Clause 30 - Authorities within Commissioner's remit
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
10:15 am
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 30, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
'(1A) An authority specified in Schedule 6 that has functions in relation to an area outside England and Wales is within the Commissioner's remit only to the extent that it discharges its functions in relation to England and Wales.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply in relation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.'.
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 4, in schedule 6, page 36, line 27, at end insert—
'9A HM Treasury.
9B The Cabinet Office.'.
Amendment No. 49, in schedule 6, page 36, line 31, at end insert—
'11A The Police Service of Northern Ireland'.
Amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 36, line 32, at end insert—
'12A The National Criminal Intelligence Service
12B The National Crime Squad'.
Amendment No. 51, in schedule 6, page 36, line 32, at end insert—
'12A The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary
12B The Ministry of Defence Police'.
Government amendment No. 91.
Amendment No. 52, in schedule 6, page 37, line 2, at end insert—
'13A Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.'.
Amendment No. 55, in schedule 6, page 37, line 13, after 'court', insert '(including a court martial)'.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I fear that in the remarks that I am about to make I will offer further irritation to the hon. Member for North Down, and I apologise for that in advance.
The amendments seek to extend the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses to include additional specified authorities. I shall comment briefly on each authority in turn and explain our thinking on whether it should be included or excluded from the commissioner's remit.
First, I shall deal with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Members of the Committee will see that all the Departments listed in schedule 6 as being currently within the commissioner's remit are responsible for the delivery, or oversight of delivery, of direct services to the public. Although the Treasury and the Cabinet Office have important and significant roles, they do not perform either of those functions.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
It is novel to hear the Minister say that the Treasury performs no
public service. That may be evidence of the truth, but it seems to me that the Cabinet Office certainly provides and delivers public services. It presides over the delivery of public services by a variety of routes—indeed, it interferes in the delivery of many public services. Why can it not be included?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
Neither of those Departments delivers services directly to the public, which is why we do not think it appropriate for them to appear in the list.
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I seem to be stirring up great excitement.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I would like to hear the Minister's definition of delivering services to the public, because Her Majesty's Treasury is taking on responsibility for Customs and Excise and various other matters, and Customs and Excise delivers services directly to the public.
Mr. Walter rose—
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I shall give way again.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset, Conservative)
Further to that point, the Treasury is of course responsible for the Inland Revenue, which might well have evidence that is of considerable use to the commissioner in respect of domestic violence proceedings, as it would have access to the financial records of both parties in a violent situation.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I hope to be able to satisfy all hon. Members. They will see that, under schedule 6, Customs and Excise is listed as one of the bodies that is under the remit of the commissioner. It is the Treasury and the Cabinet Office that we are seeking to exclude from the list.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
It is ironic that the Inland Revenue is not in the list. Immediately after I mentioned Customs and Excise, I saw that it is listed in paragraph 10 of the schedule, so it was a poor example. However, the Inland Revenue is a good example. It is strange that it is not included in the list, because amendments have been tabled this week to provide powers enabling us to obtain information about individuals from financial institutions. However, direct services are provided by the Revenue, too.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I do not want to prolong this debate. I could ask what precisely the Revenue would have to do with victims, but in the spirit of trying to reach consensus whenever we can, I undertake to look carefully at the list in the light of the hon. Lady's comments to see whether there is any merit in her argument, although at this stage I do not feel that there is.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I apologise if I have given an impression of slight astonishment, but the list in schedule 6 is very comprehensive. On the face of it, the activities of the Health and Safety Commission, as opposed to the Health and Safety Executive, seem rather far removed from domestic violence; yet the Minister has seen fit to include both those bodies, so he must have seen some causal connection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham makes a good point about the Treasury.
Indeed, I stand by what I said about the Cabinet Office; it has a considerable remit. I find these distinctions difficult to make. I understand clearly that some Departments are public service delivery Departments, but the Minister has gone a long way down the road of including lots of Departments and agencies that do not have an immediate causal link. I am pleased about that, but will he consider the other ones, too?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
May I gently point out that the Bill relates to victims, and not just to domestic violence? That is an important point.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I want to try to be helpful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because it is a little odd to list nine Departments but not the others. Would the Minister consider it sensible to have a catch-all provision mentioning ''any other Department providing services directly to the public'' or something of that sort? That would simply ensure that, if services were moved from one Department to another one that was not listed in the schedule, secondary legislation would not be needed.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I shall certainly not commit myself to a catch-all clause at this stage, but I agree to review the list in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, as I have already undertaken to do. I am satisfied as things stand, but there is no harm in taking a little time to reflect further to see whether the conclusions that had been reached were correct.
Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)
When the Minister is reviewing the matter, will he look again at the definition of victim and witness? It is clear that a victim is a victim of an offence; a witness is a person who participates in criminal proceedings. The wording of clause 30 is too wide because it allows the Secretary of State to list for other authorities functions of public nature. That is where the difficulties lie. Nothing defines the remit in respect of what the Secretary of State can add to the list. Problems in respect of the Inland Revenue, the Cabinet Office and so on would be resolved if the wording were changed so that authorities had a role in the criminal justice system in England and Wales, which would reflect the definition of victims and witnesses. Without that, even the BBC could be regarded as delivering public services.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that I will add her comments to those of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham as I reflect on matters. I do not think that there is a problem, but I shall look carefully at the issue. There is no harm in my taking a little time to do that.
May I move on—if I dare—to why we want to exclude the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the list? When drafting the Bill, we discussed with the Northern Ireland Office the possibility of extending the provision to Northern Ireland. The conclusion that was reached was that it would not be appropriate for two reasons. First, given that Northern Ireland is a small jurisdiction the view was that the role of a
commissioner might conflict with the effectiveness of the criminal justice inspectorate. Secondly, there were worries that the commissioner's work may cut across the responsibilities of individual criminal justice organisations. It was decided therefore that the remit of the commissioner should not be extended to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 50 proposes to include the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad within the commissioner's remit. Again, that was considered when the Bill was being drafted and, because of the nature and extent of the work of those bodies, it was concluded that they should be outside the commissioner's remit. Amendment No. 51 suggests including the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. That organisation has little day-to-day contact with victims and witnesses of crime and it is therefore unnecessary for it to be included within the remit of the commissioner. However, the Ministry of Defence police, a civilian police force whose investigations into crimes against individuals can result in prosecutions in either civilian or service courts, will for the purposes of the Bill be treated as part of the criminal justice system and should therefore be added to the commissioner's remit.
Government amendment No. 91 was tabled to that effect and, at the same time, I tabled amendment No. 90 to make clear that organisations are only within the commissioner's remit in so far as they discharge their functions in England and Wales. The one exception is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because we want the commissioner to have power to review the services and support provided by the Government to those of our citizens who are victimised when travelling overseas.
Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)
Will the Minister clarify the impact of his amendments Nos. 91 and 90? The jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police is obviously limited to England and Wales. However, I remind him that in my wonderful constituency of North Down I have the Palace barracks at Hollywood. A serious issue arose when two outstanding Scottish arrest warrants were issued for a Scottish soldier, so the Ministry of Defence police were involved. The warrants were not served on the soldier punctually while he was serving in Northern Ireland, following which, while he was driving a car, a constituent of mine died. Her parents are obviously victims and continue to suffer. They have not received a decent, honourable response from the Ministry of Defence. That complicated real-life scenario unfortunately involved the death of a young constituent. Why should the Ministry of Defence police not come within the remit of the commissioner in relation to victims and witnesses? The soldier was serving in a barracks in my constituency.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I regret the death of the hon. Lady's constituent and the pain that her constituent's parents must be going through. She said that they have not received a response from the Ministry of Defence, so I shall draw its attention to her remarks. None the less, we believe that the remit should remain in England
and Wales only, with the exception that I mentioned whereby the Foreign Office would fall within its scope in order to cover citizens who are victimised when travelling overseas.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be interested to hear that amendment No. 55 would include court martial proceedings in the commissioner's remit. Although some parts of the Bill extend to courts martial, we decided that it was not right to include court martial proceedings within the commissioner's remit, given the nature of army law and the specialised and distinctive support that is available to victims. The question is one of balance and, on balance, we decided not to extend the provisions.
With that, I shall ask for support for Government amendments in the group—
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
What about amendment No. 52?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
Sorry. I was forgetting about amendment No. 52, which would include
''Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.''
Our preferred approach is to specify which bodies of constables should be included within the commissioner's remit, rather than leave things open-ended. With the exception of the Ministry of Defence police, I therefore reject the proposals.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset, Conservative)
I should allow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to speak about amendment No. 52 himself, but I think that the proposal is excellent, because it is all-embracing. One of the bodies of constables not included in the list in the Bill is the Royal Parks constabulary. Violence is quite often committed in the royal parks, so I would have expected the Royal Parks constabulary to be a relevant body of constables to be included in an all-embracing clause.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will pick up that point when he speaks, so I shall leave it to him to respond. Notwithstanding that, I have indicated that I seek support for the Government amendments in the group.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I was heartened by part of the response from the Minister, who is obviously going to re-examine the issue. His problems could be solved by including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to cover the Royal Parks constabulary before it moves, and Her Majesty's Treasury to cover the Inland Revenue. Miraculously, the Government seem to have accepted the proposals that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has advanced. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but I congratulate him unreservedly on achieving a first in the Bill.
I hope that I have not got anything wrong—I am sorry if I have, but I need an explanation from the Minister. Schedule 6, which is headed ''Authorities within the Commissioner's remit'' has a bearing on clause 27(1), which states:
''If he is required to do so by a Minister of the Crown, the Commissioner must give advice to the Minister of the Crown in
connection with any matter which . . . is specified by the Minister, and . . . relates to victims or witnesses.''
However, clause 27(2) says:
''If he is required to do so by or on behalf of an authority within his remit, the Commissioner must give advice to the authority in connection with the information provided or to be provided by or on behalf of the authority to victims or witnesses.''
Does that mean if an authority if not within the commissioner's remit as defined by schedule 6, he is not required to give advice under clause 27(1)? Clause 27(3) says:
''In this section 'Minister of the Crown' includes the Treasury.''
It seems to me that subsection (3) is otiose if Her Majesty's Treasury is included schedule 6. Also, there is a lacuna, because even if expressly required to give advice to, for example, the Ministry of Defence, the commissioner does not have to do so because that authority is not within his remit. It appears that there is a gap in logic between the list and clause 27. There may be a perfectly straightforward explanation, but it is strange that the Minister should reject these amendments without considering a complex problem that has arisen from the interpretation of schedule 6 alongside clause 27; it would be much easier to generalise in this list and make it more comprehensive.
Something else worries me. A small part of the Bill will take up time because this list will have to be amended in secondary legislation. I do not think that it is unfair to say that the Government change departmental briefs as often as some of us change our socks. Departments win and lose power, and we suddenly find that responsibility for certain topics have nipped across into the bailiwick of a different Department. This schedule will take more trouble than it deserves, as it is only a minor part of the whole process.
I will not press my amendment to a Division because the Minister has given me an assurance that he will review the workings of the provision. I hope that he will come up with something that will not take parliamentary time from the many other important matters we have to discuss and that addresses the problem I have with clause 27 and the list.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I have a number of amendments in this group. The Minister almost pre-empted some of the remarks I wanted to make by dealing with certain points. However, what he has said has not satisfied me.
I started from the basic premise that any activities of a public body that impinge on the victims or witnesses in a case should fall within the remit of the commissioner. Any person acting in the office of constable might have an impact on the victims or witnesses in a criminal case. Although the vast majority of those acting in the office of constable are included within the remit, some are not, and that is inexplicable to me. That is why I tabled amendment No. 50, which deals with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. NCIS does not have a direct operational role in terms of making arrests but it provides information that is of vital importance in managing prosecutions, and the NCS acts directly with the local constabulary in arresting and charging. Therefore, it is nonsense not
to include NCIS and the NCS within the remit of the commissioner. They should be included; they are police organisations and they will have an impact on some victims and witnesses in the exercise of their duties.
I am very pleased that the Government have accepted half of amendment No. 51. I cannot imagine how the Ministry of Defence police got left out, but they are now included. I think that the problem of the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence sometimes not quite communicating manifested itself again, but things are now clear. However, why not include the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary? I accept that it does not arrest many people in the average year; it is largely a protecting body rather than an investigating body. However, it can arrest people.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
It is a guarding constabulary.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I thought that the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position that it cannot arrest people, and I thought, ''Well, yes it can.'' It can arrest people and a prosecution can be brought on the basis of that arrest. Therefore, it clearly can affect a victim, or more particularly a witness, in a case.
Mr. Grieve rose—
Vera Baird rose—
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I have a choice; I will give way to the hon. and learned Lady first.
Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers the CND Snowball campaign of a few years ago, where activists went to installations such as Sizewell and systematically cut one strand of the fence and stepped on to the site. The UKAEA police were involved in policing that. I am not suggesting that there should be another campaign, but that one brought the police into contact with a large number of witnesses and any similar anti-nuclear protest would do so again.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I remember those protests, but let us not go there. However, the hon. and learned Lady makes my point. Why should the UKAEA constabulary be excluded from the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses simply because it does not arrest many people in the average year?
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I want to return to one point that the Minister might reply to in the debate on schedule 6. The Health and Safety Commission comes under the commissioner's remit, although I find it difficult to see the link between victims and witnesses and that commission, as opposed to the Health and Safety Executive. However, if the commission is included, I cannot think of a good reason for excluding the UKAEA police.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful for that, although I can understand why the Health and Safety Commission is included. That is because its general function is not only to supervise and make recommendations on activities, but to make recommendations to an authority that is within the remit. If the Health and
Safety Executive is behaving in a way that gives cause for concern to the commissioner, the commissioner may then make a recommendation to the Health and Safety Commission about that. That is the relevance, and I hope that I have at least partly answered the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman has answered my question, although I shall wait to hear from the Minister too. I have no objection to the Health and Safety Commission being included, but to widen the issue, we should remember that the Inland Revenue prosecutes. I have prosecuted for the Inland Revenue, and there are victims and witnesses of activities related to it.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is right. When approaching the Bill, I thought for a long time about whether it was necessary to propose to include other prosecuting authorities, especially those that are not governmental but do prosecute in the public interest. One example would be the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which mounts prosecutions in the public interest. It was established by charter and is outside government apparatus, but it clearly has a role in the context of victims and witnesses.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
What about local authorities?
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
What indeed? The hon. Lady makes a good point, as local authorities mount prosecutions in respect of trading standards, and I do not believe that they are adequately covered by the inclusion of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Before another hon. Member pops up to mention something else—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North Down have another ''What about?''
Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has invited me to pop up. Will he speak to his welcome amendment No. 49, which proposes including the Police Service of Northern Ireland? That will give me an opportunity to intervene on him again and correct the Minister.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Lady could have intervened without my invitation. I tabled the amendment on the PSNI because, having heard what she had to say on Second Reading, it seemed essential that the commissioner's remit be extended to Northern Ireland and that the PSNI be listed with the constabularies of mainland Britain excluding Scotland.
Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)
In dealing with amendment No. 49, the Minister alluded to the fact that the PSNI would not be included because we have the chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. That is right, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002—thankfully, proper legislation rather than just an Order in Council—created the office of the chief inspector of criminal justice. However, according to section 47 of that Act, the
''Chief Inspector may not . . . carry out inspections or reviews of individual cases''.
That means that the chief inspector does not deal with the rights of victims and witnesses to make complaints against the PSNI.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and hope that the Minister responds to her point. I have another point about the PSNI. It may give evidence or it may have arrested a person who is charged within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. There is no reason why it should not do so, so why on earth should it not be within the commissioner's remit? As I read amendment No. 90, the PSNI is not an authority specified in schedule 6, so it is not included. It therefore seems to me that, were someone arrested by the PSNI but tried in a court in England and Wales, perhaps on associated offences or a joint charge with a police force in England and Wales, the PSNI would not be part of the commissioner's remit. That seems extraordinarily odd.
Amendment No. 52 contains the catch-all phrase mentioned by the hon. Member for North Dorset. It is a catch-all in two ways. It includes the constabularies that are not listed. I had the Royal Parks constabulary in mind, but the amendment would catch others. My other point is important. I know that the Home Office likes to forget about police authorities, preferring to deal directly with chief constables and take police authorities to court when they do not do what they are told, but police authorities exist and have functions and the amendment would therefore include them. The practice in a constabulary may be such that it should be brought to the attention of the police authority. Paragraph 11 of schedule 6 refers to
''A police force for a police area in England or Wales.''
I do not think that that term includes the police authority for the area, but it should do. The amendment refers to
''Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.''
That term includes police authorities, is used in statute and is recognised as such. The Minister may not be prepared to accept my amendment. The words ''Northern Ireland'' may have made him shy away from it; I do not know. But will he please consider the fact that the schedule does not include police authorities? That is extraordinary. It includes the Health and Safety Commission, but not police authorities. Police authorities have a function to perform and should be included in the remit.
Amendment No. 55 uses the term ''court martial'', which I know causes a problem. The Minister dismissed the amendment because he believes that the relevant matters will be dealt with under military discipline, which is different. Well, I have to say to him in the gentlest possible terms that in a court martial the defendant is usually a member of the armed services, but I know of no rule saying that the victim or witnesses in the case must be. They will often be civilians and outside the terms of any system that is in place in the Ministry of Defence. Such people should be within the remit of the general functions of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. Not to include courts martial in that sphere means that no one is considering the interests of civilian victims and
witnesses in the ambit of the court martial system. I hope that the Government will address that omission.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
This has been an interesting exchange and debate. As I made clear, I will give further consideration to at least one or two aspects of it. In this part of the Bill, we are seeking to strike a balance between the needs of individual victims and their right to expect proper support and good services, and the need not to overburden Departments that do not provide services to victims. The balance can be struck in different ways, and I will think about some of the suggestions made by hon. Members, although we believe that what we are presenting is a reasonable balance.
We want to include the Health and Safety Commission because it oversees the work of the Health and Safety Executive. It deals with all manner of victims, including victims of train crashes, accidents on building sites and so forth.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I appreciate the Minister's point and I do not object to it, but the reality is that the commission deals with policy issues with the Government, and the executive carries out all the day-to-day functions of health and safety enforcement, which brings it into contact with witnesses and victims. It seems slightly speculative to consider where the commission's remit would likely fall for scrutiny by the commissioner. I have no objection to the measure, but it seems a rather extreme example of the Government casting the net very wide, and I can juxtapose that with other areas where they have cast the net rather narrowly.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I acknowledge and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the amendments.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham raised a point about clause 27. Any Minister of the Crown can ask for advice from the commissioner, but that is different from the commissioner dealing with a body and making recommendations without being asked. That relationship is clearly different. Also, the transfer of functions can be dealt with in the transfer of functions order that will be made in any event.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is intended to cover local authorities, and we do not want to add to the burdens placed on individual local authorities. In any event, and crucially, the commissioner is not supposed to deal with individual cases. Participation at local level is therefore less appropriate. That relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for North Down, as well. The commissioner operates in relation to the services rather than the individual victim.
I can only repeat the point that I have already made about Northern Ireland: within the scope and scale of that jurisdiction, it was felt that there would be the potential for too much conflict between different bodies with responsibility. As for courts martial, I repeat to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the nature of Army law and the specialist support available led us to the conclusion that that should fall outwith.
In respect of amendment No. 52, we clearly did not want to create unnecessary obligations for police
authorities, such as NCIS or the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, which do not deal with victims. However, I will reflect further on the points that the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Chesham and Amersham raised and will come back to Committee members in due course.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
Perhaps my memory is imperfect, but did the Minister deal with the issue of the management of the Royal Parks police?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
That will be considered during the deliberations that I will undertake. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 17, line 41, at end insert—
'(4) The Commissioner's remit will also include Anti-Social Behaviour Orders pursued by local authorities.'.
This is only a probing amendment. It is imperfect, and I am not even sure that it falls in the right place, but it raises an issue that has been raised before in this Committee, and it is important in terms of the public perception of crime. Although it might be implicit in the legislation that it can be used to deal with antisocial behaviour, it is not stated explicitly. Given the concern about antisocial behaviour among the general public, it is important to make it clear that the Bill can deal with that.
I did wonder where in the Bill the amendment might go. Although I hope that the Minister can assure us that he will return with an amendment, I realise that it might go in a different place—perhaps in the clause relating to general functions or that relating to victims and witnesses.
The problem with antisocial behaviour is that it often has no specific victim. The graffiti, stone throwing, noise levels or football playing in an area might be such that people are terrorised and stay indoors. They might perceive themselves to be victims—they will certainly perceive themselves as having been victimised—but they have not been on the receiving end of a specific crime. For that reason, it was hard to think of a way of amending clause 29 in the way that I intended without making it so general that anybody who disliked something in their street could claim to be a victim. There may, however, be a way of changing the provisions on victims and witnesses.
I also wondered about an amendment to schedule 6. With hindsight, I am rather glad that I did not table one, given the debate that we have just had. However, tabling a similar amendment to clause 30 or another clause might require consequential amendments to schedule 6.
If we are serious about the commissioner considering the needs of victims and having oversight over policy generally, it would be profoundly damaging to leave out antisocial behaviour or to have any fuzziness about it. It is probably the issue about which we, as constituency MPs, get the most complaints, certainly in the context of law and order. Of course, policy and statute on the issue have been
developing quickly in recent years, and there have been two rounds of legislation and a host of different policy papers. We also have the new special prosecuting force to carry things through. The commissioner will play an important role in scrutinising dispersal orders and some of the newer orders to see how effective they have been in dealing with the concerns of local communities that are, in broad terms, the victims of such crimes. However, this is a new and developing area and may not, therefore, have been clearly thought through.
There is also an issue about the perception of who is responsible for law and order. I do not want to get into a huge debate about schedule 6, but if the commissioner is to consider antisocial behaviour, it is surely important to recognise the role that local authorities play in dealing with it. That is why I included a reference to local authorities in the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but, in most instances, local authorities take the lead in seeking antisocial behaviour orders and several other orders. They then work in partnership with the police. We must also take into account the role played by local crime and disorder partnerships. If the Bill is to deal with antisocial behaviour properly, as I believe it must, the Government must give some thought to the way in which the commissioner relates to those agencies most closely involved in prosecuting this area of statute. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about schedule 6. He referred to the reason for not including local authorities and mentioning only the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Generally speaking, I accept that that is fair enough, but, in relation to antisocial behaviour, the Bill might need to include some clearer reference to local authorities and the local crime disorder partnerships.
I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to take it away and come back with some more elegantly and properly drafted amendments that apply to the right bit of the Bill and which will give effect to what I suspect that the broad mass of the general public want: a commissioner who deals with antisocial behaviour, and proper recognition of what constitutes a witness and a victim in this important area.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The hon. Lady has done the Committee a good service in tabling the amendment. She is absolutely right to highlight what strikes me as a major hole in the Bill. Her amendment probably does not relate to the right part of the Bill, because the real problem is the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29. Clause 29 clearly limits the definitions. A victim
''means a victim of an offence''
and a witness means somebody who gives evidence in ''criminal proceedings''. An ASBO relates to none of those things, yet we know from our experience as constituency MPs, and the Minister knows, that the process by which one persuades and encourages a witness to come forward and give evidence to obtain an ASBO is as traumatic and difficult as in criminal
cases. Witnesses are sometimes as subject to difficulties as witnesses giving evidence in a criminal case. On the face of it, there is an enormous hole. The commissioner will not be able to intervene to scrutinise whether the process is being conducted properly.
ASBOs are the responsibility of local authorities and, as we noted earlier, local authorities are not included in schedule 6. That will raise problems even in relation to straightforward criminal proceedings. It is certainly my experience—other members of the Committee may agree—that ASBOs are often used to deal with noise nuisance. The local authority may well initiate separate criminal proceedings in noise nuisance cases, but again the commissioner will not be able to look at whether the local authority is handling things correctly.
The hon. Lady has touched on an enormous area that has been left as a hole, a blank sheet. I hope that the Minister will reconsider how best to tackle the issue. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that ASBOs must be covered, because they are a category of court proceeding involving victims and witnesses that is of major public concern and, if ASBOs are working, of developing interest.
Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)
Although this note is in a minor key, related to the importance of ASBOs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) has rightly put her finger on, we are initiating a new kind of proceeding in the Bill: post-acquittal proceedings for a restraint order. They will be civil proceedings, and none of the witnesses involved will be protected by the activities of the commissioner.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The hon. and learned Lady makes an extremely good point that reinforces the fact that a grey area has developed over the past four or five years—it is the Government's doing—at the meeting place of civil and criminal law, where enforcement proceedings are brought for the purposes of public benefit as opposed to being private civil proceedings. In that area, there are undoubtedly victims, who are often frightened. The commissioner is supposed to be reporting on trying to improve the processes for facilitating their attendance at court. However, we are leaving them out of this section of the Bill. I cannot believe that it is impossible for the Government to deal with that.
The situation is rectifiable—not through the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northampton, North, but it is rare for any of us to table amendments that are acceptable to the Government—and I hope that the Minister will come back to the matter on Report. By judicious amendment of clause 29, which concerns the definition of victims and witnesses, and by saying that they can also be categorised as victims or witnesses in ASBO proceedings, we will get what we need, although that still leaves the issue of local authority coverage in schedule 6. I hope that the Minister will take those two areas on board.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North for raising this issue. I do not need to expand at length on the
problems that antisocial behaviour causes in our constituencies. They are a matter of the greatest importance, and we seek to tackle them, not least through the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. It has always been our intention that the commissioner should have a role in relation to coverage of antisocial behaviour. I accept that the Bill, as drafted, does not make that as clear as it should. In raising the point, my hon. Friend, supported by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), has drawn our attention to the need to do more to make explicit the precise remit of the commissioner in relation to antisocial behaviour.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I am delighted to hear the Minister's comments. However, I think that the point goes further. Unless I have misunderstood the definitions in clause 29, the poor old commissioner is specifically prohibited from looking at victims and witnesses in ASBOs.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
That may be the case, and I shall certainly reflect carefully on it. That is not our intention, which is why we may well need to come back with suitable amendments on Report.
Two issues have been raised. One is about the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29; the hon. Gentleman has referred to it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. Clearly, we will need to look very carefully at the definition of victims and witnesses.
My hon. Friend drew attention to schedule 6. I explained earlier that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide an overview of local authorities. None the less, as we consider the issue and the implications of the Bill, we will come back to my hon. Friend, the Committee and the House on Report.
We need a little time to reflect on these matters. I ask the Committee to be patient and to give me the time to consider them. I promise that I will bring suitable amendments on Report so that we can ensure that what we originally intended, which was that the Bill and the role of the commissioner should relate to antisocial behaviour, is the case.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
I am perfectly satisfied with that answer. As I said, the amendment was in what seemed to be the most catch-all clause, and was simply intended to make sure that proper proposals would come forward. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about victims and witnesses. One slight caveat is that if the definition of victim is opened up too much, it could become virtually meaningless. Real care and thought need to go into it, and I certainly could not produce something that I would think could deal with the issue.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The matter can probably be cured by including ASBO victims not in the category of victims, but of witnesses. That would probably cover most, although not necessary all, likely contingencies. The hon. Lady will recognise that those of my constituents for whom I have corresponded with the police, who have said that they would obtain an ASBO, can be defined in many instances as victims of seriously unpleasant behaviour.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
We could have a big debate about the definitions in each clause, and it may be that as the work is done and proposals come forward, they will give effect to what is needed. That will also give the general public the security of knowing that their fears and concerns, and their desire for a peaceful, law-abiding community, will be taken on board. The new commissioner will deliver what they want to see, so I am extremely happy with what my hon. Friend the Minister said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.