 |
|
 |
|
|
Lambert’s
Yard Our ref: DAC/PC 4th November 2003 The
Rt. Hon. Anthony Blair, MP, Dear Sir Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to you of the 31st July 2003, together with a copy of the other letter referred to in the first paragraph thereof. I can well imagine that my correspondence may not have appeared to be of the most important. That may account in part for the delay in replying. I do not seek to criticise such delay but matters have progressed to a point where I would hope that you may feel that the correspondence is now worthy of some attention. Since my earlier correspondence I appear to have established with the Department of Constitutional Affairs that the consultation document did indeed pay scant regard to the Guidelines set out in the Code of Practice on written consultation. At the present time there seems to be no reason found for this failure. You will, of course, bear in mind that the failure may be made all the more worse by the document’s assertion that it does comply with the Guidelines. It also appears to be established that the “main complaint” that I refer to on page 4 of my letter of the 18th July is well founded. I would appreciate it therefore if you, or your Office, could investigate this matter. I have in mind the many occasions when the former Lord Chancellor was reported in the Press making quite damning assertions against Lawyers who are prepared to represent members of the public at Legal Aid rates. Bearing in mind the history that your former Minister has in this respect and bearing in mind the obvious implications that flowed from the offending passage from the consultation document, I would ask that a full explanation be given as to why this situation was allowed to develop and why the consultation document remains alive. I raise the last point because the document can only have any sense in significant respects if the offending paragraph is accurate. I do not seek to suggest that the whole of the document is misconceived but I do suggest that a fundamental reappraisal of the basis of this consultation needs to be made in order that we all can look to improve the whole of the criminal justice system with a view to ensuring overall value for public money. It may be an unfortunate consequence of the issues that I have raised that the present Lord Chancellor should also be asked why his Department continued with a document that was either fundamentally flawed or contained material that, quite frankly, is scurrilous in the sense that it was clearly intended to falsely secure tabloid headlines and thereby quite wrongly colour public opinion in a most inappropriate way. So far as I am aware, the present Lord Chancellor has failed to deal with this matter. Indeed, he appears to have condoned or confirmed the contents of the consultation document by simply proceeding as if everything was in order. I am sure that you will excuse me for writing to you direct on these matters but I do bear in mind that both of the Ministers are your appointees and, as such, any failure on their part must be felt as a personal failure by you. I can assure you that you should have no real concerns that you are considered to be at fault in this matter but your wish to address and correct difficulties could be well understood and appreciated. In the circumstances, therefore, I look forward to hearing from you at your early convenience. Yours faithfully
Dennis A. Clarke |
 |
 |
Copyright 2004 ~ Clarke Kiernan Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - No.262841 |