Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 28
28
Rejected
CCRC's independence from the Ministry of Justice appears compromised in practice.
Conclusion
We are concerned about the CCRC’s independence and its relationship with the Ministry of Justice. Independence requires the chair and senior leadership to prioritise and defend the interests and constitutional functions of the institution above all. In practice, this does not appear to be happening. This is demonstrated by the decision to delay the publication of the report by Chris Henley KC into the CCRC’s handling of the Andrew Malkinson case due to the pre-election period. (Conclusion, Paragraph 87)
Government Response Summary
The government explains and defends the delay in publishing the Henley report, stating it adhered to pre-election guidance for NDPBs. It asserts that its relationship with the CCRC is based on the Cabinet Office's Arm's Length Body Sponsorship Code of Good Practice, effectively refuting the committee's concern about independence.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
Your report questions whether the CCRC should have felt itself bound by the Government’s ‘General election guidance for civil servants’2 when considering publication of the Henley report. As you have rightly noted, the general principles and conventions set out in the guidance apply to the CCRC as an NDPB. While ultimately the guidance is clear that ‘decisions on individual matters are for the bodies concerned in consultation with their sponsor department’, publishing the Henley report during the pre-election period would have been contrary to the principle that ‘NDPB activity should not be seen to compete with the election campaign for public attention.’ One of the considerations for sponsor departments under the guidance is whether ‘proposed activities could reflect adversely on the work or reputation of the NDPB’. The Ministry of Justice concluded that publication of the report should be delayed as a result of this consideration, and sought views from the Cabinet Office, which produces the general election guidance, on this matter. The Cabinet Office agreed with the Ministry of Justice position and reasoning on this matter. Your report concludes that there is a concern about the CCRC’s independence and its relationship with the Ministry of Justice. Our relationship with the CCRC is based on the Cabinet Office’s Arm’s Length Body Sponsorship Code of Good Practice6, following the key principles of great sponsorship set out in that Code: purpose: a mutual clear understanding of the purpose of the ALB assurance: a proportionate approach to assurance value: mutual sharing of skills and experience, and engagement: open, honest and constructive relationships The structures that are in place and the interaction the department has with CCRC leadership are based on those principles and delivering the department’s responsibilities set out in the Code.