| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.3 to 8.5 p.m.]
Police Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 102.
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause--
(". The Secretary of State shall publish, and from time to time may revise, in accordance with section 108 below, guidelines as to which factors might properly be taken into account, and which should be ignored, by the chief officer in responding to a request from the Secretary of State under section 102(4) and (5) of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the enhanced check and the factors that should be taken into consideration. The amendment states that the Secretary of State should publish,
There is a real danger that irrelevant information will be released. Inevitably each of the 43 forces in the country tends to hold slightly different information in slightly different forms. Certainly over the years that procedure has improved. Nowadays there is more uniformity of police practice than there used to be. However, it would be extremely useful if the Secretary of State published guidelines about which factors should appear on the enhanced check. He should also make it clear--this is particularly important--which factors should not appear on the record of the applicant. That is particularly relevant as regards acquittals. It is extremely important that acquittals are not disclosed, even though they may suggest that a particular pattern of behaviour exists. Where someone has been found not guilty of an offence, it is contrary to our justice system that that fact should appear on the person's record.
I refer in particular to cases of domestic violence. Injunctions for domestic violence might be relevant to a person's application. That, however, is not a finding of guilt against a man or woman who has assaulted a spouse. However, it might be thought that an injunction for domestic violence might be a relevant factor. It is extremely important that acquittals should not be considered relevant information. This amendment seeks to establish clear guidelines as to the factors that might be disclosed, and the factors which would not be disclosed. I beg to move.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I support what has been said by the noble Baroness in moving the amendment. She referred--as does the amendment--to guidance to help chief officers. I hope she can help the Committee, and more particularly myself. I am ignorant of some of these matters and trying my best to learn. I do not know what sort of information might be relevant in the opinion of a chief officer. If the Secretary of State is to provide guidance--as this amendment requires--and assuming only that the Minister says that the Secretary of State will not be incapable of providing guidance because he does not know what that guidance
Lord Renton: We have to be careful not to get into a slight state of confusion. My noble friend may be very sympathetic to the issue of guidelines. However, I have a feeling that what is proposed could overlap the power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 108 to publish a code of practice and to revise it from time to time.
Guidelines do not require the consent of Parliament. I should have thought that the Secretary of State has power to issue guidelines without it being written into the statute. After all, the Secretary of State appoints chief officers of police. Strictly speaking, he is answerable only to those in the City of London and Greater London. We must be careful to confine ourselves in this and every Bill to what is necessary in making statute law.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this. Do I misunderstand the matter? Clause 108, to which he referred, relates to the use of information provided to registered bodies. We are addressing Clause 102 which relates to the provision of information and what that information should be.
Lord Renton: That is true, but the provision overlaps the power given to issue a code of practice. The two cannot be entirely separated.
Baroness Blatch: Guidelines have already been published as to the kind of information which may be disclosed from local police records when the new arrangements come into effect. These were drawn up and agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers and are set out in Annex B to the White Paper On the Record.
First, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to Annex B of the White Paper. To give the noble Lord a flavour of what is contained in Annex B, paragraph 2 states that,
I leave the noble Lord to read Annex B for himself.
It would not be possible to provide more detailed guidance than this as the content of the local information available will vary according to local practice and the individual case involved. The published guidance already makes clear that it must be possible to substantiate any information disclosed. That is an important safeguard. It will be the responsibility of the employer or licensing body to determine whether the information disclosed which might be relevant is in fact relevant.
I therefore do not see a need to legislate in this area. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because of the safeguard already agreed with ACPO and published in Annex B of the White Paper.
"and from time to time may revise ... guidelines as to which factors might properly be taken into account".
"The information may include details about known associates where the association gives rise to concern. It may also include details relating to decisions not to prosecute an individual or acquittals where the circumstances of individual cases give cause for concern, and where the information has not been discredited".
"It should not, however, include details of allegations which cannot be substantiated".
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: A White Paper is a paper for discussion. It is not part of regulations and does not form formal guidelines. The safeguard may have been agreed with ACPO but the nature of a White Paper means that it is a matter for discussion.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps I may repeat what I said. Guidelines have already been published as to the kind of information which may be disclosed from local records when the new arrangements come into effect. They have been agreed with ACPO and are set out in Annex B to the White Paper. Therefore it is our intention that that should be the case.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. I was rather disturbed by what she said about acquittals being matters which could be disclosed. In a court of law, as regards acquittals, theoretically at least, the case has been shown to be disproved. The evidence has not been found acceptable to a jury. Therefore I cannot understand how acquittals can form part of someone's criminal record. That the acquittal was wrong is an opinion that all police officers feel subjectively when a case has been dismissed. But that does not mean that the acquittal has any force as part of someone's record. I am puzzled by what has been said about acquittals. I shall be grateful if the Minister can clarify the point.
Baroness Blatch: I am not a lawyer, but it is now possible under the law to commit someone for a retrial. The information about an acquittal may be relevant; it may not. It will be for the chief officer to judge and decide whether information on an acquittal should be included.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I urge the Minister to reconsider the point. Acquittals are surely matters for the judicial system of the country and cannot be used as part of someone's criminal record. I do not believe that it is a matter for the opinion of the chief officer, however compelling the Police Service may consider the evidence. If a court has found that someone is not guilty, to all intents and purposes that person has been found innocent of that charge. I do not understand that that can be a matter of opinion for the police.
I shall read with considerable interest the Minister's reply and may return to the matter at Report stage if I continue to be unable to understand the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 [Disputes about accuracy of certificates]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page