Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-74)
ALEX ALLAN,
BARBARA MOORHOUSE
AND ROD
CLARK
17 JULY 2007
Q60 Keith Vaz: I am concerned about
the smooth transition and integration of former Home Office members
of staff. In response to a question the Chairman put to you—and
I apologise for missing the earlier part of this session—you
talked about consultants. Of course we know about secondments.
Most of the Judicial Appointments Commission appears to be made
up of secondees from the Ministry of Justice. Are you confident
that you will be able to integrate the former employees of the
Home Office into your departmental structure or will you need
more consultants and perhaps more secondments?
Mr Allan: The former employees
of the Home Office have moved across and are now employees of
the Ministry of Justice, so that change was made. Basically, staff
who were employed on the National Offender Management Service
side of the Home Office have moved over into the new Ministry
of Justice. Inevitably there were some staff on secondment from
other government departments already. Issues like that, we have
been talking, through our human resources people, with each of
the individuals as to what their position is. I am confident we
will be able to integrate the two departments successfully.
Q61 Keith Vaz: You of course know
about the fiasco of the lack of deportation of foreign prisoners.
We cannot blame you for that, Mr Allan, because of course you
were not in charge then, but you now have part responsibility
for this. Are you absolutely confident that there is a seamless
line between yourselves and the Home Office on these issues? They
could not manage it when it was within the Home Office: they could
not talk to each other in the same department. Now, part of this
responsibility is passed to yourselves. How is communication going
with the Home Office?
Mr Allan: We are very keen to
make sure that communication works well.
Q62 Keith Vaz: When did you last
have a meeting about this with Home Office officials?
Mr Allan: I met David Normington
last week.
Q63 Keith Vaz: About this very issue?
Mr Allan: Not about foreign national
prisoners specifically.
Q64 Keith Vaz: When did you last
have a meeting about the foreign nationals?
Mr Allan: I have had meetings
with people inside the Ministry of Justice, the National Offender
Management Service. I have not myself had a meeting with the Home
Office on that specific issue but the people within the department
who deal with that have had meetings.
Q65 Keith Vaz: But it is a pretty
hot issue, is it not, because the Government was very concerned
about lack of communication? They could not find these foreign
prisoners once they had been released. Is it not right at the
top of your agenda?
Mr Allan: It is one of the issues
that I absolutely recognise caused immense problems when it emerged
in the Home Office. We were involved to some extent then because
there was an issue through the court service in notifications
being sent from the courts to the Prison Service and then subsequently
the Prison Service notifying the Immigration Service.
Q66 Keith Vaz: But took none of the
responsibility. Nobody blamed the DCA for that; it was very much
a Home Office issue. Now you have part responsibility. I am concerned
to ensure that in the transition—and this is a big, big
change, is it not?—this is an issue on which you are focused.
Mr Allan: We certainly are focused
on it.
Q67 Keith Vaz: Do you have weekly
meetings? Monthly meetings? Fortnightly meetings?
Mr Allan: I have more than weekly
meetings with the teams in the Ministry of Justice looking across
all the issues affecting the Prison Service, which includes foreign
national prisoners as well as a number of other issues. Of course,
over the past six weeks or so, when we have had well-known issues
on prison population, how we are dealing with foreign national
prisoners has been very high up the agenda. Equally, one of the
things that both the previous Lord Chancellor and the current
Lord Chancellor have been keen to stress is that, although changing
to the Ministry of Justice creates new links that will enable
some bits of the process to work more smoothly, we absolutely
must make sure the links that already exist between, in this case,
the Prison Service and the immigration authorities are maintained.
Q68 Keith Vaz: IND has changed its
name, of course.
Mr Allan: I know.
Q69 Keith Vaz: It has now become
the Border and Immigration Agency. Has a change of name improved
its efficiency?
Mr Allan: I think that is something
you would need to ask David Normington rather than me.
Q70 Keith Vaz: Do you find it easier
to communicate with them because they have changed their name?
Mr Allan: Again, I think you had
better ask David Normington that question rather than me.
Q71 Keith Vaz: Okay. Following the
Machinery of Government changes on 9 May, the Ministry of Justice
became the gatekeeper for departments' proposals for new offences.
How does that work in practice? How do you prioritise which new
offences we should have?
Mr Allan: The issues that emerged,
for example, for the new Criminal Justice Bill, are issues on
which we work very closely with the Home Office, in terms of what
should be included in the Bill, what the implications would be
for the prison population, the various measures that were being
considered for the Bill. That was very much a joint exercise,
to work through what the priorities were. Clearly, the Home Office
and ourselves have very close interest in this, in relation to
the issues to do with sentencing and the nature of offences, how
that will impact on the reduction in crime, how that will impact
on the prison population, and then how we prioritise it. That
was done in the instance of deciding what measures should be included
in the Criminal Justice Bill and it is how we will work in the
future, and, similarly, for any other department which comes forward
with proposals for new criminal offences. I am not aware that
we have had any detailed discussions with other departments on
new criminal offences in the last six weeks or so, but there may
be some.
Q72 Keith Vaz: This is now a huge
department, is it not? You have a very big hitter, a former Foreign
Secretary and Home Secretary, as the head of your department.
Do you think it is probably a bit too big? I know it is difficult
to ask a civil servant to give up part of his or her empire, but
do you think this really has been thought through carefully enough?
Mr Allan: The genesis of the idea
was brought about because of the problems that the previous Home
Secretary recognised in managing the pressures in the Home Office,
given the huge expansion of activities there, including, in particular,
the counter-terrorism agenda. He, as I think is well known, was
very keen, in order to provide the focus necessary on counter-terrorism,
that a rebalancing of the portfolios was necessary. The change
has clearly increased the department's responsibilities. I am
confident that we can manage these new responsibilities and that
there will be a better balance of portfolios across the two departments
and more widely in some instances.
Keith Vaz: Thank you.
Q73 Chairman: The creation of two
departments in criminal justice policy or, indeed, giving to the
Ministry of Justice lead responsibility, opens up the interesting
possibility that you, as gatekeeper of criminal justice policy,
start, if you like, to moderate the enthusiasm of departments
to legislate or at least to subject it to appropriate challenge.
What system are you setting up for this to work?
Mr Allan: As I say, I think the
key relationship will be between the Ministry of Justice and the
Home Office. We already have very close links, naturally, and
I am talking to David Normington about more regular arrangements
that there need to be. Clearly the two secretaries of state have
discussed this already and are very keen to make sure that the
departments work together closely. The various more formalised
bits of machinery, like the Criminal Justice Board, will be very
important in taking this forward. Clearly there are other links
too. The links with the Department for Children, Schools and Families
on youth justice are very important. Part of the recent changes
is a greater sharing of responsibility for the Youth Justice Board
with the DCSF. We are working with them on how to implement that
and how to make sure we get the right balance and focus, not just
on re-offending but on preventing offending before it happens
among youth, and as to how we can deal appropriately where they
have offended.
Q74 Chairman: Some of the value of
the reform would be lost if the Home Office saw the Department
of Justice as just a roll over—that all they have to do
is to think up some new powers which it might be nice to have
and Justice will agree them and get them through Parliament. It
is not going to be like that, is it?
Mr Allan: We will take very seriously,
first of all, our responsibilities for the prison population—which
clearly is an issue that looms very large—but, secondly,
also our responsibilities for the criminal and civil law as a
whole now. We have had responsibility for the framework of civil
and family law for some time and are bringing in responsibility
for the framework of criminal law. We already work very closely
with the Law Commission on some of these issues. I think that
the impact of proposals will be something we will want to look
at, but I equally do not want to imply that we will automatically
be at loggerheads with the Home Office. We want to work together
with them and to work out what the most effective ways of reducing
crime, reducing re-offending and dealing fairly with victims of
crime are. That is still very much a shared endeavour.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
| 
