Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Lord Randall of Uxbridge

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will not be as brief on this group as I was in the previous group. I very much support Amendments 31, 32 and 48 in the name of my noble friend and I simply do not see why the Secretary of State wants such a controlling role over the commissioner. The first commissioner is clearly a person of substance, and we would expect the successors to be persons of substance. I want to explore a bit of the detail. If we do not have openness and transparency, frankly, we will not engender confidence from the media, opinion formers, legislators or potential victims of domestic abuse. It is pretty crucial. Without openness and transparency, confidence is at risk. Let us think about this because, on Monday evening, the Minister admitted, after one of my questions, that the accounting officer function rests with the Home Secretary, not the commissioner.

In addition to my time at the Food Standards Agency, I worked in six government departments over 12 years, and I can assure noble Lords that, on more than one occasion sitting in on meetings, I heard the words uttered by a person in the room, where there was a dispute going on, “This is an accounting officer function, and this is what I have decided.” In the main, I tended to go along with that: obviously, it was usually the perm sec. It is a killer point to make in any dispute that a department might have with one of its other bodies, and it is not about money. The title is actually not quite right here, because it is the accounting officer who ends up before the Public Accounts Committee—again, accounts—but it looks at the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the function and the role; it does not look just at the pounds, shillings and pence, if I can put it that way.

Then you have to look at the staff. It was agreed by Ministers on Monday that the commissioner’s staff would be Home Office civil servants. It is clear that they will be civil servants, but I have not worked out why they have to be from the Home Office. It ought to be possible for civil servants from across Whitehall to apply to be on the staff of the domestic abuse commissioner. They will be a small group, so will one of them be the legal adviser to the domestic abuse commissioner? Will she have a legal team of her own, made up of Home Office civil servants giving her advice—from the lawyer to the client—about the functions set out in subsection (4)(a) and (b)? Of course, it might be that the budget put together by the Home Secretary does not allow for a legal team for the commissioner, who will then have to make use of the Home Office legal team, which I should imagine is pretty extensive. Where is the client-lawyer relationship when the commissioner might be in dispute with the Home Secretary about what is to be admitted, or not admitted as the case may be?

I freely admit that some of these questions go beyond the clause, but I want to be practical about the situation that will arise if there is a problem. I know nothing about the problems of other commissioners as regards legal disputes. I assume that in most cases the Permanent Secretary of the department will be the accounting officer, so they will have the final word. I can assure noble Lords that it is pretty powerful in Whitehall when other civil servants hear the accounting officer assert their role. I am therefore not sure, if the position is as I have painted it, whether one could use the word “independence” in terms of the domestic abuse commissioner in any way, shape or form, unless some of these amendments are carried forward into the Bill. I will leave it there.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) (V)]

My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Even when he speaks for a bit longer than previously, his words are full of expertise and to the point.

When I looked through these amendments, I was particularly attracted to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. I agree that Parliament should be much involved in these reports, so I looked a bit further and noted that Clause (8)(6) states

“The Commissioner must arrange for a copy of any report published under this section to be laid before Parliament.”


I have been listening intently to the debate and trying to find out why, if it is to go before Parliament in any case, according to the Bill, there is a need for the amendment.

I agree that it is down to Parliament to decide whether it is debated, perhaps in a Select Committee, and echo the points made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. On this issue and indeed on so much else, there is so much expertise in your Lordships’ House that it would be meritorious to do that—or indeed on the Floor of either or both Houses. Presumably in previous times it would have been very much for the Government and the business managers to arrange that, but these days in the other place there are various avenues for Select Committee and other reports to be debated. I am not entirely sure whether there is a need for these amendments as such. One thing that comes into all this, I suggest, is that there is always mistrust about why things are being put in. Perhaps subsection (6) could be looked at so that it says something like, “the commissioner must arrange for a copy of any report published under this section to be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is reported to the Secretary of State.” There would be no question of the report being held back from Parliament.

My other point relates to the phrase

“The Secretary of State may direct the Commissioner to omit material”.


My noble friend Lord Cormack was technically correct when he said “censor”, but we might call it redaction because in some cases it would be wise to do that. I cannot imagine that someone with the expertise of the commissioner would do that, but it is there. However, I also note that before the Secretary of State does so, the commissioner has to be consulted. The real point of what we are discussing is independence, as other speakers have said. I echo the concerns I had when we considered the Modern Slavery Act. If I remember correctly, we had to insert the term “independent anti-slavery commissioner” to try to convince people that it was in fact an independent position. However, as we know, the commission relies on the Home Office for its financing, staffing and so on. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, we will certainly have similar discussions when we come to consider the Environment Bill and the chair of the office for environmental protection.

The calibre of the candidates who will fulfil these roles should mean that they will feel independent. However, if I had a cynical streak—I am afraid to say that it does occur from time to time—I might say that it would probably be better if the commissioner served their term and was not up for reappointment. I cannot help feeling that if someone thinks, “Am I going to be reappointed or not?”, it might just curb some of their exuberance for making comments or giving directions that they feel the Home Office, in this case, would not like.

I remain slightly sceptical about whether these amendments are required and look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says. I have not yet made up my mind about whether, when the Bill comes to Report, I would support some of these amendments if no changes have been made. However, I feel that noble Lords are perhaps being a little too cynical about the intentions in these provisions.