Treatment by Commissioner of complaints

Amendments made: No. 292, in clause 32, page 22, line 44, at end insert—

‘The duty under paragraph (b) is subject to the following provisions of this section.’.

No. 293, in clause 32, page 23, line 8, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert—

‘(4) The Commissioner shall reject the whole or any part of the complaint if—

(a) when considering the eligibility of the complaint under subsection (2), or

(b) at any time before the complaint has been fully dealt with,

the Commissioner decides that the complaint or part of the complaint is ineligible.

(5) The Commissioner need not decide that the whole or part of the complaint is ineligible so long as the Commissioner considers that it is or might be eligible.

(6) The Commissioner may (for any reason not relating to eligibility) decline to take, defer or stop taking action to deal with the whole or any part of the complaint.

(6A) Where the Commissioner—

(a) rejects part of a complaint, or

(b) declines to take or stops taking action to deal with part of a complaint,

the rest of the complaint shall be dealt with subsequently as if it were the complaint made by the complainant.

(6B) Where—

(a) the whole or any part of a complaint has been rejected, or

(b) a power under subsection (6) has been exercised,

the Commissioner may decide to re-open (and take action or further action under subsection (3) to deal with) the whole or any part of the complaint.

(6C) But a complaint or part of a complaint may not be re-opened unless the Commissioner considers that it is or might be eligible.

(6D) Where part of a complaint is re-opened it may be dealt with subsequently as if it were a separate complaint made by the complainant.’.—[Maria Eagle.]

I beg to move amendment No. 150, in clause 32, page 23, line 27, after ‘complainant’, insert ‘in writing’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 151, in clause 32, page 23, line 30, after ‘Notification’, insert

‘to persons other than the complainant’.

No. 152, in clause 33, page 23, line 43, at beginning insert ‘not’.

The issue is simple: whether the commissioner, having reached a conclusion on a complaint, should make his decision known in writing. The Government seem happy that, in certain circumstances, he should give his answer in oral as opposed to written form. I suspect that when dealing with the sort of people who are likely to make complaints about the conduct of the system of offender management and prisons, a written answer would be preferable and more sensible, as it would prevent misunderstandings.

In amendment No. 150, I suggest that the commissioner should notify the complainant in writing with a brief statement of the reasons for his decision, and may notify such other persons as he sees fit. Amendment No. 151 deals with the notification of other people, which should be clarified so that subsection (8) states: “Notification to persons other than the complainant may be given orally.” That ties in with amendment No. 150. Amendment No. 152 deals with subsection (2), which states that the Commissioner may “make a report orally”. I suggest that it should state that the Commissioner may not make a report orally, which is consistent with my other amendments.

By and large, complainants will come from the category of convicted persons. We know about problems of illiteracy, intellectual capacity and drug habits and the difficulties that many offenders have in coming to terms with all sorts of things, and coming to terms with an oral response to a complaint will not necessarily be easy for them. The short answer is why not save us a lot of bother and uncertainty by requiring the commissioner to make the reports in writing? It may well be that, as a matter of practice, he will make the reports in writing, but there is no harm in putting it in the Bill.

Amendment No. 150 would require the commissioner to notify the complainant in writing if a complaint was rejected or a complaint investigation was deferred, stopped or reopened. Amendment No. 151 would only permit such notification to be made orally to persons other than the complainant. Amendment No. 152 would prevent the commissioner from making a report of a complaint investigation orally.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has set out his reasons for tabling the amendments. We consider that flexibility regarding the form of the report is needed, and we want discretion to be with the commissioner. He needs to be able to maximise his efficiency and the effectiveness of his responses by tailoring them to the needs of recipients and the circumstances of each case. We expect that in the majority of cases, as the hon. and learned Gentleman ended by saying, written notifications and reports will be the norm, but in some circumstances it may well be appropriate for the commissioner to relay such information orally.

For example, it is possible that some complaints relating to minor or straightforward matters could be resolved by a few brief telephone conversations between the complainant, the commissioner and the prison. In such circumstances, it might be unduly bureaucratic—the hon. and learned Gentleman is rarely accused of wanting that—and burdensome for the commissioner to have to produce a full written report.

We believe that the commissioner is best placed to make judgments and decisions about whether it would be appropriate for such reports or notifications to be made orally, based on the needs of each complainant and the circumstances of each case. However, we expect that the commissioner will produce and publish detailed guidance about the procedures for dealing with complaints, complainants and the bodies against whom the complaints are made. He should set out more fully his views in the guidance. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the majority of substantive complaints will have written responses or reports. I hope that, on the basis of my explanation, he will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

On that basis, I am persuaded. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 294, in clause 32, page 23, line 25, after ‘the’ insert ‘whole or any part of the’.

No. 295, in clause 32, page 23, line 26, leave out ‘(5)(a), (b) or (c)’ and insert ‘(6) or (6B)’.—[Maria Eagle.]

Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Khan.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eight o’clock till Thursday 22 November at Nine o’clock.