| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 36:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 36 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 54, 68 and 143. These amendments relate to the procedures for the disciplining of officers attached to the central organisations.
I have considerable experience in working in mixed squads of police officers and civilian staff and understand that it might seem attractive to have a common procedure for disciplining all members of NCIS and the National Crime Squad. However, I think that such a common procedure will cause greater confusion not only to police officers themselves, who find that they are not subject to the normal discipline code they have been used to when members of their own forces, but also, and perhaps more importantly, it will cause confusion to members of the public if they find that the officers attached to the central organisations are not subject to similar discipline codes as apply within their own forces. This is particularly the case in relation to the National Crime Squad whose officers will presumably be engaged on joint operational exercises with officers from local forces in various parts of the country.
This point will relate to further amendments with regard to complaints about the police. If the public find that some of the officers concerned are subject to one set of disciplinary regulations because they belong to the ordinary police forces throughout the country while other police officers, because they are attached to either NCIS or the National Crime Squad, are subject to a different discipline code, it could be extremely disruptive to public confidence in the behaviour of these officers.
I ask the Minister to consider whether it is appropriate that these organisations should have a separate form of discipline to that which the police service throughout the rest of the country enjoys. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Seconded police officers will form the majority of the police officers working in both services. The Police Federation wants those officers to remain subject to the discipline regulations which apply to all forces and do not want there to be any possibility of a separate set of regulations being applied.
I understand those concerns. The existing discipline arrangements for officers on temporary service under Section 97 of the Police Act 1996 have worked well. It is likely that in many respects they will continue to operate as they do now. It is our intention that the discipline arrangements for police officers in the two services should be entirely consistent with those for police officers generally. In practice, they will have to
It is also the Government's intention that the discipline arrangements will apply as far as is reasonable to all staff, including the civilians. At NCIS, for example, there may be police, Customs and Immigration officers all working on the same operation. The Government believe that staff working in the services should be subject to a consistent complaints and discipline regime as far as possible. It would be difficult to justify treating the various groups of staff in different ways. It could lead to confusion for members of the public as well. It is vital that, if members of the public wish to complain, there are clear and consistent procedures for doing so. Alternatively, a person making a complaint might have to make several complaints simultaneously: one through a police procedure, one through a procedure governing Customs officers and another through a system for civilian staff. This would be confusing for the complainant and could be unjust for staff working side by side in the same organisation.
To turn now to the amendments to Clauses 37 and 80, there will be some police members permanently appointed to the services to whom general discipline regulations cannot apply. They are defined in the Bill as members, not employees, and so these amendments would mean that there could not be discipline regulations which applied to them. It is also important that the position of the director general and his senior officers in relation to disciplinary matters is clear. This may mean that they should in some matters have the same disciplinary powers as their senior colleagues in police forces and that those powers should be consistent in relation to all members of their services. This would require regulations to be made which were appropriate to the needs of the two services and which could be applied to all staff.
I am happy to repeat the assurance which I gave at Second Reading that there will be full consultation with the police staff associations and others before any regulations are made on these matters. But regulations may be needed and the Bill as presently drafted correctly refers to such regulations applying to the conduct of members, not just employees, of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. For that reason, we are unable to accept these amendments to Clauses 37 and 80.
The amendments to Clause 54 go even further than those to Clauses 37 and 80. They seek to provide that police members of the National Crime Squad will continue to be subject to all the terms and conditions of service set out in police regulations rather than terms and conditions determined by the service authority for the National Crime Squad.
At present, police officers in the regional crime squads are seconded from their forces and so remain subject to police regulations. Under the provisions of the Bill such officers will, as is already the case for the National Criminal Intelligence Service, be seconded on a period of temporary service, to which Section 97 of the Police Act 1996 applies. Police regulations do not
As with the current arrangements for central service, we do not believe that police regulations should apply directly to the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the National Crime Squad. They are national bodies and may wish to develop terms and conditions which better meet their specific needs. That is why the Bill provides for the terms and conditions to be determined by the service authorities. But we recognise the concerns of staff that there should be consultation with their representative bodies before such wider terms and conditions are determined. Paragraphs 73 and 74 of Schedule 9 to the Bill specifically provide for consultation with the Police Negotiating Board before the terms and conditions for police members are decided. We believe that this will provide adequate and appropriate machinery for consultation on these important matters.
We do not believe that it is right to leave police members of the National Crime Squad directly subject to police regulations. These matters should be dealt with in the same way as for police members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and in line with the arrangements which already work perfectly well for officers on central service. There will in future be specific provision for consultation with the Police Negotiating Board, which we believe adequately protects the interests of police officers working in both services. Unless the terms and conditions are as good as those in forces, the National Crime Squad will simply not attract the volunteers which it will need. In those circumstances, we believe that the Bill adopts the right approach and therefore we cannot accept these amendments.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful for that response from the Minister, which I shall study in due course. It is nothing to do with the amendment, but I am surprised that she thinks people will not volunteer for these exciting new squads unless the conditions are right. People often volunteer to do jobs because they think they will be interesting and it is possible that they will be willing to put up with conditions that could be thought inappropriate. Nevertheless, I accept the tone of what the Minister said. I will study her answer carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 15, line 38, leave out ("members") and insert ("employees").7 p.m.
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) A police member of NCIS to whom section 9(2)(a) applies and who is dismissed or required to resign by a decision taken under or by virtue of regulations made under section 37 may appeal to an appeals tribunal against the decision except where he has a right of appeal to some other person; and in that case he may appeal to an appeals tribunal from any decision of that other person as a result of which he is dismissed or required to resign.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, by order, make provision in relation to appeals tribunals and appeals under subsection (1) corresponding (with or without modification) to that which is or may be made in relation to police appeals tribunals and appeals under section 85(1) of the Police Act 1996 by, or by virtue of, section 85(2) to (4) of and Schedule 6 to that Act.
(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 142. Amendments Nos. 37, 69 and 142 to Clauses 37 and 80 and Schedule 9 respectively are necessary to ensure that senior police officers who are appointed as permanent police members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad will have access to the same appeals tribunal machinery as their senior colleagues in police forces.
Section 85 and Schedule 6 to the Police Act 1996 make provision for senior police officers to have a right of appeal to a police appeals tribunal before they are dismissed or required to resign from police service. That machinery will not be available to senior police officers permanently appointed to the two services unless this Bill makes specific provision for it to do so. These amendments make such provision and so give senior permanent police members of the two services the same protection as their senior colleagues in police forces. This is not something which could be done by means of the regulation-making powers which the Bill already provides. The provisions for senior officers in police forces are on the face of the Police Act 1996 and so should be on the face of this Bill.
Amendment No. 38 provides, in relation to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, for the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the conduct of appeals tribunals which will correspond to those made under the equivalent provisions of the Police Act 1996. This is necessary because the National Criminal Intelligence Service is a United Kingdom body and so the regulations cannot be applied directly as they are in Amendment No. 69 for the National Crime Squad. But there will be no difference in practice between the arrangements for the two services. As with the appeals tribunals under the Police Act 1996, Amendment No. 142 to Schedule 9 ensures that the arrangements established by this Bill are covered by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 and will be subject to the oversight of the Council of Tribunals.
Finally, I wish to emphasise that specific provision of this kind does not need to be made for the vast majority of police officers working in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. They will be on temporary service under Section 97 of the Police Act 1996. If there were any prospect of officers seconded in this way being dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank, they would be returned to their home force. They would then automatically have access to the usual police appeals machinery. Their position is fully protected without the need for specific
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page