Select Committee on Home Affairs Third Report


THIRD REPORT


The Home Affairs Committee has agreed to the following Report:

THE WORK OF THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE IN 2002

INTRODUCTION

1. On 14 May 2002 the House, by resolution, invited the Liaison Committee to establish common objectives for select committees. The Liaison Committee has subsequently issued a list of indicative core tasks, grouped under four principal objectives, and has asked departmental select committees to reflect these in their annual reports.

2. The following report is a review of the Home Affairs Committee's activities in 2002, arranged in the form of comments on the Committee's performance in relation to each of these objectives and core tasks. We append a table showing the relationship of our inquiries and evidence sessions to the objectives and tasks.

3. It is expected that in the near future the House will establish a select committee with the specific responsibility of monitoring the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which has hitherto been the responsibility of the Home Affairs Committee. Our predecessors in the last Parliament expressed doubt about the extent to which a single committee could provide adequate scrutiny of both the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department.[1] We share those doubts and therefore welcome the imminent appointment of a separate committee. The report which follows, covering the year 2002, deals with our scrutiny of both departments.

IDENTIFICATION OF INQUIRIES RELATING TO THE CORE TASKS

TASK 1:  TO EXAMINE POLICY PROPOSALS FROM THE UK GOVERNMENT AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN GREEN PAPERS, WHITE PAPERS, DRAFT GUIDANCE ETC, AND TO INQUIRE FURTHER WHERE THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS IT APPROPRIATE

4. The Home Office produces a continuous stream of policy proposals. The Committee monitors these in a variety of ways. We hold an annual evidence session with the Home Secretary to review ministerial priorities and emerging policy issues as a whole. In 2002 this session was held in September when the House was in recess. The Committee's legislative scrutiny of the Police Reform and Criminal Justice Bills and the draft Extradition Bill allowed study of the policy implications of this planned legislation. In the case of the Criminal Justice Bill most of our evidence was taken before the bill's publication, on the basis of the Government's proposals put forward in the White Paper Justice for All, published in July.

TASK 2:  TO IDENTIFY AND EXAMINE AREAS OF EMERGING POLICY, OR WHERE EXISTING POLICY IS DEFICIENT, AND MAKE PROPOSALS

5. In addition to the examination of emerging policy detailed in the previous paragraph, the Committee conducted two inquiries into areas where policy was suspected to be inadequate or misconceived: "The Government's Drugs Policy: is it working?" and "The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes". The former was a wide-ranging investigation: we held 11 evidence sessions with 45 witnesses, including experts from the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden. Besides their evidence we also took into account over 200 written submissions. Our report ranged widely over the principles and practice of policy on illegal drugs; we are pleased that the Government has accepted many of our recommendations. The other inquiry focussed on specific elements of procedure in the area of child abuse prosecutions. Both inquiries were initiated because there was reason to suspect that departmental policy was deficient. Evidence sessions with the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretaries at the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department also explored emerging policy and areas of deficiency.

TASK 4:  TO EXAMINE SPECIFIC OUTPUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT EXPRESSED IN DOCUMENTS OR OTHER DECISIONS

6. The Committee has questioned witnesses—particularly Home Office witnesses—on specific departmental actions as and when they arose during the course of the year. For example, the actions of the department to resolve the problems of the Criminal Records Bureau over the past six months were examined both with the Home Secretary and with the Permanent Secretary.

TASK 7:  TO MONITOR THE WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT'S EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, NDPBS, REGULATORS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PUBLIC BODIES

7. The Committee has pursued a programme of single evidence sessions designed to scrutinise the bodies associated with the Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department, interspersed between its longer inquiries. Bodies examined in these single evidence sessions in 2002 were the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police Service, HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Youth Justice Board.

TASK 8:  TO SCRUTINISE MAJOR APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT

8. The Committee has taken evidence from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, to review her performance after one year in post. On a related note, the Committee recommended in its report on the Police Reform Bill that the appointment of the Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission should be with the "advice and consent" of the House of Commons. At report stage of the Bill, the Chairman moved an amendment to this effect but it was not accepted by the Government.

TASK 9:  TO EXAMINE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGISLATION AND MAJOR POLICY INITIATIVES

9. The inquiry into "The Government's Drugs Policy: is it working?" involved an examination of the implementation of Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain, the Government's ten-year strategy launched in 1998. An evidence session with the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office enabled us to explore the implementation of policy. Through participation in a visit to Brussels and a conference in Madrid, Members kept up to date with major policy initiatives in the increasingly important European Union field of justice and home affairs.

EXAMINATION OF LEGISLATION

TASK 3:  TO CONDUCT SCRUTINY OF ANY PUBLISHED DRAFT BILL WITHIN THE COMMITTEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES

10. The Committee examined one draft Bill in 2002, the draft Extradition Bill, and two published bills, the Police Reform and Criminal Justice Bills. In each case, evidence was taken on the likely implications of the legislation under review, and reports published in advance of the second reading debates. The draft Extradition Bill was published in good time by the Government, and the Committee had scope to consider the responses to the Government's consultation exercise, as well as to take its own oral evidence. By contrast, the Criminal Justice Bill was published only a week and a half before second reading, and most of the Committee's evidence was based on the White Paper which preceded the bill. A little more time was available to study the Police Reform Bill, which was first introduced in the House of Lords, and once again a report was produced in time for second reading in the Commons. We propose to conduct similar scrutiny of the expected Sexual Offences Bill and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill in the coming year.


1  
Home Affairs Committee, Third Special Report of Session 2000-01, Work of the Committee in the 1997 Parliament (HC 248), paras 8-10. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 30 January 2003