|
Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the Solicitor-General. Do the provisions to which she has just referred apply to all prosecuting authorities where a prosecution takes place in the name of the Crown?
The Solicitor-General: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell me what examples he is thinking about. I can think only of prosecutions by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, where one would not communicate with the victim. Does he have examples of prosecutions that are not undertaken by the CPS where communication with the victim would be needed? Am I being dense?
Mr. Heath: I am trying to think of an example, which was why I was slow to rise when the Solicitor-General began to ask for one. I accept that in the case of most other prosecuting authorities there would not directly be a victim. In principle, though, the clause should extend to all prosecuting authorities, and they should be treated in exactly the same way.
The Solicitor-General: I am trying to run through in my mind circumstances in which there could be a personal victim; there will be witnesses but not necessarily a victim. We will think about that.
That change to which I referred was long overdue, and it is becoming routine practice for the CPS to communicate when there is a change in the charge. The current indicative draft of the code does not apply to the Health and Safety Executive, but we can examine that. It is in the scope of the Bill to extend the code, and that is helpful. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was probably making a more substantial point than he realised.
Mrs. Gillan: That will be music to the ears of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, because when he raised the issue at business questions, he referred to a Department with the responsibility to prosecute refusing to do so and using legal and professional privilege to escape that responsibility. He obviously had specific cases in mind—
Mr. Heath: The Department of Trade and Industry.
Mrs. Gillan: Indeed.
What the Solicitor-General said is probably good news, but there seems to be a lacuna. There is no doubt that nothing would bring the victims code of practice into disrepute more quickly than people feeling that
Column Number: 230
they had been left out of the equation, not knowing what had happened and reading about it all in the newspapers or hearing it on the news.
The Solicitor-General: Unfortunately, I had not got to my ''however'' point. I hope that the hon. Lady will still be as pleased when I have made it.
However, there may be occasions on which it is not possible to provide an explanation for a decision. It might, for example, jeopardise the continuing investigation of the offence or put the safety of a suspect at risk. In those circumstances, the CPS is expected to record the reasons for not passing on an explanation.
As for enforcement of the code, we are particularly keen to avoid setting up a new area of litigation during the drafting process. Complaints will therefore be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who will have access to all the documentation necessary to judge whether the police and the CPS have behaved reasonably in withholding explanations in a case.
I hope that those new procedures satisfy my hon. Friends. If not, I regret to say that we have to resist new clause 16.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Procedure
Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 22, page 14, line 39, leave out
'and the Lord Chancellor'
and insert
'the Lord Chancellor and the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses as appointed under section 25(1).'
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 21, in clause 22, page 15, line 5, leave out 'and the Lord Chancellor' and insert
'the Lord Chancellor and the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses as appointed under section 25(1);'.
Mrs. Gillan: 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
Column Number: 231
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
Column Number: 232
Government have suggested that they are keen to do that. Therefore, I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to this point.
Mr. Heath: We concur.
Paul Goggins: This will be a brief response, and I hope that it provides the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham with the reassurance that she seeks.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with the commissioner for victims and witnesses when drafting and revising the code of practice. We resist them because it would be inappropriate for the commissioner to have a statutory role in relation to the code of practice.
The commissioner will have a key responsibility in ensuring the effectiveness of the code. The commissioner will also be an important source of advice to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in relation to the code, as and when it is revised, along with other sources, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner and the agencies that have signed up to deliver on the obligations in the code. However, overall responsibility for the code and any revisions to it must lie with the Secretary of State, in conjunction with his criminal justice ministerial colleagues, as he is the person who is democratically accountable and in the best position to consider issues about resources and wider policy matters. I hope that that offers some reassurance that the commissioner's voice will be sought out and listened to. However, we resist the idea of placing that on a statutory footing.
Mrs. Gillan: I appreciate what the Minister has said, and it leaves me fairly satisfied that the commissioner will be part of the consultation process even if that is not stated in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 22, page 15, line 9, at end insert
(c) publish the reasons why he has or has not modified the draft in the light of any such representations'.
The amendment will help ensure that the Government make policy decisions about the victims code in an open, accountable and timely manner. Equally importantly, it will demonstrate that the Government have listened to the views of other stakeholders and the public. I am sure that it will appeal to the Minister because I know that he takes to heart the transparency of government and would wish to see it reflected in the Bill. Therefore, although he has resisted every amendment to date, I hope that he will look more favourably on this one.
I believe that the amendment will improve the consultation process outlined in the Bill by ensuring that the Home Secretary, in light of public consultation, publishes the reasons for policy decisions affecting the finalised version of the victims code and does so at the appropriate time.
Column Number: 233 5.15 pm
The Bill sets out the process for introducing and revising the code, and it stipulates how the public should be consulted. However, it does not provide for a clear and accountable outcome to the process. The gap is significant because of the importance, widely acknowledged, of including stakeholders and members of the public at every stage of the policy-making process. The importance that the Government place on that and other areas of public involvement was clear when the Prime Minister introduced the new code of practice on consultation in January. He observed that the new guidance strengthened the commitment to providing respondents with feedback, and he noted that it was important to make consultation processes easier for people to engage with. Armed as I am with the words of the Prime Minister, I hope that the Minister will move in my direction and look even more favourably on the amendment.
Given that the latest good practice on consultations endorsed by the Government states that public engagement is vital and that outcomes are a key part of any consultation, adopting the amendment would demonstrate a commitment to public engagement in policy making at the key-outcome stage. Section 4 of the code of practice on consultation states that it is good practice to give
''feedback regarding the responses received and how the consultation process influenced the policy.''
It directs Government Departments specifically to publish a summary of responses and stipulates that, wherever possible, that summary should include a summary of next steps for the policy, including the reasons for the decisions taken.
The amendment would help to guarantee that the Home Secretary will not only give due consideration to representations made to him by key stakeholders and the public, but will demonstrate a willingness to listen to the public's voice when reaching final decisions in victims policy. In other words, this is straight out of the Government's mouth—the horse's mouth—and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
| 
