My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt, for a series of amendments throughout the Bill in relation to the work of the commissioner. This is clearly a crucial role and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have been very impressed with the performance of the commissioner in her designate role.
It is clearly very important that the commissioner is able to be as independent as possible. In the update she gave to the Public Bill Committee on her work to map out domestic abuse services, she expressed very real concern about local authorities redistributing their funding simply to meet their statutory duty and therefore deprioritising those critical community-based services that can intervene earlier and prevent a survivor being forced to flee to a refuge. She spoke of her support for migrant victims of domestic abuse remaining undimmed and said that much more must be done to support those with no recourse to public funds. This is very promising in terms of someone who is prepared to be robust. That we have received a brief from her supporting a series of amendments to the Bill is ample evidence of the robust independence that is required.
While I believe that this is likely to be a highly pressurised full-time job, I wonder whether it is necessary to put such a requirement into statute, as Amendment 16 proposes. There might always be circumstances where a commissioner was appointed with excellent qualifications who also some had some other commitments, and I would not want to lose that flexibility.
9.15 pm
As for the amendment placing “independent” in the title, I do not object, but wonder whether it is really necessary, as the implication would be that other statutory commissioners who did not have the word independent in their title were not, in fact, independent. Very recently, in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, the House passed an amendment creating the new post of Patient Safety Commissioner. Most noble Lords who spoke in support stressed the importance of the independence of the commissioner. But independence is not in the title; nor is it in the title of the Children’s Commissioner, who has also shown robust independence.
However, when it comes to the wording of Clause 6, and the other two amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, I sympathise with her. Why should it be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide the commissioner with staff, accommodation, equipment and other facilities? And why is there the contrast between the Secretary of State obtaining the commissioner’s approval for staff, yet only having to consult the commissioner before providing any accommodation, equipment or other facilities? It brings us back to the very pertinent point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker about whether the commissioner has accounting officer status. I have with me the draft framework document, published in February 2020 and issued by the Home Secretary, which stated:
“With respect to funding, the day to day management of the Commissioner’s budget, in conformity with relevant Home Office rules and processes, rests with the Chief of Staff to the Commissioner
who will have delegated authority for the Commissioner’s budget. The Commissioner and her Chief of Staff will ensure that budgets are managed in accordance with Managing Public Money. The Commissioner and her Chief of Staff will further ensure that expenditure from the Commissioner’s budget will align with the Commissioner’s strategic plan for the relevant period.”
That does not quite answer my noble friend’s question, but it is worth exploring in later amendments and on Report just how independent the commissioner will be.
This is a very useful short debate, the key point being that the success of the commissioner depends very much on the personality of the postholder, and that is looking very good indeed. But it is also important that the legislative framework enables her to act as independently as possible, as so much of her credibility will rest on this.