Clause 32
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
8:15 pm
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)
The issue is simple: whether the commissioner, having reached a conclusion on a complaint, should make his decision known in writing. The Government seem happy that, in certain circumstances, he should give his answer in oral as opposed to written form. I suspect that when dealing with the sort of people who are likely to make complaints about the conduct of the system of offender management and prisons, a written answer would be preferable and more sensible, as it would prevent misunderstandings.
In amendment No. 150, I suggest that the commissioner should notify the complainant in writing with a brief statement of the reasons for his decision, and may notify such other persons as he sees fit. Amendment No. 151 deals with the notification of other people, which should be clarified so that subsection (8) states: “Notification to persons other than the complainant may be given orally.” That ties in with amendment No. 150. Amendment No. 152 deals with subsection (2), which states that the Commissioner may “make a report orally”. I suggest that it should state that the Commissioner may not make a report orally, which is consistent with my other amendments.
By and large, complainants will come from the category of convicted persons. We know about problems of illiteracy, intellectual capacity and drug habits and the difficulties that many offenders have in coming to terms with all sorts of things, and coming to terms with an oral response to a complaint will not necessarily be easy for them. The short answer is why not save us a lot of bother and uncertainty by requiring the commissioner to make the reports in writing? It may well be that, as a matter of practice, he will make the reports in writing, but there is no harm in putting it in the Bill.