Clause 22 - Procedure
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I hope that I am giving the Government an opportunity to state on the record that the commissioner for victims and witnesses will be consulted even if he or she is not named in the Bill. The Bill does not specifically include the commissioner in the consultation process for preparing a draft of the victims code. That process is established under clause 22. The amendment would ensure that the new commissioner was fully consulted when the Home Secretary prepared and considered the draft code or any revisions before it was laid before Parliament.
The role of the commissioner is to be newly created, with his or her appointment being made by the Home Secretary under clause 25(1). To that extent, the commissioner will have statutory duties that are directly relevant to any revision of the code. For example, the Bill obliges the commissioner to keep the code under review and enables him or her to make proposals ad hoc to the Home Secretary. Clause 22
lays out the formal consultation process prior to introducing and revising the code. However, although it ensures that the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor are consulted, it does not provide the commissioner with an identified role at that stage. That is a missed opportunity.
On Report in the other place, a similar amendment was debated together with an amendment that would have enabled the commissioner as well as the Home Secretary to initiate revisions to the code of practice. At that point, concern was expressed that the commissioner's role had not been specified in sufficient detail. The Government responded by voicing concern that those amendments might trespass on the proper role of the elected Executive to make decisions about policy and resourcing.
The noble Baroness Scotland of Asthal said:
''Of course responsibility for making decisions which may directly impinge on the allocation of resources will be properly discharged by the ministerial officers and their colleagues along with the Secretaries of State who will be entrusted with that task . . . It would be inappropriate for the commissioner to have such a large role to play in relation to the code of practice. The commissioner will be able to offer his comments and amendments to the Secretary of State; and his suggestions will be given very serious consideration by the Government.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2004; Vol. 658, c. 1434-5.]
I have taken on board what the Government have said about the distinct roles of Ministers and the commissioner. Therefore, the amendment provides the commissioner not with the power to make any decisions in respect of resources but merely with the right to be consulted. That is the nub of the matter.
The amendment would ensure that the consultation process takes full advantage of both the commissioner's statutory duty to keep the code under review and his or her knowledge and experience of victim issues. By providing the commissioner with a specific named role in the consultation, the Government will benefit from his or her expertise, and they will have a clear remit to work within. The Minister said that the Government would give the commissioner's suggestions serious consideration. If that is the Government's intention, including in the Bill a duty to consult the commissioner Parliament would underscore that intention in statute.
The amendment will enable the commissioner to discharge his or her role effectively at the heart of victim and witness policy. At the same time as giving effect to the Government's intention, the amendment will go some way to addressing the concerns of those in the other place who argue that there is insufficient clarity about the role of the commissioner.
When the Minister in the Lords responded to this point, she was also dealing with a stronger amendment to give the commissioner greater powers to revise the code. I assure the Minister that this amendment does not provide the commissioner with decision-making powers that would affect public policy and resources. The argument on this occasion is about ensuring that the commissioner is at the heart of the consultation process in victims policy. My understanding is that the
Government have suggested that they are keen to do that. Therefore, I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to this point.