| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question on this matter, which she may prefer to deal with by correspondence. What are the arrangements now for someone who is the equivalent of a chief officer--that is, after all, the rank of the officer who will be commanding the National Criminal Intelligence Service--in the unlikely event of any disciplinary proceedings being initiated? I should be grateful if she would let me know what the procedures are now in relation to officers of that rank.
Baroness Blatch: I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall contact him on that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Application of police complaints regime to NCIS]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 38:
The noble Baroness said: This amendment covers very much the same ground as before in relation to discipline codes. The Bill appears, on the face of it, to make provision for a totally different police complaints procedure to be set up. We seek assurance that in relation to Amendments Nos. 38 and 70 it is not intended to have a totally different regime for complaints about officers in these squads.
Let me again make the point in relation to the National Crime Squad that officers who are engaged in practical operations on the street with officers from local forces should not expect to find that there is a different system of complaints in relation to them. Even more important perhaps is that members of the public should have a single avenue for complaining about the actions of officers who are acting jointly in operational situations and should not be required to make complaints through two separate channels or two separate authorities.
I therefore seek a similar assurance as on the discipline code that the police complaints procedure set-up particularly for the National Crime Squad will be the same as that for local police forces, so that neither the police nor members of the public will be confused or have difficulty in dealing with the procedures. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I am able to reassure the noble Baroness. As with the discipline arrangements we have just debated, the Government understand the concerns which have prompted these amendments. We do not intend to make any regulations which would disadvantage police officers in any way. Indeed, we expect the complaints procedures to be modelled very closely on existing police procedures. That is clear from the Bill. But we also believe that it is important that we should, as far as possible, ensure that all staff working
The provisions of the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations for such procedures so far as he thinks desirable. As the noble Baroness knows, this is a complex matter on which a great deal of further work will be needed before any regulations can be made. Again, I assure the Committee that there will be full consultation with the staff associations and others before final decisions are made. Careful consideration will need to be given to the circumstances of all staff. But we do not think that it is right to try on the face of the Bill to put police members in some special or different position. There will be other staff who are equally vulnerable to malicious complaints and whose position also needs to be considered.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness. We need to be as fair to the complainant as we are to protecting the rights of those who work in the authorities.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I hope that when the complaints procedure emerges it will be very much on all fours with the complaints procedure in relation to other police officers from the home forces. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 16, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to ("make") in line 8 and insert ("to the extent that they relate to police members, so far as is practicable").
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause--
(". The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide the designated national supervisory authority responsible for personal data protection with the necessary powers to supervise and monitor the functions of NCIS in acting as the national unit liaising with the European Police Office (known as Europol) in relation to personal data as provided by the Convention on the Establishment of a European Police Office (the Europol Convention).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not critical of any provisions in the Bill as drafted. It seeks to deal with a problem which arises out of the role of the data protection registrar in relation to the files of the NCIS.
Under Article 23 of the Europol Convention, every member state of the European Union has to designate a national supervisory body with the task of independently monitoring the functions of the national liaison unit in relation to the gathering and distribution of personal
The data protection registrar has already anticipated that possibility. In her recent response about the implementation of the data protection directive of the European Union, she points out that she does not have sufficient powers under the Data Protection Act 1984 to carry out that role. What she would need in order to carry out the role would be audit powers to enable her to pursue compliance, particularly in relation to those holding sensitive data. That includes for the purpose of this Bill the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
I understand that at present there are administrative or executive actions--in other words, non-statutory actions--being developed, so that the Europol Convention can replace without legislation the powers which are missing and which she lacks in this area. Her powers at the moment are rather passive. She receives and investigates complaints and she has the responsibility of promoting observance of the data protection principles which her office has produced and of disseminating information to the general public. The audit powers which would be required by ratification of the Europol Convention would require her to have those additional powers to which I referred. It would seem desirable, at a time when we are considering the constitution and the responsibilities of NCIS, to provide, as in other European member states, for those powers to be on a statutory basis. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope I can be helpful to the noble Lord on this point.
There is no need to provide the data protection registrar, as the intended national supervisory body under the Europol Convention, with additional statutory powers to perform that role. The Europol Convention provides that the national supervisory body shall have access at the national unit (in the UK, the National Criminal Intelligence Service) for the purposes of monitoring data sent to, and received from, Europol. We believe that that role can be fully performed through NCIS providing access voluntarily to the registrar, which it is willing to do. A written agreement is currently being pursued between the registrar's office and NCIS to set out precisely how that access would be exercised in practice. Full consideration should be given to how that approach fares in practice before considering alternatives.
There is nothing inherent in the proposed change of status of NCIS that would alter either the willingness of NCIS to grant access voluntarily or the registrar's ability to monitor this data. But the matter is in hand between the registrar and NCIS.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understood that and that is what I indicated in moving the amendment. I understand that what I call "administrative arrangements" and the Minister referred to as a "voluntary" agreement are in hand. But what happens if they go wrong?
It seems to me that the opportunity arises, when we are considering the statutory basis of NCIS, to put the matter on a proper footing. I do not doubt the good will of both NCIS and the data protection registrar in seeking to provide the access which will be necessary. The Minister recognises that access will be necessary but for some reason is insisting on relying on voluntary arrangements rather than the firmer basis that would be provided by the new clause.
I understand what the Minister says, but I am puzzled by her resistance to this modest change. I shall need to think about the matter and perhaps talk to her about it before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Liability for wrongful acts of constables etc.]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page