principle, the view of the Royal Commission on the House of Lords that steady progress should be made towards gender balance, we do not agree with the recommendation that a minimum of 30 per cent of new Members should be women and 30 per cent of new Members should be men. Rather, we believe that the target figure should be 40 per cent women, for the reason that, all too often, minimum targets eventually become the maximum attained.
An examination of the current composition of your Lordships' House by gender and party shows that one in seven Conservative Peers are women, one in five women Members sit on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, but only one in 10 women Members represent the Cross-Benches. I hope that the interim commission will take note of that. Those figures indicate that there is a long way to go before the Royal Commission's target of 30 per cent women membership is achieved. It is my genuine belief that we shall achieve that target—or even the target of 40 per cent—only if a real attitudinal change takes place and understanding is fostered of why women should be at the centre of policy making.
Briefly, I believe that women bring to this House diversity and greater experience of different occupational backgrounds, as well as the distinct experience of balancing work and home responsibilities. As a consequence, they often bring a different perspective to bear and suggest different solutions and strategies to the issues under discussion. It is unfortunate that we feel that better representation will be achieved only through statute rather than by an automatic process developing through better understanding of the issues.
I appreciate that the Government do not support the Bill because they hold the view that the interim commission should not be formed on a statutory basis. However, as I said earlier, I hope that the interim commission will take note of our comments and will ensure that any appointments suggested by it will aim to be truly representative of the population as a whole, not only in terms of gender but also in terms of ethnicity. I beg to move.
My Lords, I shall oppose this amendment, not because I do not recognise the full contribution made by women and members of ethnic minorities as they play their part in your Lordships' House—that is not an issue in this House—but because of the nonsensical idea that the composition of your Lordships' House should reflect the social anti economic et cetera composition of the population as a whole. That is not the function of a parliament.
Perhaps I may offer an example. We are told that something like 20 per cent of the British population is illiterate. Is it therefore to be suggested that someone should represent that group in your Lordships' House? Given that, if such a person, after arriving in this House, is then fortunate or perhaps unfortunate enough to learn to read and write, would it then be necessary to recruit an additional illiterate person? I think that this is absolutely the wrong way to proceed. The only way in which to move forward is to ensure that the membership of your Lordships' House is composed of people of merit and excellence who will be able to make a contribution to the work of Parliament. Of course that will include every kind of person, but it will not come about through tokenism—which, I believe, is what underpins the amendment.My Lords, the suggestion that a quota should be applied by statutory amendment is extremely derogatory towards women. Of course I agree that whoever is ultimately responsible for the selection of people to be nominated to become Members of this House should consider the whole range of the population. I believe that that goes without saying. Indeed, my fear is that it will be difficult to nominate people of sufficient quality because they may not have the time to attend your Lordships' House—but that is a separate issue.
For women to form part of a statutory quota would, I believe, always raise the question of whether they would have been good enough to be selected had a quota not been put in place. That is true throughout the professional world. For that reason, I believe that the notion of quotas simply diminishes women and I shall oppose any such move with my last breath.My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on the basis that I believe that many women are certain to be nominated because they are good potential Members of this House. However, they should not be nominated because of their sex. That matter should be a total irrelevance. People are either good at what they do or they are not good at what they do. Everyone knows that a great many women and a great many members of ethnic minorities are extremely able. I have every faith that the normal processes of selection will bring such people forward.
I agree in particular with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it is derogatory towards women to impose a quota. A quota is not necessary.My Lords, for much of my life I have heard people speak in the way that the opposers of the amendment have done. In parallel, I have seen little change in many areas, including in this House. If we do not get a grasp on this issue and make some real changes, this House will not reflect British life generally.
Women do not see this House as representing their views; they see it as male-dominated—which it is. People from ethnic minorities with whom I have the privilege to come into contact feel the same. We continue to employ platitudes: "Of course, there are many people out there with great merit who should be able to come through on their merit and ability". The fact is, they do not. Unless we make some structural changes, in many years' time we shall be exactly where we are today. I hope that Members of this House will reflect on that.My Lords, the motives set out in the amendment are certainly admirable, and I add my support to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean. The amendment is right to draw attention to the fact that certain criteria may well be biased against certain sections of the population and in favour of others.
In the context of the House of Lords, the criteria that have traditionally been used to determine someone's suitability for a life peerage have certainly been biased against women and ethnic minorities. That is partly because they have tended to require track records, which people in these groups cannot demonstrate because earlier discrimination has prevented them from reaching the standing that would now be available to them. But it sometimes goes deeper than that. We have no quarrel with the sentiment underlying the amendment. Indeed, we entirely agree with it. It is one of the issues over which we have charged the independent Appointments Commission that has already been set up to take particular care. However, I am less convinced that such a provision needs to be included in the Bill. When we debated the Bill in its earlier incarnation as an amendment to the House of Lords Act, we resisted the idea of singling out particular groups for special mention as worthy of membership of the House. The amendment deals with women and ethnic minorities; but other economic groups are currently under-represented. What about regional representation, for example? On balance, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I very much share the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on the correct approach to these amendments; and I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his remarks about the first amendment, which seeks to add to Clause 1(1)(c) the expression,
I have no doubt whatsoever that, when the selection criteria are published, proper consideration will be given to the position of women and minority ethnic groups and all the other groups referred to by the Minister. With great respect, I entirely share his view that, simply to single out these two groups would be, by implication, to exclude others. That would be unfortunate. For that reason, I oppose the first amendment. So far as concerns the second amendment, I should also not be happy to include it in the Bill. The question of quotas is in any case controversial, both politically and legally. I sought, in casting the text of the Bill, to obtain as wide a consensus in your Lordships' House as possible. I also share the view of those noble Lords who have hesitations about the principle of quotas. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, herself said that one of the problems with quotas is that what is intended as a minimum often ends up as a maximum. Whatever quota one chooses, I suspect that that might well be true in this case—whether it is the 30 per cent recommended by the Royal Commission or the 40 per cent that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has sought to insert in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred also to the role of women at the centre of policy-making in your Lordships' House. I hope noble Lords will agree that noble Baronesses are indeed at the centre of policy-making. One has only to address the composition of the Government Front Bench to realise what an important role they play in formulating legislation and in dealing with the great political issues of the day. So, with respect to the noble Baroness, your Lordships have already satisfied that particular criterion which the noble Baroness sought to assert as important but said was not yet achieved. I entirely understand the sentiments behind both amendments; but I hope that noble Lords will share my view that, in all the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to amend the Bill to their effect."which shall include the need to secure proper representation of women and minority ethnic groups".
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Dean for her intervention, which I support. I also thank the Minister for indicating that he has no quarrel with the principle underlying what we say. That is encouraging.
I find the concept of having someone who is illiterate in this House a strange example. However, it might be helpful to have someone in the House who knows what it means to be illiterate even if they are not illiterate themselves. That is what we mean by having representation: ensuring that we have a better understanding of what society is about. I have enormous admiration for our Front Bench and the women on it. But we need more women on the Back Benches too. No country in Europe has managed significantly to increase the number of women elected without some form of quota or positive action. I hope that attitudinal change will be sufficient and that we shall not have to return to this issue, but we may have to do so. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kingsland.) On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
11.22 a.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before speaking to the subject before us, since it is germane to healthcare I must declare an interest as chairman of a National Health Service trust in London.
This Bill was introduced and skilfully piloted through another place by my right honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith. The responsibility for introducing it into this House has fallen to me. I hope that I can do his careful work justice today. In bringing this Bill to fruition, Sir Geoffrey worked closely with the Consumers' Association. That association has acted as a sponsor for it. The Bill is supported by the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and the Health Services Commissioner, Mr Michael Buckley, among other professional bodies. It was Mr Buckley himself who first raised the subject in his 1998–99 report. He said:This Bill, therefore, has an intentionally limited focus: to close the loophole in the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 which prevents the health services commissioners investigating complaints against general practitioners and those working in the dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services who have retired from the National Health Service even if they have done so specifically to avoid investigation. Under that Act, which does not relate to hospital doctors, who are covered by other provisions, the commissioner's power to investigate complaints about those particular practitioners, as he has indicated himself, ceases immediately they retire. This matter is of particular concern in the case of general practitioners, who currently, if they officially retire from the National Health Service (even if it is to avoid investigation), can continue to practise as a locum or in private practice. The general practitioner is consequently safe from investigation but the commissioner is frustrated in bringing the complaint to a conclusion. I think we would all agree that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The matter can, however, be rectified by your Lordships agreeing to the provisions of the Bill today. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 amend Sections 2A and 2B of the original Act. Clause 1 would extend the commissioner's powers to investigate a complaint against general practitioners or other health service professionals if at the time of the complaint they were providing a service to the National Health Service. Clause 2 amends Section 9 of the original Act by adding two new subsections, (4A) and (4B). These have come about as a result of concern expressed by the Under-Secretary of State, Mrs Gisela Stuart, and other Members in another place that the time within which an investigation could be brought should not he open-ended. As noble Lords will be aware, the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 already provides that the commissioner shall not entertain a complaint made more than one year after the day on which the complainant first had notice of the matter complained of. However, the commissioner has discretion to waive that limit if he considers it reasonable to do so. These government amendments, therefore, limit the commission's power to investigate any matter to that which arises within three years of the last day on which the person complained about was a health service provider. Clause 3 prevents the investigation by the commissioner of a complaint against a practitioner who has retired before the new amendments come into force, thus preventing a witch-hunt on past errors. Clause 4 names the Act as the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 2000, with an implementation date three months after the day on which it was passed. The Act is not relevant to Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will, like me, want to believe that all those who work in the health service are paragons of virtue—competent, caring and professional. Indeed, the very great proportion of those whom we are discussing today are; and those who need their professional expertise can rely on receiving it. Sadly, however, there is evidence that this is not always true. Patients are on occasions faced with unacceptable behaviour from those health professionals on whom they place great reliance. I do not intend today to give examples of cases which have been brought to public attention since these were described in another place. Suffice to say, they are distressing to read and traumatic for those involved. The health service commissioner is the last recourse. He can be involved only once other processes have been completed. It is, therefore, even more important that his role should be all-encompassing so that he can seek an explanation and justice for the aggrieved. This is a measure which is long overdue and which I believe most right-minded people would assume already existed. It is not expected that these powers will affect more than a handful of cases, but even in one adverse case patients must know that they can seek redress. The Bill will do that. It is a small measure but an important one. It received all-party support, including government support in another place. I understand from the Minister who will reply today that it will have his support. I very much hope that this House will give it a quick and clear passage so that the measures may be on the statute book at the earliest opportunity. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Hanham.)"A further issue on which I have expressed my concerns to the Department of Health is my inability to investigate complaints against GPs who retire or cease National Health Service work after the events complained of—or even during my investigation".
11.30 a.m.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hanham for her clear explanation of this Bill. While I understand that the Bill closes a loophole by which a very small number of health professionals avoid investigation by the Health Service Commissioner when a complaint has not been satisfactorily dealt with at local level, I regret that it is necessary for yet another piece of legislation which can be described as "anti-doctor".
During 1999 the Government produced an abundance of Green and White Papers and consultation documents that, to greater or lesser degrees, affected the healthcare professions. There has been an unusually high number of Private Members' Bills that address healthcare and medical practice. Declaring an interest as a council member of the Medical Protection Society, I should welcome any changes that can protect the public, but I am concerned that the implications for healthcare professionals have not always been given sufficient consideration. Indeed, some measures have deserved opposition because of the potentially deleterious effect that they would have on the professions. I am aware of many cases where complaints against practitioners have been dismissed but have had a permanent effect on the doctor or dentist, sometimes leading to retirement from all aspects of their profession, despite the fact that they have done nothing wrong. However, this Bill should be welcomed. I know that the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and most members of the professions support it. But it must be stressed that the number of incidents to which the Bill refers is extremely small. Currently, I have the privilege to sit on the subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is in his place this morning, which is to report on complementary medicine at the end of the year. In all the evidence that we have heard one aspect that has become increasingly evident is that complementary practitioners tend to have more time to spend with their patients. A longer consultation time leads to better communication, which improves the doctor/ patient relationship and minimises misunderstandings that may later lead to complaints and claims. I believe I am right in saying that the average NHS consultation with a GP lasts between seven and eight minutes. Inevitably, when one is under that kind of pressure communication is the first link in the chain to break. In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health said:It is just not possible to build that relationship in the time that is now available to busy doctors in NHS practice. At a time when there is such considerable strain on the NHS and great concern about its ability to cope with future healthcare needs, it is important that the Government recognise the increasing relevance of the contribution to healthcare made by pharmacists and pharmacies. I hope that in announcing the future of the NHS—which will no doubt be done within a few days of Parliament rising for the Summer Recess—the Government will act on the recommendations of the White Paper and initiate changes so that much of the day-to-day routine work of doctors' surgeries becomes the responsibility of practice nurses and pharmacists. I am told by Boots that 6 million people visit a pharmacy each day. What a wonderful opportunity to seek advice on the sore throat, cough or minor symptom that should not require the attention of a busy doctor. If more time is available to general practitioners it means that there is better communication, the establishment of a trusting relationship and less reason to complain. Doctors should not have to resort to premature retirement to avoid an investigation when in the majority of cases the complaint or misunderstanding is later proved to be invalid. Finally and perhaps most importantly, it is essential that patients whose complaints against doctors are investigated by the ombudsman, whether or not those doctors are retired from the NHS, should not be permitted to use the procedure as a trial run for possible future litigation. It would be very easy to test the complaint with the commissioner at no cost and then, perhaps in response to some of the new-style advertising by some lawyers of no win, no fee contracts and a climate in which people are encouraged to complain, take the matter to the courts. The Minister in another place stressed the importance of being scrupulously fair to practitioners and providers, who could be affected by the proposals in the Bill. This would not be fair. I have not mentioned dentistry. Can the Minister confirm which health service professions are included in the Bill and perhaps give some idea of the number of cases in each profession? With so many dental practitioners leaving the NHS or actively seeking to increase their private patient lists, a minor complaint, however trivial, whether or not it is investigated by the ombudsman, may be the final straw that prompts resignation from the NHS, which is something that the Department of Health seeks to prevent. I hope that the Minister can give these assurances and that amendments will not be necessary. I wish my noble friend Lady Hanham and her Bill every success."the relationship between individual doctor and individual patient is built on trust. For that relationship of trust to work, GPs must be accountable for what they do".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/00; col. 695.]
11.35 a.m.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in this House and Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith in the other place are to be congratulated on sponsoring this useful Bill. As the noble Baroness explained, it rectifies a clear anomaly in the powers of the Health Service Commissioner under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 whereby a complaint against a medical practitioner who has retired, whatever may be his motives for so doing, cannot be pursued. As the noble Baroness explained, the Health Service Commissioner went on record in his annual 1998–99 report to identify the problem. The current commissioner, Mr Michael Buckley, has expressed strong support for the Bill, as do we on these Benches. It also has extremely widespread support, not only from the Consumers' Association, which I believe was instrumental in putting forward this measure, but the BMA and Royal College of General Practitioners.
There are some who criticise the Bill for being too narrow in what it sets out to do. They suggest that it should be much broader and incorporate a wider set of reforms to the powers of the Health Service Commissioner. I believe that that is to misunderstand both the purpose and tactics behind the Bill. A huge number of developments are now taking place at trust, NHS regional and NHS national level which affect clinical governance and patient complaints but also, as we shall hear later in the day, the General Medical Council. We shall touch on those matters in our next debate when we discuss more broadly complaints relating to clinical performance. This Bill is designed to remedy a specific loophole which may operate in only a specific number of cases but causes great injustice when it does. I hope, however, that the Minister is able to cast some light on the Government's intentions in regard to their review of the powers of the ombudsman and their attitude to reform which has been identified as desirable, such as extending the coverage of the Health Service Commissioner to private healthcare. Are they convinced that the current fairly cumbersome process which needs to be gone through by a complainant is satisfactory? I should like to make it clear that, despite agreeing with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, I am not convinced that currently we are in danger of over-regulation of the medical profession. I believe that we need better regulation to restore public confidence. There may be many other amendments to be made in terms of complaints about clinical performance other than those contained in the Bill. However, we shall support this Bill in its present form. It has been improved by amendments in the Commons so that there is no indefinite liability. I hope that, as the noble Baroness has requested, noble Lords will allow this Bill a quick passage through the House.11.38 a.m.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hanham who has introduced this Bill with her usual skill and clarity. There is little that I can add to what she said. This is a measure which deserves our support.
It is fortuitous, but perhaps appropriate, that my noble friend should have introduced her Bill on the day when we are to debate changes to the powers and procedures of the General Medical Council. Different as they are, what these two measures have in common is the need to ensure that patients and the public have confidence in the systems that underpin the accountability of the medical profession. It is the trust that exists between doctor and patient that is vital for the effective working of the NHS. Anything, however small, that erodes that trust should be addressed. I pay tribute not only to my noble friend, but also to my right honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith in another place who made it clear that the lacuna in the powers of the Health Service Commissioner should be tackled, and who initiated the Bill that we are considering today. I have no doubt that this lacuna was unintended. It was the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996 which extended the remit and powers of the ombudsman to cover complaints made against GPs, family dentists, pharmacists and opticians, including complaints involving clinical judgment. That Act was very significant because it enabled the Health Service Commissioner to investigate complaints about any aspect of NHS treatment and services, not simply those provided by an NHS body such as a hospital trust. Since then, legal advice has come forward which casts doubt on the ability of Sections 2A and 2B of the 1996 Act as worded to capture those individuals or organisations no longer providing NHS services at the time of the ombudsman's investigation. That flaw leads to unfairness. Not only is the complainant left feeling cheated, but there is a fundamental inequity between a retired hospital doctor, whose alleged actions can be investigated by the commissioner, and a retired GP, whose actions cannot be. Indeed, if we are serious about upholding the confidence of patients in the laws governing health professionals, it cannot be right to condone a situation in which a retired GP cannot only avoid investigation, but can also continue to practise as a locum or in the private sector. My noble friend was right to stress that point. In whatever field—be it the police service, children's homes, care homes or the NHS—it is unacceptable that people should be able to retire in order to avoid investigation into their alleged wrongdoings. Patients need to know that if they feel that a doctor or the NHS has failed them in some way, they can complain about it and be sure that their complaint will be dealt with expeditiously and with the prospect of remedial action being taken as necessary. I suggested that the Bill was all of a piece with the proposed changes to the GMC constitution and the plans being formulated by the GMC for the regular assessment and revalidation of doctors. It also dovetails neatly with the wider government agenda to introduce clinical governance into the NHS and with the Chief Medical Officer's proposals to identify and deal with that small number of doctors whose performance gives rise to criticism. Some have argued that against that wider background, this Bill is something of an irrelevance. I disagree. Even after the systems of professional regulation have been strengthened, there will still be a role for the Health Service Commissioner as the final tier of the administrative complaints system in the NHS. At the very least, those complaints which might not constitute sufficient grounds for a referral to the GMC, or even for NHS disciplinary procedures, may nevertheless raise issues of clinical care that are important to individual patients or their families. I want to touch on only one other issue and it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Government have recently been reviewing the role of the ombudsman. I do not know how far they have gone with that review, but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government have any intention of reforming the powers or remit of the ombudsman, or any other part of the NHS complaints arrangements. As my noble friend stated, the Bill is supported by a wide range of professional bodies, including the BMA, the BDA, and the Consumers' Association. I believe that we have a duty to give it our support and I hope that the Government will allow it a fair wind.11.43 a.m.
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been encouraging to see that your Lordships believe it right to close the loophole in the powers of the Health Service Commissioner.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for taking the Bill through your Lordships' House. I am delighted that she is chair of a London trust and brings a great deal of experience to your Lordships' debates on the NHS. As noble Lords have indicated, the provisions of the Bill will close a loophole, but we must see them in a wider context. We will, as the noble Earl said, be debating changes in the powers of the General Medical Council. We have clinical governance and a new determination to ensure that internal NHS disciplinary procedures are made more robust. But I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that however well we make those changes, there will always be a need for a Health Service Commissioner to act as a final guarantee to the public that their concerns can be adequately investigated. It might be appropriate to respond to the questions I was asked about the review of the role of the Health Service Commissioner and that of people who carry out public services. A report was published in April which made many recommendations. I suggest that the three key issues were the creation of a college or commission of ombudsmen, which would incorporate the existing public sector ombudsmen and provide a "one-stop shop" for complainants; the abolition of the current MP filter for complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner; and a range of other measures to enable the ombudsmen to work more flexibly and more closely with each other and with other organisations. A consultation paper on that report was published in June and responses have been requested by the end of September. The Government must then consider those responses and will announce their decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, clearly explained the key aims of the Bill and the reasons for the wording of Clauses 1 and 4 in particular. I do not believe that I need to cover that ground, but I want to comment on the government amendments which were moved in another place. Your Lordships will be aware that the Bill we are considering today has more to it than was originally submitted by the right honourable Member for Wealdon. The first point relates to time limits. The Government have a responsibility not just to the patients who use the NHS but also to all those who work in it and provide services to NHS patients. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that one of the key elements of any complaints process is that it must be fair to all players. The proposals in the Bill as it was originally presented would have left the practitioners and providers affected by it subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioner indefinitely, because of the commissioner's discretion to waive his general one-year limit on bringing complaints. The Government believed that, although the fundamental aims of the Bill were laudable, permanent susceptibility to investigation was an unfair and unacceptable consequence. Therefore, practitioners and providers should be able to be reassured that, as in other spheres, there will come a time when their liability comes to an end. Careful thought was given to the time limit. The key issue was how long after the event might the commissioner want to exercise his or her discretion. The commissioner's view was that three years would be a sensible compromise. The other amendment made to the Bill related to the transitional provision. The Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996 made some far-reaching changes to the commissioner's jurisdiction. It came into force on 1st April 1996 and had no retrospective effect on complaints which had already been turned down because they were out of jurisdiction at the time they were made. That is clearly no more than accepted practice since amending legislation of this type is not generally retrospective. However, that was not made explicit in the Act and quite a large number of complainants contacted the Health Service Commissioner, when his jurisdiction became known, in an attempt either to have earlier complaints reopened or to make complaints about matters which pre-dated the extension of his remit. I believe that it was reflected that it was a huge disappointment to those complainants to have their hopes and expectations raised only to be told that the commissioner could not help them after all. Of course, we are not talking about anything like the same volume of cases in relation to this Bill. However, I believe that it was right to take the opportunity to avoid the risk of that disappointment occurring again. That is why the clause was inserted into the Bill. I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, in his wide-ranging speech. I confirm that the Bill covers the four groups of family health service practitioners: dentists, pharmacists, opticians and GPs. I understand that when the Health Service Commissioner considered these matters some time ago, he found one particular case relating to a dentist which occurred since 1997. I believe that that confirms that dentists come fully into these considerations. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's more general points regarding his concern about the pressures on professionals in the health service, both in terms of workload and in terms of a series of regulatory mechanisms that have been and are being put into place. I fully recognise the hard work and commitment of the overwhelming majority of professionals in the National Health Service. Indeed, if one were asked to highlight the main achievement of the NHS, it would surely be the high quality of professional people who give such enormous commitment to the service. I accept that some of the changes that are being made place an extra burden on those professionals. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, I believe that we must balance clearly the interest of professionals alongside that of the public. I believe that we have that balance right and, of course, the overwhelming majority of professionals are well aware of issues relating to public interest. With regard to the noble Lord's question about the pressures on those professionals, I was glad that he mentioned the NHS national plan. There can be little doubt that a great deal of the extra resources given I o the NHS for the next four years will need to be spent on extra staff in order to relieve burdens and develop services. I also believe that we should examine the current working of those professionals to see whether the boundaries between them can be altered. We need to ensure that the highly qualified professionals about whom the noble Lord spoke are able to focus on the most important and serious matters. It may be possible for other staff to take on some of those burdens. I do not believe that there is a need for me to speak further. This is an excellent Bill and I commend it to the House.11.53 a.m.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Colwyn for taking part in the debate. I hope that when we finish this morning he will not feel a compulsion to rush off to table an amendment. I also thank the members of the three Front Benches who have given the Bill their support.
It is as inescapable here as it was in the other place that an amendment such as this, which I strove to say—and which I believe everyone agrees—is on a very narrow subject, should generate a wider debate on the health service. I do not believe that it is possible to mention the health service without everyone trying to ladle in other issues. In closing, I want to concentrate again on the fact that this is, and is acknowledged to be, a very narrow point which affects a very small number of people. I believe that I would be right in saying to my noble friend Lord Colwyn that the dental profession has figured very little in this matter and that in the past year there were no complaints at all against dentists. Indeed, I believe that there were probably very few complaints which would have come under this issue relating to general practitioners. None the less, when the ombudsman himself identifies that there is something with which he cannot deal, it seemed to my honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith and to me proper that it should be dealt with and put right. Therefore, again, I ask noble Lords to give the Bill a fair wind and, in doing so, to give it also a Second Reading. I commend the Bill. On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill Hl
11.54 a.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.) On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Refusal of decree absolute on grounds of non-dissolution of religious marriage]:
moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert—
("(2) On the application of the party to the marriage described in subsection (2A) or (2B), the court may order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration has been made by the other spouse that such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages have been taken by that other spouse.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2, both standing in my name. Indeed, one follows on from the other, the first being largely a paving amendment to make way for the second.
Despite my misgivings, which I expressed at Second Reading, about the general principles of the Bill, I urged noble Lords then to give it a passage. That was despite my belief that subsection (2) is morally flawed. A religious divorce is in addition to, not in place of, a civil one granted by the ordinary domestic family courts. However, without it neither party is free to enter into another orthodox Jewish marriage, irrespective of the grant of a civil decree absolute.
As Members of the Committee are aware, only the husband can initiate the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts to obtain a religious dissolution of a Jewish marriage. It is then generally up to the wife to accept or to refuse it. In other words, a religious divorce, which is in addition to a civil one, requires the mutual consent of both parties. Either party can, in effect, veto it, thus preventing his or her former spouse from remarrying in an orthodox synagogue.
The Bill is well intentioned in its attempt to provide some relief to the spouse who is chained by the refusal of the other to co-operate in the religious formalities. I say "some" relief because the situation where a spouse wants a civil divorce but declines to enter into a religious one is rare indeed. However, as I believe all Members of the Committee agree, even if it helps one distressed woman or man every now and again, it is better than the minimal assistance that they can receive at present from the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities.
Subsection (2) is defective because it begins with the phrase:
"On the application of either party".
That means that even the defaulting party—the one causing the problem—can, under the terms of the subsection, apply to the court to decline to grant a decree absolute because of his or her own failure to co-operate in the religious procedures. That is manifestly absurd. Whatever happened to the principle of "he who seeks equity must do equity"? This subsection suggests that a litigant is no longer required to come to court with clean hands.
Without detracting at all from the intention of the Bill as originally drafted, my amendment simply makes it clear that the only party who can apply for the decree absolute to be deferred is the innocent party. Even then, he or she must first have taken all the appropriate steps required of him or her. That, I submit, is common sense and common probity.
In a conversation which I had with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, he suggested to me that it would be impossible for a defaulting spouse to persuade a judge to refuse the decree absolute because of his own misconduct. He told me that no judge would ever countenance such a misconceived application and would dismiss it out of hand. I am perfectly prepared to believe that there is not a single judge in the entire country who would be gullible enough to fall, even momentarily, for some plausible yarn spun to him by the defaulting spouse.
Far be it from me to attempt to offer a legal opinion to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I remind him that litigation is not about winning in court; it is about getting a result. If the defaulting spouse made an application to delay the decree absolute on day 40—two days before it would normally be made absolute—there would have to be a hearing of the application before the judge when the applicant would make his or her case orally or on affidavit. Given the congested state of the court calendar, there could be a delay of weeks or months, during which time the offending spouse could continue to attempt to extort a greater share of the family assets or different arrangements for maintenance or access to the children, or simply maliciously try to frustrate the other party's proper rights. That cannot be right.
I cannot believe that the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities could have any reservations about preventing a wrongdoer benefiting from his sins. The amendment would simply ensure that only the wronged party could seek the assistance of the court to grant the remedy that the Bill proposes. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to accept it. I beg to move.
Noon
I welcome the constructive spirit in which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has spoken and her acceptance of the aims of the Bill, despite her strong reservations about the means employed.
The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the procedure prescribed by the Bill cannot be abused by one party to a Jewish marriage to prevent the other party obtaining a civil divorce, while that party is unwilling to grant a religious divorce. The amendments would require the party applying to the courts seeking the refusal of a decree absolute on the ground of non-dissolution of the religious marriage to have taken irrevocable steps to obtain a religious divorce. I agree with that aim, but the amendments are not necessary and would create difficulties. The Bill is not defective. It empowers the court to order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration has been made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with the relevant religious usages. The court may make such an order only if it is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to do so. That was the approach adopted by Parliament in Section 9(3) of the Family Law Act 1996, which has not been brought into force for other reasons. If either party to the marriage were to attempt to use that procedure without being willing to grant or receive a religious divorce, the application would inevitably be refused. It would be dismissed, because the applicant had shown an intention not to take the necessary steps to dissolve the religious marriage and because it would not be "just and reasonable", in the words of the Bill, to refuse to grant the other party a civil divorce. In the noble Baroness's words, it would be absurd and an abuse of judicial process. It is not a question of whether judges are gullible, because everything is dealt with on evidence. The innocent party would be able to explain in evidence to the judge that the other party was seeking to abuse the procedure with no intention of enabling a religious divorce to take place. Judges are well able to stop people abusing rights by exercising their judicial discretion and penalising anyone who abuses the processes of the court in costs. There may be difficulties with the noble Baroness's definition of "appropriate ecclesiastical authorities". Rather than attempting to define in legislation which of the many religious authorities exercise jurisdiction in any given case, it is better for us to leave that task to the discretion of the courts. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said at Second Reading last week that the Government proposed to introduce an amendment to give the Lord Chancellor the power to add other religious groups as appropriate, to comply with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. That would be much simpler to accomplish without the amendment. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. As I have made clear to her outside the Chamber, if her anxiety about abuse is shown in practice to be well founded, I shall support her strongly in any future effort to build into the legislation further safeguards against possible abuse. However, the other supporters of the Bill and I are satisfied that the safeguards in the Bill are strong and effective and that the courts will interpret and apply the powers conferred on them wisely in the interests of justice.In the language of an appellate court, I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Lester, and have nothing to add.
Nobody could question the good intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, or the great distress that she expressed last week. The whole House will have great sympathy with her on that. However, the amendments raise some difficulties, which have been clearly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It would be wrong not to look at them carefully. We do not want to delay a Bill that will go a long way to right a wrong.
I should like to amplify one point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made. There is a serious problem with the notion of appropriate ecclesiastical authorities. One of the great strengths of Judaism, which is also in a way a weakness, is that it has no single authority. That is a great strength, because individual rabbis have considerable power, but they cannot alter the law, as many Zionist people would like. The noble Baroness referred last week to the halacha. People could arrive in this country requiring a religious divorce, but could then have great difficulty in obtaining it from the appropriate ecclesiastical authority, because that authority was in a different branch of the Church outside this country. That would create a difficult judicial mess and the provisions would be almost impossible to enforce. For that reason alone, we need to be very careful about the amendments. There may well be other, non-Jewish religious disciplines that might greatly benefit from a similar law. We have to listen to those issues carefully before changing this worthy Bill.Before I say a brief word about the amendments, I take this opportunity to comment on something that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. The Committee will recall that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who spoke on behalf of' the Government at Second Reading, expressed our support for the Bill in principle. He added that the Government intended to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the Bill was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
It was the Government's intention to move the amendment at this stage and I must apologise to the Committee that that has not been possible in the week since Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has very generously indicated that he is content for such an amendment to be tabled for Third Reading and I shall, of course, send him a copy for his consideration as soon as it is ready. Indeed, perhaps even more that, it is hoped to arrange a meeting with him as soon as it is ready. I will briefly reiterate here the reasons why the Government consider it appropriate to amend the Bill and the nature of the amendment. Counsel's opinion indicates that the Bill is not compatible with Article 14 of the ECHR in that it may be discriminatory on religious grounds. The Government, therefore, believe that an amendment is required to ensure that it is compliant. In effect, the amendment will alter the Bill to apply only to the Jewish faith but will give the Lord Chancellor the power to add other groups as and when appropriate. At the present time, it is only the Jewish community that has approached the Government for this remedy. It would not be appropriate to confer rights upon other faith groups without any evidence that this would be welcome to them. Other faith groups may, if they so wish, make a case to the Government for this provision to be extended to them. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not turning to her amendment sooner but I do so now. As the Government are seeking to amend the Bill to widen its scope, it would be inappropriate for the Government to support the noble Baroness's amendments, which appear to be focused towards the needs of just one faith. If the purpose behind the amendments is to deal with a party who makes an application with the motive of delaying matters unreasonably, the Government believe that a judge will deal with that appropriately.I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said and I listened too to the brief words from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I should not dream of attempting to argue with two such learned lawyers.
Of course I am extremely disappointed. When this process started, I did not realise that this provision would be widened to include other religions. There is no way that I should wish to table any amendment which would affect another religion. That would certainly not be my intention. My understanding was that the Bill was drafted by the Board of Deputies and that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was bringing it forward in order to help people. On that basis, I was concerned that we should get it right. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he does not believe that the amendment is necessary. In the narrow terms of Jewish divorce, I do not believe that it is unnecessary either. It merely makes the matter safer. But clearly, in view of what the Minister said, the amendment would interfere with the wider aspirations of what the Government wish to do with this Bill; namely, that the Lord Chancellor should later have the power to include other religions. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has given me an assurance that if my fears prove to be true, he would be happy to work with me later to improve the Bill in the way that I wish we could improve it now. I understand why that cannot be done. In the light of the noble Lord's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000
12.14 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order concerns doctors, to whom I wish to pay tribute. We all rely on their expertise and ethical obligations to ensure that when we have to see them we shall be looked after properly. As I said in an earlier debate, we know that the great majority of doctors provide an excellent service and give their patients the best possible care.
Sadly, some doctors let down patients, their colleagues and their profession. Some, like Harold Shipman, bring shame on the whole profession because of their criminal acts. The public has to be protected from doctors who as a result of their conduct, competence or their health pose a threat to patient safety. We must be confident that we have the best systems for regulation and self-regulation firmly in place.
The General Medical Council must exist to protect patients. It must be truly accountable. It must be guided at all times by the welfare and safety of patients. Recent scandals involving a number of incompetent doctors have shocked the public. That is why such urgent action is required.
There is no doubt that the present systems have to be strengthened and changed. There are currently various gaps and loopholes in the GMC procedures which mean that doctors who may be a danger to patients can continue to practise. That is neither acceptable nor in the public interest.
Urgent action is needed to widen the powers of the GMC so that it can deal quickly and more effectively with doctors whose fitness to practise comes into question. This action is the first step in expressing the Government's determination to apply the lessons of recent events so that patients get the protection they deserve. The action we are taking, therefore, has to be seen in the context of the need for wider and broader change, which will be the subject of further discussion with the GMC.
The Government consulted on four proposals to widen the powers of the GMC: first, a new power to impose interim suspension or conditions quickly in any circumstance, including cases of performance and health; secondly, giving practical meaning to the GMC's premise that doctors who are erased from the medical register should not expect to return, save in the most exceptional circumstances, by introducing a minimum erasure period of five years; thirdly, placing a statutory duty on the GMC to notify employers and any other person or body who may need to be informed of doctors whose fitness to practise is being formally considered by the GMC; fourthly, the GMC will be given a power to require health service and other bodies to supply information or to produce documents relevant to the GMC's consideration of a case; and, fifthly, enabling the GMC to co-opt non-members of the council to the professional conduct and other committees in order to open up the council to wider involvement in its committee work, tackle the backlog of cases currently under consideration and bring in wider views and experience.
The proposals were published for public consultation in Modernising medical regulation: interim strengthening of the GMC's fitness to practise procedures on 24th March 2000. I am pleased to say that there was widespread support for the GMC's powers to be enhanced as proposed, including those from consumer representative bodies, NHS trusts and health authorities.
Medical and other healthcare professional bodies, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, the BMA and a number of the other medical Royal Colleges, also agreed the thrust of the proposals but stressed the importance of striking a balance between the public interest to protect patients, the profound effect of suspension on a doctor and natural justice.
It is important to note that in future the GMC will be able to impose interim suspension or conditions in any circumstance, including cases of performance and health. The power will be sufficiently wide so that the GMC can act swiftly and more effectively in response to unforeseen circumstances, which if it was unable to act would place patients at risk or damage public confidence in the medical profession. This proposal was well received. Many responses commented on the inadequacy of the current arrangements and the need for improvement.
This new power of interim suspension does not interfere with the financial arrangements for single-handed GPs, nor should it mean that single-handed GPs are disadvantaged. Doctors whose names are erased from the medical register represent the most severe cases of conviction or serious professional misconduct. When a doctor is removed from the register it is on the premise that he or she should not expect to he restored. The presumption is that if you are struck off, it is for life save in exceptional circumstances.
Currently, however, a doctor whose name has been removed may apply to have it restored after 10 months. If unsuccessful, he or she may apply every 10 months thereafter. Between the period 1988 and 1999, 153 doctors were erased and 39 were restored. The GMC proposed a package of measures, including a minimum erasure period of three years. The Government welcomed those proposals but believed that they did not go far enough and proposed a minimum erasure period of five years.
We believe that that would more closely match the GMC's own policy that doctors who are erased from the register should not expect to return, and give practical meaning to the presumption that when a doctor is struck off it is for life, save, as I have said, in the most exceptional circumstances.
The present arrangements need to be tightened, especially in relation to the period a doctor has to wait before he or she can apply for restoration. Views on the minimum period of erasure fell into three fairly evenly matched groups: those who agreed with five years; those who argued that more than three years would be tantamount to a life ban, and those who had no fixed view one way or the other and were much more concerned about having a rigorous assessment of a doctor's fitness to practise before he or she could ever be restored to the register.
The weight of public interest and the protection of patients is such that a minimum period of five years is not considered to be inherently incompatible with the ECHR for lack of proportionality. There was very strong support for the new disclosure provisions, which were particularly welcomed by private health care organisations, medical agencies and universities in respect of doctors working in the NHS on honorary contracts.
The proposals to allow the appointment of non-GMC members to committees were also very well received by the majority of respondents. There is general concern and dissatisfaction with the time taken to resolve cases referred to the GMC, and with the mounting backlog. This proposal has the potential to bring to the GMC a much-needed patient perspective to fitness to practise issues. It will be helpful to have non-members, including both medical and lay people, involved to help open up the council's work and make it more transparent, speedy and accountable.
We shall ensure that the GMC has a transparent selection process and proper training for non-members co-opted to GMC committees. The outcome of the consultation confirmed that there is very strong and widespread support for making sure that the GMC has the powers it needs to act swiftly and more effectively when a doctor's fitness to practise is called into question.
We have made one substantial additional provision. During the consultation period, reference was made to the case of a doctor who had come to this country from Canada where he had been convicted of raping and behaving violently towards a female colleague. The police reported the doctor to the GMC in June 1994 but the case was not determined until January 1996 when he was struck off. I understand that the GMC is currently considering another similar case.
These cases reveal the inadequacy of the current arrangements whereby the GMC cannot affect the registration of a doctor who has been convicted of a criminal offence abroad. The narrowness of the scope of the Medical Act 1983 compares unfavourably with the Dentists Act 1984 which allows the General Dental Council to determine suspension or erasure when a dentist has been convicted of a criminal offence in this country or an offence abroad which would constitute a criminal offence in this country.
The Government believe that what matters most is the protection of the public from doctors whose fitness to practise, whatever the reason, is called into question, and who would represent a serious risk to patients if allowed to continue to practise until the GMC has completed its consideration. We therefore agreed to the insertion of a clause giving the GMC the power to suspend or restrict the registration of a doctor convicted of a criminal offence abroad which constitutes a criminal offence in this country.
Following the consultation, the order has been improved to provide greater clarity, to avoid conflict with other enactments, to make it explicit that it covers doctors holding provisional, limited and full registration, and to ensure compliance with ECHR. In my view the provisions of this amendment order are compatible with the convention rights.
It is important that we learn the lessons of recent cases which have exposed deficiencies in the GMC's current arrangements for dealing with doctors who represent a danger to patients if they are allowed to continue to practise. We are determined to apply the lessons of those events so that patients do get the protection they deserve.
In addition to those matters which I have raised in your Lordships' House this morning, there is clearly a need for wider and broader change, which will be the subject of further discussion with the GMC, but strengthening the GMC's powers in these important and significant ways is a first step to repairing the damage that has been done. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [ 24th Report front the Joint Committee].—( Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
12.30 p.m.
My Lords, there can be no doubt that in the recent past the medical profession has received a bad press. The problems that arose over the Bristol cardiac surgery cases, Dr Shipman, Dr Rodney Ledward and many other cases, very properly hit the public press and, to some extent, dented the public perception of the efficacy of the GMC and its procedures and dented public confidence in the medical profession.
However, I am glad that the Minister, and earlier this morning the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, expressed a view with which I wholly concur, that the very great majority of doctors in this country are giving excellent service, often under almost intolerable pressure in an understaffed health service. There is little doubt that many of the procedures now being introduced, including the welcome revalidation procedures of the General Medical Council, will add to the burden under which those doctors are practising. However, that is a burden which, subject to full consultation on the implementation of the revalidation procedures, they will, in the majority, willingly accept. I had the privilege of serving for 18 years on the General Medical Council and, for the last seven years of that period, as its president. I believe that much of the criticism levelled against the GMC in the course of the past few years has not only been ill-advised and ill-informed, but unfair, for the very good reason, as the Minister said, that many of the procedures under which the GMC has been working, as defined in the Medical Act 1983, have been rigid and inflexible. Many of the issues which it hoped to resolve have not been possible within the present framework of legislation. During my presidency I and other members of the council became increasingly aware of the fact that we did not have procedures adequate to deal with incompetent or under-performing doctors. It was for that reason that we began consultations as long ago as 1985 on the possibility that new procedures might be introduced to deal with performance review in the medical profession. Under the distinguished presidency of my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig, those recommendations and consultations gathered pace but it took a full 10 years until 1995 before the performance review procedures were accepted as an amendment to the Medical Act. The process was long and tortuous, involving extensive consultation. At that time, many of us wished to see additional powers vested in the GMC. We wanted to see a single form of registration introduced for all overseas doctors and a whole series of amendments to health procedures. But when we consulted with the government of the day at that time upon whether they would be likely to accept amendments to the performance review Bill or amendment to the Medical Act at that time, we were told that if we pressed such amendments, we would lose the Bill which the medical profession wished to see introduced. Happily, under the Health Act 1999, it is now possible to amend the constitution and procedures of the GMC by order, which is exactly what we are consulting about today. I have to say, as a former president both of the GMC and the British Medical Association, that I was somewhat embarrassed by the vote passed at the BMA's annual representative body last week. I felt it was unfortunate in some respects; but even more unfortunate was the press publicity which covered that particular vote. Perhaps I may make it entirely clear that the BMA does not wish to see the abolition of the General Medical Council. It stands by the principle of professional self-regulation. I cannot but recall that, in a notable article some years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, wrote that professional self-regulation is one of the glories of a civilised society. In his Jeffcott Lecture to the Royal Society of Medicine, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that professional self-regulation was a principle to be preserved at all costs. He said that the alternative of regulation by the state was too fearful to be contemplated. He spoke with great authority, having formerly been a German citizen where he had seen the effects of regulation by the state in his original native country. The BMA is quite clear that, whereas it has criticism of the present constitution of the GMC (upon which I shall comment briefly in a moment), it does not wish to lose the principle of professional self-regulation. It also feels that any reformed council should continue to have a majority of medical members. Where I slightly disagree with its comments is where it says that those medical members should all be involved in active medical practice. The responsibilities of the General Medical Council are so enormous, not least when service on the professional conduct committee involves such arduous and complex deliberations—often for proper legal reasons—that sometimes cases go on not just for days but for weeks, that it can be extremely detrimental to the professional practice of an individual to have to serve on such committees. Hence it is important that we should keep the opportunity for appointing recently retired doctors who have more time to serve on such committees. Perhaps I may also comment on the question of lay membership. The public in general do not realise that during my presidency we increased steadily the number of lay members to represent the public interest and that 25 per cent of the council is now made up of lay members. No decision by any committee affecting a doctor's registration can be taken without the participation usually of at least two lay members. Nevertheless, the proposals of the BMA and others to the effect that the number of lay members should be further increased will be welcomed. Finally, all of the issues raised by the Minister and clearly set forward in his speech this morning are welcome to the GMC and the medical profession. As he rightly said, the GMC has been constrained by the existing provisions of the Medical Act which requires that any conviction or complaint against a doctor, however serious, cannot be acted upon before the preliminary proceedings committee has been able to meet and take full account of legal representations. Hence interim suspension as a possibility is a welcome introduction in that procedure. As the Minister also said, the GMC at the moment is not able to take account of a criminal conviction in another country; nor indeed is it able, under the Medical Act, to take account of a doctor who has been erased from the medical register in another country. The Minister did not refer to that in his opening speech. One hopes that the regulation will include a similar provision because, under the law at present, that cannot be taken into account by the GMC until it receives notice of a complaint against that doctor. The one issue upon which the medical profession may disagree with the provisions of the present order relate to the five-year minimum period of erasure from the register. The GMC and the BMA would prefer a three-year period feeling that, with issues such as the principle of rehabilitation of offenders, three years might be more appropriate. After five years the chance of any doctor being able to return to active clinical practice is remote. My concern is that when I chaired meetings of the conduct committee of the GMC, I often found that lay members of the committee tended to take a somewhat more lenient view of doctors' behaviour than did the medical members. I have a feeling that the knowledge that a five-year ban could be tantamount almost to a lifelong ban may deter such a committee from recommending erasure of the doctor from the register. With that caveat, I can say that the other provisions set out so clearly in this order are greatly to be welcomed, and I would not in any way wish to delay it. The regulations are timely. The GMC will be meeting next week to consider issues of its constitution and future activity. I believe the Minister is right in saying that consultations must proceed relating to its future structure and future procedures. In the mean time, these provisions are extremely welcome.My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and for his clear explanation of its meaning and effect. Subject to the points of detail I am about to raise, it is an order that I fully support. However, one thing needs stating first.
I believe it is important to recognise explicitly that the content of this affirmative instrument is very much the work of the GMC itself. Those who try to make out that the GMC has been dragged reluctantly into a process of procedural reform are completely and utterly mistaken. Indeed, anyone who has read the GMC's five-year review or its well-argued and detailed paper on revalidation can be in no doubt of the intensive efforts that it has devoted to these matters over the past few years under the dedicated and thoughtful chairmanship of Sir Donald Irvine. I have had the benefit of more than one meeting with Sir Donald in recent weeks. I believe that both he and the council deserve our full backing in their efforts to make the GMC procedures more open and effective. The Minister is of course right to say that complaints are taking much longer to resolve than is desirable. That is as bad for patients as it is for the doctors who stand accused. The measures contained in this order represent the first step in making the whole system more responsive to serious, legitimate concerns about doctors and in taking the agonising delay out of the disciplinary process. We have last year's Health Act to thank for the fact that these changes can be made by the relatively uncomplicated means of secondary legislation, and we on these Benches supported fully that element of the Act. It may be uncharitable of me, but the resolution passed last week by the BMA seemed to me to be ever so slightly hysterical. The GMC recognises, as it has for some considerable time, that change is necessary and that accountability within the profession has to be improved. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, so clearly pointed out, it has been constrained by the legislative framework within which it is currently obliged to operate. It is not fruitful to blame the GMC for the slowness of its internal procedures; nor is it appropriate, in my view, to blame the GMC for the rise in the number of disciplinary cases referred to it over the past few years. Much of that rise is attributable to a failure within the NHS to handle complaints properly on a local basis as they occur. There is a need to ensure that that improves. That, I suggest, is a pointer for us in this debate, for this statutory instrument is part of a much wider readjustment of the relationship between the medical profession and the general public. The GMC and the changes to its constitution are only one part of the picture. The GMC cannot deliver quality assurance. It is for the NHS and the private sector to do that by putting appropriate clinical governance systems in place. Those systems, too, have to be effective if patient safety and patient confidence are to be protected. Only time will tell whether they are effective; but, if they are, then the regulatory framework need only be light. I have several detailed questions arising from the order. The first relates to Article 9 and the change in the minimum period of a doctor's suspension, which has increased from 10 months to five years. The Minister will know that both the GMC and the BMA think that the period should be three years; indeed, the noble Lord referred to that fact. They do so because to exclude a practitioner for five years effectively prevents a doctor from ever rehabilitating himself. Underlying the order is a presumption that when a doctor is struck off the register that erasure should be permanent. That presumption is not in dispute. But there will on occasion be cases where natural justice demands that a doctor's fitness to practise is re-examined in the light of intervening circumstances. In such cases, a doctor has to be given a realistic chance of resuming his career. A minimum period of three years allows for that. Many would argue that five years does not. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on whether his department is satisfied about the human rights aspect of the five-year minimum period? A desire to be tough on malpractice and the causes of malpractice should not overshadow the need for a proper balance to be struck on this issue. My second question stems from the provision in Article 5 which allows the GMC to suspend or restrict the registration of a doctor convicted of a criminal offence abroad, which constitutes a criminal offence in England and Wales. This is clearly an important measure. Currently over half of all new registrants qualify overseas. The inclusion of offences committed overseas recognises the reality of the make-up of the medical register and serves to treat home and overseas qualifiers in an equitable manner. However, a disproportionately large number of overseas-trained doctors are the subject of complaints to the GMC. Is the Minister aware of the abiding concerns expressed by the GMC, and others, about the lack of any language aptitude tests for doctors who come to the UK from the European Economic Area? Such tests are currently illegal under European law. Is this something that concerns the Government? There are good arguments for saying that a provision designed to underpin the free movement of labour has the effect of acting against the public interest. It also gives rise to unfairness as between doctors trained in the EEA, who do not take language tests, and doctors trained outside the EEA, who do. Do the Government plan to raise this issue at European level? Finally, I should like to ask the Minister some more general questions about the Government's approach to the regulation of the medical profession. Up to now, the Government have reassured us of their commitment to uphold the principle of self-regulation, including the independence of the GMC. It would be helpful to have that assurance restated today. It would also be helpful to have an explicit statement of confidence in the professionalism of doctors. One of the disquieting features of the Government's dealings with the medical profession since they came to office has been what one might call the "anti-doctor tone" of many of their public utterances. The release of anti-doctor stories to the media, comments by the former Secretary of State about those involved in the Bristol case and the branding of doctors by the Prime Minister as part of the forces of conservatism all serve to undermine what the Government must recognise as vital to the well-being of our country and the health of the nation; namely, the trust that must exist between doctor and patient. No one is saying that the Government should try to paper over the cracks in the system and pretend that nothing needs fixing. But the balance of government statements has been wrong. It has damaged the morale of the profession unnecessarily and unreasonably. I hope that we shall not hear much more from Ministers about the naming and shaming of doctors. The cases of seriously under-performing doctors are very few. Dr Shipman is, I trust, unique of his kind. This is not a trivial issue. Aside from ministerial statements, a major part of the self-confidence of the profession stems from the fact that doctors feel ownership of their own professional standards. To attempt to set those standards from outside without doctors feeling ownership of them would, I believe, do profound damage to the quality of medical care in this country. In that context, I ask the Government the following questions. Do they believe, as I do, that the GMC has a crucial part to play in upholding professionalism and, thereby, fulfilling its essential role which is to protect patients? Following on from that question, do the Government believe in having a medical majority on the GMC? There have been reports in the medical press that the Government intend to split the GMC's role to enable the Commission for Health Improvement to take over the task of investigating failing doctors. Can the Minister say anything about that? In particular, can he say whether he envisages the commission being given the power to instruct the GMC to suspend a doctor? If the GMC is to find its autonomy watered down in this way, I fear that that will do great damage to the self-confidence of the profession, with the wider adverse repercussions to which I alluded. It would also somewhat defeat the point of the new power in Article 10 of the order to impose interim suspension on a doctor quickly in any circumstances. Self-regulation should not only operate; it should also be seen to be operating. If the GMC and its role are part of a wider array of co-regulation shared between the state and the profession, it is important that the balance between the two should be right. From these Benches we shall be maintaining a very careful watch over the way in which the Government proceed over the next few months in their dialogue with the GMC to develop structures of regulation in which the public can have full confidence.12.45 p.m.
My Lords, as we heard today, the GMC has not, since it was founded in 1858, come under such an intense spotlight as it has in the past two years. Noble Lords have mentioned the Bristol Royal Infirmary cases, the Shipman conviction and the Ritchie inquiry into the conduct of Rodney Ledward. All those cases have caused the public to question their confidence in doctors and, hence, the effectiveness of the self-regulation system run by the GMC.
Criticisms by junior and senior doctors alike have, over the past two weeks, led to an extraordinary crescendo of criticism by local medical committee representatives and the annual BMA conference of the GMC in its current form. Many commentators are convinced that, unless the GMC reforms itself urgently, the era of self-regulation will be impossible to justify. There is a view among some of those commentators—and clearly among many members of the medical profession—that the GMC has been dragging its feet and that it was only the Shipman case that stirred it into greater action. I am rather less censorious. There are clearly internal tensions within the GMC, but I have never doubted its president's desire for reform. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, so cogently pointed out, the very statutory structure of the procedures and the GMC's constitution have made reform difficult. For that reason, I, too, welcome the powers contained in the Health Act of last year. That is the context in which we must look at the order before us today. On these Benches we support the provisions of the order. But there are a number of questions that need to be asked and some comments to be made in connection with the various elements of the order. Previously, as we have heard, there was no power to suspend by the GMC unless there was a complaint or a conviction. It fell between two stools if, say, it was simply a matter of a case being under investigation, even where charges had been laid against an individual doctor. In that context, we very much welcome the powers of interim suspension by the GMC, but we hope that there will be very clear and specific rules of procedure by the new Interim Orders Committee to ensure natural justice for those doctors who are to be heard before it. A s was pointed out when we discussed the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, on the suspension of hospital doctors in recent weeks, suspension is a serious step and there should be appropriate safeguards for doctors in these circumstances. On these Benches, our view is these provisions should include a number of different elements. There should be no delay in bringing cases before the IOC. There should be a requirement for consultation by the IOC, particularly with appropriate practising clinicians. There should be a duty to consider alternatives to suspension, a requirement to give written reasons for decisions, and a right to appear in person before the IOC, and be represented. If the practitioner desires it, there should be a right for the hearing to be in public. Finally, there should certainly be a right not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded from work premises. Many of those were elements which were very helpfully picked up in the Bill, which did not have government support, but they are nevertheless important elements of what should be in the GMC's codes of practice. I turn now to restoration to the register. Currently a person struck off can apply for restoration to the register after 10 months. Clearly, as we all agree, this is inadequate. The new regulations will ensure that nobody can get back on the register until at least five years have elapsed. Some have called for lifetime bans, others including the GMC, prefer a three-year minimum period for being struck off. They believe that if a longer time is chosen as a minimum, a doctor might become totally deskilled. That would virtually constitute a life sentence in itself. I part company with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in that I suspect that these proposals have just about got the balance right. The Minister was correct to say that restoration through the register must be clearly seen as an exception. There will be a duty of disclosure of information by the GMC to employers and others who need to be informed about someone whose fitness to practise is being considered by it. It will also have the power to obtain information from any person including health and other bodies where it is relevant to a case before it. But what safeguards will there be for individual privacy? Will the confidentiality requirements of the Health Act apply? Access to, and confidentiality of, records is an important issue. Will the GMC have more access to patients' records than patients themselves? What permissions will be required? We very much welcome the proposals for non-council members on GMC committees. But what numbers are proposed? Is it proposed, as I believe, that there should be 50 such members who can serve on the GMC committees, such as the professional conduct committee? Can they serve on all the committees of the GMC, and not simply on the professional conduct committee? We welcome other provisions in the order, and particularly the ability to treat criminal offences committed abroad as serious professional misconduct without further proof. The order will bring the GMC's powers into line with those of the General Dental Council under the Dentists Act. As far as it goes, this is a welcome package of reform. At the same time, however, we should not let the opportunity pass without considering what other key elements are being put into place, and whether they will be sufficient to restore public confidence in doctors, and professional confidence in the GMC. The Minister alluded to several further developments. We welcome the GMC's recent proposal on the introduction of revalidation. But when will the consultations be completed, and what process is needed to ensure that they come into effect? Many of us are impatient to see a sensible scheme introduced quickly. The Royal College of General Practitioners is to be congratulated on having been early in the field, in November 1999, with its revalidation proposals for clinical general practice, but one asks why other members of the medical profession have not been quite so speedy. We also welcome the reviews of the structure and legislative framework of the fitness to practise provisions, and of the structure, constitution and governance of the GMC which were announced in May. Currently, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, some 25 out of 104 members of the council are lay people. We very much welcome the increases that have taken place over recent years, and we believe that the principle of self-regulation should be retained if possible. But I very much hope that the GMC will work towards a lay presence on its council of nearly 50 per cent. What is the timetable for the review? We also welcome the commitment which the GMC has made to speed up its procedures, partly assisted by what will be its new-found ability to have non-GMC members on its professional conduct committee. The GMC's workload has risen enormously. Complaints have risen by three times in six years, and I understand that there is a backlog of some 160 cases. I know personally of cases where severe injustice and heartache are being caused by delays in cases being heard. It is vital that the processes are massively improved and, if necessary, that more resources are devoted to ensuring that cases are heard more quickly. Other issues clearly need addressing, such as information on candidates up for election to the council. The case of Dr Jennifer Coleman, who had been struck off in 1987 for professional misconduct, highlights the need for reform. We also need to be very clear about the demarcation between the NHS and the GMC in respect of clinical governance, and complaints about clinical performance. How do people know to whom to complain? Who sets the standards? How do doctors know to whom they are accountable, and what safeguards do they have against arbitrary action? I understand that the Government are due to publish their plans on clinical governance later this month following the consultations on Supporting Doctors—Protecting Patients, along with the new national plan. Can the Minister confirm that this will ensure clarity on the relationship between health authorities and trusts, and their powers and duties, and those of the GMC? Pension entitlement is also a matter which generates considerable heat. This is clearly a Department of Health issue, but it is clearly wrong that a doctor found guilty of misconduct should be bale to retire on a full pension. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that appropriate steps are taken? At the end of the day, whatever the contents of orders, there is a limit to what can be done by procedures and processes. It is values and culture which matter, and which will prevent another Bristol or Shipman case and make sure that the James Elwoods and Rodney Ledwards of this world do not continue to practise. As Jean Ritchie QC pointed out in her report on the conduct of Rodney Ledward, we need a much more open whistle-blowing culture within the NHS. This is helpfully recognised by the Chief Medical Officer's recent paper Organisation With a Memory, on the reporting of adverse care events. It was also recognised in the latest edition of the GMC's Good Medical Practice. Doctors must clearly be seen to be on the side of the patient, not an incompetent colleague, and the GMC must reflect that in the way in which it operates. We are heading in the right direction, but we need to move further and faster than we have ever done to date, and I hope that we shall see before us a much more fundamental Order in Council, containing reforms of the GMC and its practices, in a very short space of time.My Lords, much of what I wanted to say has already been said, and so I shall be brief. I declare an interest, in that I am a current member, although rather green, of the GMC council.
I support the order and the five elements within it of powers of interim suspension, a tougher restoration regime, a duty to disclose to the Department of Health and employers, a power to co-opt non-members on to the fitness to practise committees, and a power to take action on overseas convictions. The provisions will strengthen the self-regulatory role of the GMC. The argument about three or five years has now passed; and I believe that we should settle for five years. The order is only a small step towards a modern framework of medical regulation. Far more significant, I believe, will be embedding the process of revalidation, the proposals emerging from the structural review regarding fitness to practise, and the review of the constitution and governance. I would support a smaller council and 50:50 lay:medical membership of the GMC. I agree with my noble friend Lord Walton that the BMA resolution was at the least unfortunate and unwarranted. There should be no doubt of the GMC's commitment to reform and the strengthening of self-regulation. I support the order.1 p.m.
My Lords, this has been a remarkably well informed and interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, was an outstanding president of the GMC and did many things to modernise the GMC during his presidency. I noted with interest his comments about his frustration in trying to get changes made to its procedures. This is the first time we have debated an order laid under the provisions of the Health Act 1999. The order concerns a crucial matter. I am happy to pay tribute to the GMC's role in helping us take these matters forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned the public debate on the role of doctors, the public's perception and the kind of media flurry that we have witnessed in the past few weeks. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I continue to pay tribute to the vast majority of health professionals in this country and to doctors in particular. As we take forward the changes to the health service and the national plan, we need very much to walk arm in arm with those professionals. The whole process of developing the national plan has involved many doctors and other professionals, leaders of the professions and people in the field who are leading change. That is the partnership approach. It is the only way in which we shall establish the kind of changes we wish to see in the National Health Service. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Patel, referred to the deliberations of the BMA last week. All I say in that context is that I believe that it is in the best interests of the profession and the public that the profession as a whole pulls together, works together and marches in the same direction. That is also the foundation on which we wish to work in partnership with the profession in regard to the changes that need to take place in the health service. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the workload of members of the GMC. I do not think that anyone can disagree with that. That is why I think that the proposal of the GMC to co-opt 50 non-members, 30 of whom will be lay members and 20 of whom will be medical members, is widely to be welcomed. I am sure that it will greatly assist the GMC, both in bringing in more people from outside but also in dealing with the backlog of cases on which I shall comment in a moment. I turn to the five-year minimum erasure period. I was glad that the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement-Jones, supported that period. I am aware that there has been considerable debate as to whether that is the correct period. However, I reiterate the points that I have already made. The doctors we are discussing represent the most serious cases. When a doctor is struck off, he or she should not expect to return, save in the most exceptional circumstances. Given the seriousness of the cases that will be considered under these procedures, the Government believe that a five-year minimum period gives practical meaning to the presumption that when a doctor is struck off it ought to be for life. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the position of doctors who are forbidden to practise for a lengthy period being unable to gain practical experience of technological and other changes affecting patient care. Any doctor who after the five-year period wished to apply for restoration, must first be able to satisfy the GMC that he or she can satisfy an assessment of knowledge, skills and aptitude to practise medicine. This kind of assessment is already in place for over seas doctors who may wish to practise medicine in this country. However, I fully accept that the GMC will need to consider how that test should be applied in these cases. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked how the five-year period complies with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am advised that the right to practise as a doctor has an economic value and therefore constitutes a possession in the context of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention. An erasure from the medical register is clearly an interference with that possession. There are three tests as to whether any interference is justified: that it is in accordance with the law; that it is in the public interest; and that there is a fair balance between the interest of the individual and that of the public. It is the Government's view that the five-year erasure period is not incompatible with those conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, correctly pointed out that the GMC cannot erase a doctor struck off in another country without a complaint. The order before us today does not address that matter. However, we shall bear that matter in mind for the next round of changes relating to the GMC's own review of its fitness to practise procedures. I very much take that point on board. I turn to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with regard to the backlog of cases. I am happy to say that in his letter to the Secretary of State in May, Sir Donald Irvine stated that by the autumn the GMC should not have delays in handling new cases other than in bringing those which have completed screening forward for hearing by the relevant committee. By the end of 2001 waiting times will be within an acceptable standard. We must hope that the addition of new members from outwith the GMC, which I have already mentioned, will very much help that process. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about language tests. The EC directives on free movement mean that the GMC cannot require doctors of EC origin who have qualified in the EC to satisfy a language test as a condition of registration, although it can in the case of other overseas doctors. However, NHS employers are responsible for ensuring that doctors whom they employ have a satisfactory command of English and can communicate effectively with patients and colleagues. NHS employers have been issued guidance on language testing and their responsibilities. I should be happy to send that guidance to the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a number of questions concerning the procedures under which the order will operate. Assuming that the order is accepted by the House today, I confirm that the rules of procedure will be made known shortly. Many of the concerns that the noble Lord has raised will be covered in those rules. There are various safeguards; for example, an interim suspension cannot exceed 18 months. After that period has elapsed, the GMC would have to apply to the courts to seek a further extension. In addition, the first review of the interim suspension has to take place within six months and at three month intervals thereafter. The noble Lord asked whether a doctor could be made the subject of an order without prior knowledge. I confirm that no order can be made by the interim committee unless the practitioner has been afforded the opportunity to appear before the committee or be represented at the hearing. The rules also provide that if a doctor is not present and is not represented, the committee can proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable efforts are being made to serve the papers. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a number of questions about information. I understand that the GMC may disclose any information relating to a doctor's fitness to practise or professional conduct which it considers to be in the public interest to disclose. The GMC intends to use this broad discretionary power sparingly and mainly to disclose information to other public bodies and thereby help to ensure that action necessary to protect patients is taken. I assure the noble Lord that the GMC proposes to develop guidance setting out the criteria it would normally expect to apply when disclosing information under this power. The GMC recognises that its use of the power would rightly be open to legal challenge if it was thought to be acting unreasonably. A number of questions were asked about the whole issue of future regulation. I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint noble Lords; I am not in a position to respond to the questions. These matters are under consideration and final decisions in relation to the GMC need to await the outcomes of the Bristol inquiry and the Shipman inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. In the meantime we are encouraging the GMC to make proposals for radical reform for consideration by the Government later in the year. I hope that I have been able to respond to many of the points raised by noble Lords. I am very appreciative of the general support the House has given to this order. On Question, Motion agreed to.Legal Aid (Functions) Order 2000
1.10 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000.
The Legal Aid (Functions) Order 2000 is one of a series of pieces of secondary legislation designed to allow the Legal Services Commission to enter into contracts for the legal services of both solicitors and barristers in very high cost criminal cases. The order authorises the commission to determine and authorise work to be carried out, the costs and the method of payment of such costs in respect of representation provided by means of a high cost case contract.
A high cost case is designated as a case which, in the estimation of the commission, would be likely to last 25 days or more at trial, or where the total costs for any one defendant or group of defendants represented by the same firm of solicitors amount to £150,000 or more. This figure includes the costs of counsels' fees and any disbursements in the case.
The intention in providing for individual case contracts in high cost cases is to exert appropriate control over the money spent and work done in such cases. Currently, the top I per cent of cases consume approximately 40 per cent of the whole Crown Court legal aid budget. It is essential that the expenditure of such large sums of money is closely monitored and controlled. The Legal Services Commission will be able to do this through individual case contracts, with case management teams working closely with defence teams to scrutinise and authorise items of expenditure. This will be of advantage to the defence team since they will have certainty and regularity of payment. For the public purse it will ensure the best control over the most expensive of cases.
It is the Government's intention to move, under the criminal defence service, to a situation where all very high cost cases are managed under an individual contract. We expect that all such cases arising after April 2002 will be handled under a contract. From April 2001, when the criminal defence service is introduced, the commission will be given powers to insist that very high cost cases are managed under contract. Where a firm with such a high cost case does not wish to enter into a contract, the commission may insist that the defendant choose another firm, one that is willing to work under a contract. However, neither this functions order nor any of the other pieces of secondary legislation on this subject has an element of compulsion.
The Legal Services Commission needs to build up its expertise at managing these very high cost cases, and the intention is to do so with the willing co-operation of firms of solicitors which are expert in handling the largest cases. Until the CDS is introduced, no firm or barrister reporting a high cost case will risk having the case removed from them; they will be free to choose whether to enter into a contract or to continue to do the work under existing legal aid regulations. This functions order will allow a purely voluntary arrangement for contracting to take effect and will give the commission valuable experience in designing these contracts, which will be carried forward as contracting is expanded.
The other set of legal aid regulations to be considered by your Lordships' House today is the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000. These regulations give effect to the long-announced requirement that, with effect from 2nd October 2000, only solicitors employed in offices holding a crime franchise, or which have passed a preliminary audit against the crime franchise standards, will be able to undertake work funded by the Legal Services Commission.
It had been the original intention to commence the criminal defence service elements of the Access to Justice Act on 2nd October this year. The Lord Chancellor decided, however, to postpone the introduction of the CDS to 2nd April next year in order to allow extra time for preparation and co-operation with the professions in the introduction of contracts. However, it was decided that the previously published date of 2nd October 2000 for the possession of a crime franchise to undertake LSC funded defence work should remain unchanged. Franchises are granted to firms which have passed a Legal Services Commission quality audit.
The name of the game in legal aid is quality assurance. Gone are the days when any firm, regardless of expertise, could provide legal representation for a client merely on the grounds that he was the firm's client and eligible for legal aid. The Government regard it as their duty to ensure that the lawyers who are provided with state funding to represent their clients in courts should be of the requisite skill and experience—that is, quality assured. That is in the client's interest. It is also in the public interest to ensure that public moneys are well spent.
The Legal Services Commission funds the majority of criminal defence work. All work in the magistrates' courts, all advice and assistance, and all duty solicitor work is funded by the commission. Crown Court work is funded by the Court Service and is not covered by these regulations, other than a few very minor exceptions.
The regulations take account of the fact that there are certain items of work which, although defined in the regulations as criminal work, are often undertaken by other specialist solicitors. For example, individuals facing the prospect of imprisonment for non-payment of debt may be assisted by a solicitor who handles debt cases. Solicitors practising in these limited areas with a contract for such work under the Community Legal Service will continue to be able to act on behalf of their clients.
The regulations will ensure that only quality suppliers are given public funds to assist individuals in the majority of cases. They will provide the commission with a known base of suppliers with which to contract on 2nd April next year. The functions order will allow the commission to gain experience of running high cost case contracts and to gradually build up skill and understanding in the most difficult of cases. Together they are important steps in introducing the criminal defence service in April next year. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [ 24th Report from the Joint Committee].— (Lord Bach.)
My Lords, in the context of the objectives laid down by the Access to Justice Act, both orders make very good sense.
So far as concerns the Legal Aid (Functions) Order 2000, in the view of the Opposition it is a constructive response to one of the central problems of criminal legal aid. As the Minister rightly said, 1 per cent of the cases take up 40 per cent of the resources. It will always be true that difficult cases will absorb a disproportionate amount of money; nevertheless the figure is reasonably capable of being reduced. The basis upon which the Minister has approached the matter in the order is, in our view, appropriate and satisfactory. So far as concerns the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, as the noble Lord said, these do not apply to Crown Court matters. We share entirely the Minister's view that, in future, quality audit should be the basic principle behind the relationship between the Legal Services Commission on the one hand, and the solicitors who are selected to do particular criminal work on the other. The regulations reflect that and we are very happy with them.My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who, with his long experience of these matters, is kind enough to support us on the order and the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000
rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move these draft regulations which have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [ 24th Report from the Joint Commit tee].—( Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2000
1.20 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I invite the House to approve the rules. These draft rules amend the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission, known as SIAC, was established in 1997 to deal with cases where the Home Secretary exercises his power to deport or exclude someone from the United Kingdom on national security grounds or other public interest reasons.
It was created in response to criticism by the European Court of Human Rights that arrangements for challenging the Home Secretary's decision in cases involving deportation on the grounds of national security did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The commission is headed by a High Court judge. The Lord Chancellor appoints its members and makes its procedural rules. Unlike the non-statutory advisory panel, which it replaced, decisions of the commission are binding on the Home Secretary, appellants are entitled to representation and the commission can deal with bail applications. It also pioneered the arrangement for a special advocate to be appointed to safeguard the interests of the appellant when he and his representative have to be excluded because confidential information is being considered. The Home Secretary exercises his powers only occasionally. The House will be interested to know that the commission has heard three appeals so far.
The Lord Chancellor will probably want to review the rules fairly soon in the light of experience. However, the main purpose of the current amendments is to give effect to new provisions arising from Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which we intend to bring into force on 2nd October this year. These are the one-stop appeal procedure and the transfer of cases from the immigration appellate authorities to the commission. There is also some tidying up of the original rules.
The one-stop procedure will require applicants to cite at an early stage all the grounds they have for wishing to remain in the United Kingdom, rather than, as now, making a series of applications and appeals. As part of the one-stop process, members of an applicant's family will also need to raise any additional grounds which they may have for wishing to remain in the United Kingdom.
By providing a framework for all aspects of an appellant's case and those of his family to be dealt with at the same time, the one-stop procedure represents a real streamlining of the system and one which will help us to realise our vision of a fairer, faster and firmer process for immigration and asylum appeals.
The way the procedure will work is that when the Secretary of State serves a negative decision attracting a right of appeal in the United Kingdom, he will require a statement of any additional grounds for remaining in the UK. If the person is appealing, that must accompany the notice of appeal. The Secretary of State will review the case in the light of the appeal and any statement of additional grounds. If he maintains his negative decision, he will explain why. Further appeal rights may arise from any additional grounds given for remaining in the UK and appellants will be able to supplement their appeal notice in respect of those. The time limits for appealing mirror those proposed for appeals to the immigration appellate authorities.
Those appealing from abroad will have 28 days to lodge their appeal. We believe it essential that those anxious to enter the UK should appeal against a refusal of entry very quickly. We consider that 28 days is a reasonable time for them to do that.
Those appealing within the UK will have a two-stage time limit. First, they will have five days to lodge their appeal and any statement of additional grounds. That is fast, but it is surely vital that people facing possible removal should say straightaway if they think the Secretary of State has made a mistake and raise any other grounds they wish to have taken into account. Secondly, if the negative decision is maintained, they will then have another five days to supplement their appeal if there are appealable issues arising from any additional grounds they gave for remaining in the United Kingdom. Importantly, between those two steps, they will have time for reflection while the Secretary of State considers their appeal and additional grounds. There is, of course, no reason why a person should not raise all their reasons for staying here in the very first instance, and applicants will be encouraged to do so.
Apart from the one-stop appeal procedure, the amendments enable the transfer of appeals from the immigration appellate authorities to the commission. This will cater for cases in which national security considerations are introduced either by the appellant or by the Secretary of State when an appeal is already before the immigration appellate authority.
The rest of the amendments remove inconsistencies arising from the introduction of the new procedures, and tidy up ambiguities in the 1998 rules. I invite the House to approve the rules.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 27th June be approved [ 24th Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Bach.)
My Lords, in supporting these rules, I have no doubt that the issue will come up in a debate later today.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for supporting the rules.
On Question, Motion agreed to.National Assembly For Wales (Transfer Of Functions) (No 2) Order 2000
1.26 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (No.2) Order 2000, I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak also to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions)(Variation) Order 2000. Perhaps I may speak to that latter order first.
The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (Variation) Order 2000, to which I shall refer as "the variation order", will help to secure the well-being and safety of children in schools in Wales by allowing the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to exercise concurrently with the Assembly the powers under Section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988, to bar or restrict employment in the education sector. Historically the power to bar or restrict a person's employment in the education services in England and Wales was exercised exclusively by a unit of the Department for Education and Employment. The power in respect of Wales was transferred to the Assembly under the transfer of functions order 1999, but the need for the continued involvement of the DfEE's unit was recognised because of its expertise in the area and the fact that it would take some time for the Assembly to build up its own unit with similar experience.
A number of discussions have taken place between the Assembly and the DfEE with a view to identifying the best way to proceed. This variation order provides a solution that will allow the Department for Education and Employment's dedicated unit to tackle the outstanding Welsh cases and to bar or restrict people from employment in Wales as well as England. It will ensure that the DfEE's dedicated unit has the powers to ensure that cases are dealt with promptly and adequately throughout England and Wales without taking away the ability for the Assembly to take on this role in future if it becomes feasible.
As is required in Section 22(4)(b) of the Government of Wales Act, the National Assembly for Wales approved the variation order in a plenary session on 28th June this year.
I turn now to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Function) (No. 2) Order 2000, which I shall refer to as "Transfer (No. 2)". That order includes the Assembly as an emanation of the Crown entitled to receive notice if a court regards a provision of secondary legislation as incompatible with a right under the Human Rights Act 1998, and is considering making a declaration to that effect. The Human Rights Act generally comes into effect on 2nd October this year, and it is proposed that Transfer (No. 2) will also come into effect on that day.
Section 5 of the Human Rights Act states that where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Crown is entitled to notice. This is so that the Crown, which usually has ultimate responsibility for the legislation being considered by the court, can take part in the proceedings. This is particularly important as a declaration of incompatibility will be likely to lead to pressure for amendment legislation that is compatible with convention rights to be brought forward as soon as possible.
Subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Human Rights Act lists those emanations of the Crown entitled to receive notice. These are UK Ministers and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The National Assembly for Wales was not included in the list from the outset because it does not have primary legislative powers. However, the Assembly can of course make subordinate legislation, which may also be considered incompatible with the Human Rights Act by a court.
This proposed Transfer (No. 2) Order will bring the National Assembly within Section 5(2) of the Human Rights Act in relation to a court considering a declaration of incompatibility on subordinate legislation made in relation to Wales by the Assembly or by a UK Minister, if the Assembly could have made that subordinate legislation as well as the Minister. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [ 24th Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Bach.)
My Lords, I support the order. On Question, Motion agreed to.
National Assembly For Wales (Transfer Of Functions) (Variation) Order 2000
1.31 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Criminal Justice Act 1993 (Extension Of Group A Offences) Order 2000
1.31 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this order which, when approved, will help to combat the serious offence of counterfeiting currency. All currencies should be protected against the activities of counterfeiters whose activities attack not only financial transactions but can also threaten the very stability of a state.
Developments in technology mean that criminal activities can cross national borders with increasing ease and rapidity. It is essential that law enforcers can do the same.
It is here that UK legislation, which is otherwise comprehensive and effective, needs amendment to enable us to participate more fully with our European partners in the fight against counterfeiting. The kind of technological developments to which I have already referred mean that the offence of manufacturing counterfeit currency can be carried out in more than one jurisdiction. For example, someone in the UK may design on a computer part of an image intended to be printed on a counterfeit note. He can then send it electronically to a "colleague" or co-conspirator abroad for the work to be completed.
It is this kind of scenario which the present amendment is designed to address. The order will enable us to prosecute in England and Wales any offence of counterfeiting where a "relevant event"—in other words, any element which contributes to the offence—takes place within England and Wales. This kind of jurisdiction is already in place for other offences of dishonesty, such as theft, fraud and forgery, which are listed in Part I of the 1993 Act. It will also enable us to participate fully in the implementation of the EU Framework Decision on counterfeiting currency which was adopted in May of this year.
I should stress at this point that these counterfeiting offences apply to all legally issued currencies: the US dollar, the Swiss franc and the Spanish peseta are all equally protected by our legislation. There is no question of this amending order giving extra protection to any one currency over and above any other.
For the reason that this amendment will enable the UK to participate effectively in combating the serious offence of forgery at an international level, I urge noble Lords to approve the order. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [ 22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
My Lords, I am happy to agree to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 2000
1.34 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two draft orders make what might best be described as running adjustments to the data protection regime established when the Data Protection Act 1998 was brought into force on 1st March of this year. I shall briefly explain their effect.
I shall deal first with the Designated Codes of Practice (No. 2) Order. In February, noble Lords approved seven orders subject to affirmative resolution under the 1998 Act. Among them was the Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) Order 2000. That order designates five media codes of practice for the purposes of Section 32 of the 1998 Act.
It was a matter of considerable concern to the Government to discover that after the draft order had been approved by your Lordships' House, one of the codes which it designates—the Press Complaints Commission's code—was out of date. I wrote to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, to inform them of this mistake and undertook to bring forward a fresh order to regularise the position.
That is the purpose of the new order. The original order designates specific editions of the various codes. Designating specific editions means that each time a code is amended, a new order will be required. As we have seen, this can give rise to problems. To avoid such problems in the future, we have decided to follow a different approach in the new order. This designates each of the codes at large without specifying a particular edition. The relevant edition will be the one in force at the time at which the processing or publication in question takes place. The new order revokes and replaces the existing one.
I turn now to the Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) (Amendment) Order. This order makes one small change to the Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000 which was also among the original package of draft subordinate legislation approved in February. The Data Protection Act 1998 creates a right, subject to exemptions, for individuals to see the information which is held about them. Among other things, the original order allows that right to be restricted where adoption records held by local authorities are concerned. The justification for this is that it can sometimes be harmful for the individuals concerned to learn about the background to the adoption. Following the approval of the original order, it was drawn to our attention that adoption records are not held only by local authorities. Approved adoption societies can also hold such records, and similar considerations apply to access to them. At the request of bodies representing such voluntary adoption societies, we are therefore bringing forward this order to apply the exemption to them as well.
I apologise to noble Lords that it has proved necessary to bring these two orders before your Lordships' House so soon after the implementation of the 1998 Act. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand the need for these changes to be made. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [ 23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
My Lords, I am happy to agree to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.Data Protection (Designated Codes Of Practice) (No 2) Order 2000
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Asylum Seekers
1.37 p.m.
rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether implementation of the arrangements for the dispersal and support of asylum seekers is satisfactory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question has been tabled in order to bring to the attention of noble Lords what is happening as regards the implementation of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 and the arrangements for the dispersal of asylum seekers by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). It is my contention that a great deal of unsatisfactory practice is taking place. I believe that the Government should take this into account and take action on it.
The last occasion that noble Lords discussed this matter in detail was in a debate on the regulations initiated by my noble friend Lord Dholakia on 20th April. I do not wish to revisit the ground covered in that debate. Instead, I suggest that, in spite of the great degree of unhappiness expressed about the regulations, what we are dealing with now is the regulations as they are being applied in practice. I contend that the regulations are not being observed properly and people are therefore suffering.
Over 3,000 dispersals have taken place so far under the new system, which was implemented on 3rd April. Those dispersals have been undertaken by NASS. Reports have been received from all around the country that the system is not providing vulnerable asylum seekers with the safe, secure and supportive provision which, not only do they need, but to which they are entitled under the law and under the regulations which have been approved. They are being denied help and services. Furthermore, in many places, they are also being subjected to intimidation and harassment.
A great deal of evidence is being amassed by various bodies, such as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Refugee Council, local authorities and the media. I have collected quite a lot of evidence from my own contacts around the country and from my own experience. I ask the Government to take this matter seriously and to attempt to do something about it.
My involvement with this issue began in my own area of Pendle, in Lancashire. The first that anyone knew of the fact that NASS was sending anyone to our area was when a young man from a North African country who could not speak any English presented himself at the check-out at Morrison's with his vouchers and managed to make it understood that he wanted English lessons. The person on the check-out had the good sense to refer him to the local FE college. Inquiries that were then made indicated that about 20 people had already been dispersed to Nelson, and there are now about 120 reinforcements.
These are small towns with fairly closely knit communities. There are a large number of people who are used to tackling problems, so people cannot be dispersed to areas such as ours without it being widely known and without an attempt being made to provide them with help, support and assistance. So the initial major area of concern was the question of secrecy. Whenever anyone asked questions, there was a blanket silence, a wall of secrecy.
We discovered that an organisation called the "Burnley and Pendle Housing Agency" was busy trawling for empty houses among house owners in the area and offering them perhaps £40 a week for five years if they would allow the housing agency to take a tenancy. It then become clear that the agency consisted of one young man in his early 20s who was behaving in a entrepreneurial manner in regard to the provision of accommodation. He had managed by some means or other to obtain a contract with Clearsprings (Management) Ltd, one of the national companies engaged by NASS. We then discovered that a landlord who specialises in what might be called low quality housing in Brierfield had a similar contract with Adelphi Hotels Ltd.
But there was still a huge blanket of secrecy over everything. In particular, local authorities were being kept in the dark. Local groups were having to find out by accident who the people were and where they were living. The local college, which was providing English classes, was having to arrange them by word of mouth. Whenever people asked, "Why cannot somebody locally be told what is going on, so that they can engage the resources of the community to help?", they were told, "No, it's against the Data Protection Act". They were then told that the information was covered by the Official Secrets Act. Even people offering their houses are made to sign documents promising never to tell anyone that the conversations had taken place or that anything was going on—on pain, it seems, of being locked up in the Tower! They were told that the matter was covered by considerations of commercial confidentiality. Fourthly—at which I pricked up my ears—people were told that nothing could be said until the matter had been raised in Parliament.
Like many other communities around the country, we have experience of dealing with Vietnamese boat people, of the dispersal of Kosovans 12 months ago, and of many other cases. We have a history of welcoming such people, and a history of providing help and support. The way in which this was done, with a great wall of silence, was guaranteed to start the local press sniffing, smelling a rat and creating difficulties among members of the local community, who are rightly asking, "Who are these people who have come to live in our street?"—and no one will give them any information.
There is a great willingness around the country to help, particularly among local authorities. The Chester Chronicle for Friday, 30th June, reported the Conservative county councillor, Neil Fitton, as saying,
"Cheshire responded magnificently to the plight of the Kosovans and we would like to repeat that response for people who have been similarly oppressed".
However, on Wednesday this week in another place, the Minister, Barbara Roche, said:
"NASS works closely with local authorities, up and down the country, to ensure that dispersal … is a reality, and that it provides an appropriate environment for asylum seekers".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/00; co1.106WH.]
That is not true. Indeed, on Tuesday (4th July) the Lancashire Evening Telegraph reported as follows:
"15 asylum seekers have arrived in Burnley but the council doesn't know who they are or where they are living.
"Council Labour leader Stuart Caddy slammed as appalling and unacceptable the Government's refusal to provide information … denying the local authority the chance to provide help and guidance".
Throughout the country, wherever you ask—from Plymouth to Leicester, Derby, Leeds, Liverpool, northeast Lancashire or anywhere else—it is a common complaint by local authorities that they are not being allowed the information that they need in order to help with this problem.
The second main area of concern is over the service that is provided by local providers. NASS has contracts with about a dozen national providers and they contract with local landlords and local providers. The local providers are simply not giving the service for which they are paid.
The Model Contract for the Provision of Accommodation and Related Services for Asylum Seekers (Private Sector Providers), which I was able to consult in the Library, makes it clear that a whole series of support services are supposed to be provided for asylum seekers. But the experience of people all over the country is that that is not happening.
There is meant to be a one-stop service, which, as the document states, should among things,
"provide a focal point for local voluntary and community effort within the cluster groups".
The "cluster group" where I live is Nelson. Our nearest one-stop service is in Manchester, over 30 miles away. How on earth can that service provide what is necessary? How on earth can people who receive only £10 a week afford to go to Manchester to consult the one-stop service?
The document lists a whole series of services that providers should make available. Without going into detail, the provisions are excellent: there should be full-time, trained staff; there should be police checks where there is contact with children under 18, and so on. I do not believe that any of that is being done by the service providers that I know about in many different areas.
It is stated that interpreters should be available on arrival; that there should be induction to premises; that all necessary safety and operating instructions should be provided; as should a local map; and that providers should facilitate registration with GPs, dentists and local schools. That is not happening according to the information that I have from the length and breadth of the land. All that is happening is that people are turning up once a week to obtain the signatures of the "service users", as the asylum seekers are called, on a piece of paper so that they can send it off and get their money.
It is further stated that details of local solicitors and registration advisers should be available. There is a huge problem over the provision of proper and adequate legal advice to asylum seekers. I was talking to two people only a few days ago. One had a local solicitor who had been signed up for the scheme by the Government. Such people are very competent solicitors, but they do not have a clue about asylum law. People have been seen opening up the books, looking up the regulations, and so on, while interviewing an asylum seeker. They are people who have no experience whatsoever in this field—and why should they have? On the other hand, I spoke to another asylum seeker two days ago who seemed to have an excellent lawyer and to be receiving excellent advice. Unfortunately, that firm of solicitors is 300 miles away in Ramsgate; they are the people with whom the asylum seeker was put in touch on arrival. The amount of legal advice that is available, its quality, and access to such advice are huge problems. No travel allowance is provided for people who may need to see lawyers many miles away. We talk about people appealing and receiving proper legal advice, but I do not believe that many are receiving anything like the advice to which they are entitled.
The document also states that people should be given contact numbers to phone, that there should be complaints procedures in place, that written material should be provided in an appropriate language, and that occupancy agreements should be in the language understood by the service user. In my experience, none of that is happening.
I can tell noble Lords lots of horror stories but I quote just one involving a traumatised teenage girl from another North African country. Her home was in a village in a war zone which had been recently bombed. She was placed alone in a house without any contacts or knowing anybody. In the middle of the night she awoke with severe stomach pains. The only people she knew were others who had arrived with her on the same bus. They happened to live across the road. She managed to wake them and, somehow, they took her to the casualty department of the local hospital. Two days elapsed before the hospital discovered who she was and why she was there. The hospital only discovered her identity when a teacher in a local FE college was told in an English class that a girl had been taken to hospital. She rang the hospital and spoke to the ward sister, who said, "Thank goodness someone has rung. We have no idea who this girl is". Such events occur because the Government rely on private sector providers at local level to provide a whole range of services of which they have no experience and understanding; and some of them have no intention of providing these facilities.
At the other extreme, people are supposed to be provided with cutlery and crockery. In Nelson it was discovered that most of these people did not have tin-openers. The local support group had a whip round to provide tin-openers.
The vouchers give rise to huge problems. People must have a document to obtain the vouchers and then claim the vouchers. Vouchers appear in Burnley but the documents are sent to Manchester, or vice versa. There is huge confusion and a great many people have to wait weeks and weeks before they receive the vouchers that they are meant to have.
There is one local problem that I have already raised and will continue to raise until it is dealt with. The NASS told me, helpfully, that post offices where vouchers could be obtained should not be more than three miles away. The fact is that Nelson is well over four miles from Burnley. A return on the bus costs £1.30. One has a voucher for goods and also a voucher that can be cashed for £10. To get that £10 one must spend £1.30 return on the bus. All of this is being done on the basis of self-assessment. The service provider simply ticks a list of boxes to say that it is doing them and it is paid the money.
What is NASS doing to check it? My honourable friend in another place Simon Hughes has discovered this week from a Question for Written Answer that there are 433 staff employed by NASS: 423 in Croydon and one in each region. Therefore, there are 423 staff in Croydon and one who has just started work in the North West to check up on all these people. I suggest that that balance is wrong.
Around the country there are far worse stories than have occurred in Nelson. I highlight just one. In Chapeltown, Leeds, Angel Group Ltd has two hostels: Angel House and Angel Hall. There have been complaints of cramped accommodation, intimidation and threats by staff and poor food. That accommodation was visited by some BBC journalists this week. While they were there drug dealers were dealing in heroine outside during the day and a young lady was offering her services on the opposite corner. Recently, a shotgun has been fired into those premises. One of the asylum seekers has been stabbed. That area is totally unsatisfactory to house these people, yet it happens because it is organised by people purely on the basis of housing. People are asked whether they have accommodation. If they do they are allowed to provide it regardless of other factors.
I could also talk about racist attacks around the country which the Refugee Council is monitoring. Perhaps the Minister will follow up that matter. There is a good deal of profiteering going on. The going rate for accommodation in the private sector is about £110 per week per asylum seeker. In Nelson three or four asylum seekers are housed in small two up and two down terraced houses which have separate rooms and communal kitchen and bathroom facilities. Those houses are rented to local providers for £40 per week. Therefore, perhaps £300 to £400 is being shared between the national providers and local agents. If one deducts the £40 per week for the cost of the accommodation and bears in mind that the services being provided are the absolute minimum, a good profit is being made by the companies engaged by the Home Office and NASS.
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him. I know that he feels passionately about these important matters, but speeches in this debate are limited to 15 minutes and already one noble Lord wants to speak in the gap. Perhaps the noble Lord will wind up his speech.
My Lords, I am content not to make a contribution if the noble Lord wishes to speak for another four minutes.
My Lords, I shall wind up. I ask the Government to give this matter serious consideration. Please accept that there is a problem and that local authorities and the consortia may be able to do it better than private landlords who are engaged for this purpose. I also ask the Government genuinely to cooperate with local people and local councils which want to help and put more NASS staff in the field to monitor what is going on.
1.55 p.m.
My Lords, I thank the, noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I want to speak only about those persons who genuinely come within the United Nations Convention on Refugees and Asylum Seekers 1951, not those who are accused of being bogus or economic refugees. I also want to focus on the Race Relations Act 1976 and the role of local authorities in the dispersal and support of asylum seekers under that Act. Section 71 of the 1976 Act imposes on local authorities the duty,
Unfortunately, when asylum seekers are dispersed local authorities do not appear to pay attention to their duties under Section 71. We are all aware of asylum seekers in the care of London boroughs who are shipped out to so-called "cluster" areas. Your Lordships may be aware of asylum seekers in the care of London boroughs, such as Westminster City Council, who are dispersed to seaside towns on the east coast; for example, Great Yarmouth. Other local authorities are also doing this. Westminster is not alone in the shift. Noble Lords may also be aware of many reports of alleged discrimination on racial grounds and racial harassment suffered by those who seek asylum in cluster areas. Sometimes these acts are alleged to have been committed by the hotel or bed-and-breakfast owners who receive these asylum seekers hundreds of miles away from the local authority that has contracted out responsibility for them. Sometimes the services on the ground in these cluster areas are inadequate, or are not even put in place by the dispersing authority. This begs the question: how can a local authority fulfil its Section 71 duties when the asylum seekers for whom it has responsibility are 200 miles away? Is it paying any attention to Section 71 in the first place? The answer is that some local authorities which disperse asylum seekers usually do so without ever paying due regard to Section 71. That provision appears to have no meaning when it comes to asylum seekers. The main reason why this failure occurs is because Section 71 is without any effective means of enforcement and thus has had limited, and possibly uneven, impact. Some local authorities ignore this duty because no consequences flow from their failure to comply with it; others do not even appear to be aware of their duties under Section 71, or they have due regard to the provision but decide that it is inappropriate to make such arrangements. Some local authorities may not even believe that Section 71 has anything to do with asylum seekers, a large number of whom are members of the Roma community and who arrive in the UK fearing persecution in the Czech or Slovak Republics, or others, such as refugees from the former Yugoslavia, who are white. Some local authorities associate Section 71 with providing services to residents who are black and Asian only. Section 71 should be observed by local authorities with regard to asylum seekers, whether they are white, black or Asian. The problem is that many local authorities are simply not doing so. Local authorities should ensure that their dispersal and support arrangements are in place. I recognise that the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will replace the current Section 71 with a positive statutory duty on all public authorities to promote racial equality. I urge that this new duty be clear and unambiguous. Local authorities need to know the nature of their duties if that duty is to have any effect. I trust that the Minister will give much thought to this matter. While we await the passage of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, I hope that the Government will ensure that local authorities fulfil their duty. Do the dispersal arrangements—they are concerned solely with housing—adequately ensure that asylum seekers have access to GP services? There is strong anecdotal evidence, usually from lawyers advising asylum seekers, that they have great difficulty getting on to GP lists. When asylum seekers are sent to areas from which populations have moved, there is a strong likelihood that there are insufficient numbers of GPs to meet the ordinary health needs of asylum seekers. Similar questions could be asked about education. At the beginning of the school year in September 1999, there were more than 400 asylum-seeker children in Kent for whom there were no school places. Eventually they were found places, but not at local schools. They were "bussed" to a school or an army base. No integration with local children in the playground was possible. There are real issues about stigmatisation and the creation of a visible social underclass. Yesterday someone from Kent, referring to eastern European (white) asylum seekers, said, "You can recognise them; they look different; they wear different clothes; they walk differently". The Refugee Council has reports of the humiliation of asylum seekers trying to use vouchers. We received somewhat old stories in our briefing last year on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. There are also issues about what is happening to the existing local population. Not only is racism and xenophobia being whipped up but, similarly, compassion is being wiped out. Apparently, in Dover the local radio station could find no one who spoke with regret or sadness about the death of 58 Chinese men and women asylum seekers. They did not care. Ten years ago a young woman came to Britain as an asylum seeker. Today she is one of the leading scientists with the Wellcome Foundation. She has devoted her training and time in Britain to studying asthma which we know affects our population. Today's asylum seekers may be tomorrow's geniuses."to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions arecarried out with due regard to the need —(a) to eliminate unlawful … discrimination: (b) to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups".
2.3 p.m.
My Lords, I was disturbed to listen to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It is important to integrate these asylum seekers as they disperse across the country. In Kent some communities engage with asylum seekers. They welcome them, get to know them and support them. That integration works. It needs to be introduced. It cannot work if there is no information and no one knows who the asylum seekers are. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, made the same point. Compassion can be wiped out if there is no active effort to involve local communities with asylum seekers—in playing football, with help with writing and in other minor ways. I speak as a volunteer with Kosovan asylum seekers. It can be a great pleasure to work with them. If we do not know them, they may appear frightening. If they are our football partners, we can get along with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke of a traumatised lass. I met a young woman from Sierra Leone whose sister had been murdered by soldiers. They had played cat-and-mouse with her before killing her. She described this appalling experience to me in floods of tears. Sitting with this young woman was an awful experience, yet these people are sent out unsupported into an unknown world. We must do more to support them. There is a housing crisis in London and the South East. It is hard to house asylum seekers. Working as a volunteer in a hostel in Soho each week, I see young asylum seekers who are in cramped conditions for months on end because there is no move-on accommodation for them, while their peers move on after days or weeks. In future their situation will be worse because they are no longer entitled to social security benefit if they drift back to London. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister. Perhaps he will write to me; I have not notified him of this question. What emergency measures are in place for asylum seekers who come from those new placements in the country back to London? What will happen to them? There is already great pressure on bed spaces for young people arriving in London, for instance at King's Cross. It is already difficult to place them. If they are not so placed, they are liable to become involved with sex workers and in drugs, and may become minor drug dealers. If those asylum seekers are not properly provided for and drift back, will they be trapped in the same way? Will fewer beds become available, resulting in other young people being trapped in the way I have described? These issues concern me greatly. I look forward to some response from the Minister.2.8 p.m.
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for initiating the debate. We have had the privilege of hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, who has so much experience of the subject.
This country has an old and proud tradition of welcoming immigrants seeking asylum from persecution in other countries. During the centuries, those immigrants have contributed largely to the benefit of this country. One has only to think of the Huguenots and the fact that following the Jewish emigration before and during the war the music capitals of the world shifted from Berlin and Leipzig to London. More recently, the Ugandan Asians contributed much to this country in so many ways. The House must be grateful for the shining example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. However, the situation has been complicated by the arrival of economic migrants; those fleeing poverty rather than persecution. The noble Baroness was right to emphasise the difference between the two. We on this side of the House strongly support the principle that local authorities in London and the South East should not have to bear the brunt of the costs of accommodating those seeking asylum. The present arrangements for asylum came into effect in April this year, replacing a voluntary arrangement on the part of local authorities with an obligatory one, with the option for the Home Secretary in the last resort to create dispersal areas. It has to be said that by and large there has been a reasonable degree of co-operation between central and local government, but an objective report by the Audit Commission, issued on 1st June, highlighted some well known problems. Many of them were referred to in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. They include lack of familiarity with the problems faced by the asylum seekers and the absence of specialised help. Fewer than half the contracted immigration specialist law firms are outside London. In many cases, there is a lack of English language backup. The demand on local services on the part of asylum seekers is likely to be above average. The demands on social services, health—the noble Baroness referred to GPs—and specialised schooling deter certain authorities from offering more than the minimum co-operation. In some areas, support by the local taxpayers for asylum seekers is not at all popular. The smaller communities outside London and the major conurbations find it more difficult to assimilate fresh minority cultures. It is significant that some of the worse racial incidents occur in the smaller communities. In some cases, that has led to an over-reaction and positive discrimination in favour of asylum seekers—a recipe for intense local tensions. Then there have undoubtedly been cases of exploitation by unscrupulous accommodation contractors. We need look no further than the examples provided by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The history of the gradual drift back to London from the rest of the country has become an established fact in recent times, from the arrival of the Vietnamese boat people. That has the effect of neutralising the good intentions of the dispersal policy by putting extra strain on the London boroughs. It should also be remembered that, until the National Asylum Support Service assumes overall responsibility nation-wide, the responsibility for immigrants dispersed elsewhere remains with the dispersing authority. Although it can expect its expenses to be recoverable ultimately from central government, Members of your Lordships' House familiar with local government will know the difficulty that delay imposes when budgets are being set. There have been complaints in certain quarters of a lack of communication between the Immigration Service and local authorities resulting in some cases from a refusal of immigration officials to visit dispersal areas some distance from London. No doubt these instances are caused by the shortage of staffing in the Immigration Service, and this is an area where we are critical of the Government. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an instance. Under present rules, an illegal immigrant cannot be taken into custody by the police unless he or she has been seen by an immigration official, otherwise the individual must be released and told to find his way to Croydon. In a county such as Kent, immigration officials are for most of their time engaged in searching lorries arriving from continental Europe. So they are for a large part of the time—in Kent it is 50 per cent—unavailable to validate the detention of an immigrant. In other police authorities, the Immigration Service is not available and there is a 100 per cent release rate of asylum seekers. I note that a government-funded charity, Migrant Helpline, is at hand at the request of the police and the Immigration Service to assist migrants to prepare a written application to the Immigration Office at Croydon. Nevertheless, the opportunities for asylum seekers to become lost, if they are so inclined, beggar imagination. One is reminded of a proposal made in another quarter and the difficulties of inviting a hooligan to remember his PIN in order to withdraw cash to pay for his on-the-spot fine. We are dealing with organised crime which, as we well know, is both sophisticated and, indeed, unscrupulous, as the recent tragic events in Dover have shown. It goes without saying that once the backlog of asylum applications is brought under control, the strain on the dispersal regime will reduce as its extent contracts. However, the Government's record in the clearing of asylum applications is not good. From the beginning of 1999 until February 2000 the figure climbed remorselessly. While the figures for March and April showed a welcome decrease, the numbers awaiting processing in February 2000 were 38 per cent higher than in January 1999. That is despite a backlog clearance exercise conducted by the Home Secretary during 1999 whereby 11,230 asylum seekers were allowed to remain in the United Kingdom because they had managed to stay for several years without their cases being heard. It is the view of this side of the House that the Government should resist the temptation to repeat this short-term expedient. There is one category of asylum applicant which the Government are unacceptably slow to address, and that is the unaccompanied minor. These children and young persons are especially vulnerable. As a category, they are a substantial charge on the resources of local authorities. Since their ability to travel is, by their circumstances, limited, it is not surprising that one-quarter of the total is the responsibility of Kent County Council. A decision in their favour by the immigration department would at least enable the minors to be resettled away from the county. Another strain on the manpower will arise as the Home Office deals with extra appeals arising from the requirements of the Human Rights Act when it comes into force in October. We have just approved an order which is relevant to that. It will be necessary to appoint nearly 100 full and part-time adjudicators to serve the immigration appeals tribunal. Perhaps I may say a last word about the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The Public Accounts Committee published a somewhat critical report on the IND's casework programme. Its principal criticisms were: the lack of quality of service; obviously, the backlog of cases to which I have referred; poor service for telephone inquiries; the human misery endured by applicants as they waited; and the cost to the taxpayer of benefits. It then went on to be critical of the implementation of the programme, the over-ambitious roll-out timetable of the new IT system, the relocation while that system was being installed, and the familiar story of lack of supervision of the contractor. I hope that the Government will address those criticisms. Therefore, I hope that I have made clear some of the concerns that we on this side of the House have about the ability of the IND to cope with the challenge of the asylum application surge. We shall await the Minister's comments with interest. Perhaps I may say a word about the voucher system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred. Although we appreciate the intentions behind the introduction of the system, there is no doubt that it is not perfect. For a start, there is the unwanted consequence of identifying users of the vouchers as second-class citizens. The scheme has been criticised heavily by major welfare groups, including the Refugee Council, Oxfam, and Save the Children. One effect appears to be that under the voucher system asylum seekers tend to pay more for their shopping. Forbidding retailers to give change discriminates against those who are most vulnerable. Mischievous eyes at supermarket check-outs do not miss a thing. We hope that the Government will keep the scheme under review with a view to its improvement. We on this side of the House are well aware that a large number of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is a fact of life. We are of course supportive of the Government in their endeavours to address the problems that it poses. However, to do so effectively and promptly, there must be an immigration infrastructure at national level which is equipped to meet the challenge. We certainly look to I improvements in this field, first, in order to speed up the process of applications and, secondly, to refine communications between the IND and local authorities and between the dispersing and receiving authorities. Finally, there is a continuing need for the Home Office to address the particular problems of Kent and the London boroughs, on whom the burden initially falls. It is not right, for example, that homeless people in those areas should be further disadvantaged by lack of accommodation simply because of the need to lodge asylum seekers or, indeed, that taxpayers there should be required to pay a disproportionate share of what is a national obligation. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's reply.2.19 p.m.
My Lords, I greatly welcome this opportunity to give the Government's answer to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I pay tribute to him for his detailed analysis of how the dispersal arrangements for the support of asylum seekers are working and I am grateful to him for making that account available to the House. I shall study his comments very carefully. If he wants to provide me with details of particular allegations of malpractice that I, as a Minister, should follow up, I shall undertake to ensure that they are thoroughly investigated. The same offer is open to any of your Lordships who have participated in the debate. Focusing on the critical comments about the activities of any agency can only help us to improve.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, who highlighted some more general concerns. I shall not go into them at great length, but she spoke with great wisdom, understanding and compassion. Any government, particularly this one, would be very foolish to ignore her concerns. I shall answer some of the points that have been raised, but first I shall set out the Government's view of how we have managed to implement the scheme to date. There is widespread agreement that the task of establishing a national asylum support scheme has been formidable. Just getting the scheme off the ground has involved an extended procurement effort to obtain accommodation, the establishment of arrangements to get asylum seekers to dispersal areas and the recruitment and training of the necessary staff to assess claims for support and allocate asylum seekers to suitable accommodation. To get all that done and administer the scheme once it was set up, we have had to create a whole new body—the National Asylum Support Service—from scratch. I hope that I am not overly complacent when I say that doing all that in just 18 months is no small achievement. The evident success of the operation says a lot about the dedication of those in management and at all levels in those organisations. However, getting a scheme going is only half the job. The main thing is to keep it going and ensure that it achieves what it is meant to do. The Government believe that the prospects of doing that are very reasonable. So far, more than 5,000 applications for support have been dealt with. We are dispersing asylum seekers to cluster areas, as planned. There have been inevitable teething problems—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, gave ample voice to them—in ensuring that people get to the right place at the right time and that the support packages to which they are entitled are ready for them. As has been pointed out in the debate, we have had some problems with accommodation and some dispersed asylum seekers have not found the experience easy. We are addressing the accommodation problems. We are getting providers to take the necessary steps to achieve improvements where they are needed. We shall continue to monitor the progress made by providers of accommodation and support services. On the positive side, the start of the dispersal scheme means that we are beginning to cap the number of asylum seekers who fall to local authorities in London and the South East, a point drawn very powerfully to our attention by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Therefore, the responsibility and support for asylum seekers is more fairly shared, as we all wish it to be, across the United Kingdom. After all, that is the bedrock of dispersal arrangements like these and like those which have had to be put in place historically; for example, for groups like the Vietnamese boat people. That was a scheme which worked very well when it was introduced by the Conservative government of the time. So far the much-criticised voucher scheme has been working, in the main, entirely satisfactorily. There are now over 19,000 retail outlets involved, including specialist shops. Our contractor, Sodexho Pass, continues to seek to extend the network of retailers. All asylum seekers receive information about the voucher scheme. Part of that information includes a form which can be used to nominate shops or other outlets which do not yet accept vouchers but where the asylum seekers would wish to shop. Sodexho Pass then does its best to sign up those retailers and add them to the network of retailers able to operate the scheme. I shall turn now to some of the comments made during the course of the debate. I summarise the approach and perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to this matter. He drew our particular attention to problems in east Lancashire. He said that there were some unsatisfactory practices; that some asylum seekers were not receiving the right sort of help; and in particular, he drew attention to instances of intimidation and harassment. It would be fair to say that the noble Lord was extremely concerned about the secrecy, as he saw it, behind the way in which the scheme operates. In particular, he drew attention to the importance and value of that relationship between the local authority, which, after all, is the glue which brings together our communities, and the NASS scheme. He gave us examples of people being told that information was subject to the Data Protection Act and official secrecy legislation. But he said that there is—an extremely important point—a tremendous willingness to help by a number of communities. Looking through some of the background information on this, I was pleased to find that, in particular, in one of the areas to which the noble Lord drew my attention—Burnley and Pendle—there is an asylum seekers support campaign which has organised fund-raising events. Again, the Nelson & Colne college has organised drop-in centres. We need to help and support such initiatives so that there is a community response and a greater willingness and welcome in those communities which are bearing the burden of the dispersal arrangements. We shall of course investigate the complaints which the noble Lord has made. Like the noble Lord, I am extremely concerned about allegations of racism, racist attacks, harassment and, of course, we must keep a very careful check on the level of profits which the company providing the services in each instance is able to make. I was especially concerned about the noble Lord's comments in relation to Chapeltown and the desirability of the provision being made there. We shall look closely at that. The disclosure of information needs to be understood. In each area, there are local authority regional consortia which are informed regularly about the numbers of asylum seekers being dispersed through the NASS scheme. Information about the identity of asylum seekers is not regularly disclosed. The Government owe a duty of confidentiality to those who have applied for asylum support. But there are instances when that can be waived, particularly where the asylum seekers themselves believe that it would be in their best interest. Of course, it can be overtaken when disclosure is in the broader public interest; for example, to prevent or to ensure that we investigate crime. I turn to contract monitoring. NASS has a dedicated contract manager for each private sector accommodation centre provider. We are also developing an inspection and investigation team to ensure that standards are met. NASS consults local authorities through the regional consortia as to the provider's suitability. The local authorities have an important role to play there. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew attention to the problem of bus fares. It is the case that asylum seekers will need to pay fares out of that element of their weekly voucher payment. But I believe that we have taken adequate steps to ensure reasonable means so that asylum seekers do not become destitute. We have to strike a balance. The mix of voucher and cash payment attempts to do that. I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. In essence, to summarise her concerns, she was worried about the dispersal and support arrangements of the local authorities. It is fair to say that local authorities have had to bear the brunt of the burden. That is one of the reasons which informed the development of NASS. We were concerned, under the previous arrangements, at the over-concentration of asylum seekers, particularly in London and the South East. It would be fair to say that in some cases they placed excessive burdens on the capacity of the local authorities to cope, some of which are not exactly overburdened with riches. We have to turn our attention to their needs. That is why we need a rational system of national dispersal. The noble Baroness also drew attention to the need to ensure that measures are taken which guarantee that asylum seekers are "plugged into" GP services. She was right to draw attention to the need for healthcare for the asylum population. In particular, the noble Baroness drew attention to the missing 400 education places in Kent last year. We are concerned about that. Clearly, we must do all that we can to ensure that education is available for those who will be here for any length of time while their asylum application is being considered. To that end, the DfEE is making available an additional £1.5 million of funding for schools which take children of asylum seekers. They are obviously in clusters under the national asylum support scheme. We recognise the value and importance of tackling that head on. We shall, of course, do all that we can to ensure that adequate steps are taken to integrate asylum communities into local areas, particularly if we know that they will be there for any length of time. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to draw attention to the valuable contribution which people coming to this country—often destitute and fleeing persecution—make to our society and communities. That point was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We must never underestimate the contribution, richness and diversity they bring to us. However, that does not mean that we must step aside from our duty to ensure that we exercise our international obligations properly and fairly and that we take adequate and strong measures to ensure that immigration legislation is firmly and effectively introduced. Our Government inherited a chaotic system of control. We have had to take some time to put a new system in place. However, I believe that we now have the balance right. At times, we are criticised for being somewhat illiberal in the measures we have taken. I prefer to view our approach to this rather differently. We have firm and fair procedures in place and are now making far more decisions about people's immigration status and their entitlement to stay here. I think that we are getting the balance about right. Over the past few months, a record number of decisions have been made. The number of people awaiting a decision about their status is lowering each month. We expect the backlog to fall dramatically by the end of the year. Perhaps I may pass on an important statistic. Since the end of January, the backlog has reduced by some 15,000. We expect to make a substantial reduction in that backlog by April 2001. I hope that I have been able to allay some of the concerns expressed in this debate. I reiterate that the Government believe that implementation of the scheme has generally got off to a satisfactory start. But, as in any of these sorts of undertaking, there is always room for improvement. We accept that. The successful implementation of the national support scheme means that we shall, over time and with the co-operation of the private sector and local authorities, achieve our aim of providing an adequate support system for asylum seekers in genuine need throughout the country, while deterring economic migrants seeking to use asylum procedures to gain entry into the United Kingdom and stay here. That is our general philosophy and approach. If I have missed specific points during my summary of the debate, I apologise and shall be happy to address them in private correspondence later. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving us this opportunity to air concerns and issues arising from the introduction of the national asylum seekers scheme. House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before three o'clock.