From Constitutional Affairs to
Justice
1. This report is a review of the work of the Justice
Committee and its predecessor Committee, the Constitutional Affairs
Committee, during 2007.
2. 2007 was a year of major change for the Committee
following the creation of the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007.
This new department comprised the old Department for Constitutional
Affairs and those parts of the Home Office responsible for prisons,
probation and sentencing. We took evidence on the process leading
to the creation of the Ministry of Justice and published a report
in July 2007.[1]
3. The Committee's remit was formally expanded to
reflect these changes from the beginning of Session 2007-08,[2]
although we regarded the change as having an immediate effect
on our area of responsibility. This expanded remit also resulted
in an increase in our membership, from 11 to 14 members. However,
we are concerned that even though the Ministry of Justice came
into being on 9 May, having been announced on 27 March 2007, the
Government did not ask the House of Commons to endorse the necessary
changes to the Committee's remit until 25 July with the changes
only coming into effect at the start of Session 2007-08 on 6 November.
The length of time taken to appoint new Members to the Committee,
following the appointment of some of our Members to their respective
parties' frontbench in June, meant that the Committee had a much
reduced active membership between June and November. These delays
caused difficulties in the forward planning of the Committee's
future programme and maintaining the levels of scrutiny necessary
for the major policy portfolio of the new Department.
4. We hope that
the Leader of the House, the Party Whips and the Committee of
Selection will liaise more closely to ensure that necessary changes
to the remit and membership of Select Committees take place more
speedily following any future Machinery of Government changes.
5. As a result of the change in remit, the Committee
is now responsible for the scrutiny and oversight of two major
policy areas: criminal justice and constitutional policy. We acknowledge
that other Committees, such as Home Affairs Committee, Public
Administration Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights,
may have legitimate interests in areas that fall within the Committee's
new remit and we will continue to liaise closely with them.
6. Following the announcement of the Machinery of
Government changes, the Chairmen of this Committee and the Home
Affairs Committee discussed how we could work together in future
to ensure continuing effective scrutiny. The staff of both Committees
liaise on a regular basis. This co-operation has already been
demonstrated by our commitment to continue the Home Affairs Committee's
inquiry into Towards Effective Sentencing, launched early
in 2007, and to maintain and develop the scrutiny of draft Sentencing
Guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
7. We have an additional interest in developments
within the European Union, following the creation of the Justice
Committee. Our Chairman attended a meeting in Lisbon of the Chairman
of the Justice and Home Affairs Committees of Parliaments within
the EU. We intend to play an active role as the UK Justice Committee
in liaising with our EU opposite numbers.
Evidence from a witness and collective
responsibility
8. There was one significant occasion when the Lord
Chancellor gave oral evidence to the Committee in relation to
an area which is not covered by the normal doctrine of collective
responsibility. In the course of our inquiry into Party Funding
Mr Andrew Tyrie asked the Lord Chancellor for an assurance that
the Attorney General would not interfere in any way with the conclusions
of the DPP in connection with any possible prosecutions arising
from the then current police inquiry into allegations of the sale
of public honours and other matters. The Lord Chancellor replied:
"Of course. It is a matter for the DPP and the Crown Prosecution
Service to make decisions in relation to this in the normal way
and, of course, the Attorney General would not interfere in the
normal course of decisions being made."
9. In the light of later public statements made by
the Attorney General about his duties in relation to decisions
about prosecutions arising from the police inquiry, the Chairman
of the Committee wrote to the Lord Chancellor seeking clarification
of his answer. We received a letter in reply from the Lord Chancellor
and also subsequently received further correspondence from the
Attorney General. We set out the various letters in a Special
Report[3] in which we drew
particular attention to the Attorney General's statement in his
letter of 7 December in relation to his duties (including decisions
about prosecutions) which fall outside the usual ambit of collective
responsibility:
However, I know the Lord Chancellor well understands
that he was not in a position to give an 'assurance', as you have
termed it, as to how I would act. No other Minister, however distinguished
or senior, has the ability to bind the Attorney General in how
he exercises his role.
Relations with the Department
10. Relations with the Department continue to be
good. There are regular liaison meetings between departmental
staff and the staff of the Committee. We hope that the good relationship
will continue with the new enlarged department.
Witness feedback
11. From the start of 2007, the Liaison Committee
tasked Committees with obtaining feedback from the witnesses that
appeared before them with the aim of identifying any improvements
that could be made to working practices to help Committees conduct
their business more effectively. Generally, we have received a
very positive response from witnesses about the administrative
arrangements for oral evidence sessions.
1 Sixth Report of Session 2006-07, The creation of
the Ministry of Justice, HC 466 Back
2
The Committee was additionally charged with inquiring into the
administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office,
the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service
and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and
appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers).
This was previously the responsibility of the Home Affairs Committee. Back
3
First Special Report of 2006-07, Party Funding - Oral evidence
from the Lord Chancellor on the role of the Attorney General,
HC 222 Back
