| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may remind the House that we have reached a position which entirely indicates the concerns already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and myself. We are now erecting quite a laborious superstructure on a basis the nature of which we are unaware. We are talking about a scheme which depends on a scheme put forward by the Government but which has now been overtaken by the two amendments that were carried earlier. Therefore, whichever of the two finds its way into the Bill, we are really dealing with a wholly irrelevant superstructure.
Baroness Blatch: To use colloquial language, we now have a "dog's breakfast" of a Bill. Members of the House voted for two amendments which conflict in many ways and which make it impossible for anyone of make any sense of the legislation. Therefore, to accuse me of simply trying to strengthen the way in which the commissioner and the oversight provisions work and of making a nonsense of the Bill is something which, frankly, I cannot accept. It seems to me that these are important amendments which we would like to put on the face of the Bill. We have as much right to do so as noble Lords opposite have to make an equal nonsense of the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Minister may have misunderstood. No criticism whatever was intended of the noble Baroness or, indeed, of her colleagues. We have before us beneficial amendments proposed by the Government. For my part, they are most welcome. The only point is that part of the speech made by the Minister in their support was predicated upon the authorising officer not being a judge. That gave rise to some understandable misunderstanding. To get the balance right, I also believe that it is sensible to look at the post-review surveillance machinery in the light of the judicial authorisation.
If we have a "dog's breakfast" it is really no-one's fault; it is simply that the House expressed its view. However, perhaps it is someone's fault--indeed, many people's fault. The "dog's breakfast" needs to be made into a human breakfast and that, as I understand it, cannot be done this evening. As I said, no criticism of the Minister was intended in this connection. I believe that the proposed amendments are entirely beneficial, although they may have to be reviewed at a later stage in the light of certain earlier amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said. No criticism was intended at
all. Indeed, I hope that the tone I adopted was not a critical one. The Minister and I often agree; I entirely agree that this is a dog's breakfast. All I am suggesting to your Lordships is that giving the dog another bit of Bonio does not assist the proceedings of the House. It is not a criticism of the Minister at all; but, with great respect, I do not believe that having detailed amendments of this sort on an uncertain basis is a sensible way to proceed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we withdrew some amendments earlier, partly because I started off rather badly in not being prepared for Amendment No. 42. However, so far as these amendments are concerned, it seems to me that we have a very schizophrenic House today. We have a House that has voted all ways and been facing all ways at the same time. I see no reason, given that these are strengthening measures, to say that they are as incongruous to this Bill as is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to that of the noble Lord, the Lord McIntosh. I should like to put them on the face of the Bill because I think it important that at least these safeguards can be taken into account in any discussions that will take place when this stage of the Bill is over. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 77:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to in the earlier group but I understand from the Minister that she is ungrouping it at this stage in the Bill. It relates to the rights of an innocent individual who has a bug planted inappropriately in his or her house or car and gives the right, which such a person currently has in respect of all other police action, to complain to the Police Complaints Authority. It seems appropriate in a situation where a person's rights and liberties as an individual have been violated that he or she should have appropriate recourse to the Police Complaints Authority. These matters should not be excluded but should be matters of supervision by the Police Complaints Authority. There should be openness about the use of these forms of surveillance, as in relation to all other aspects of police duty, as is appropriate within a democracy. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I gave notice that we would be looking at some of the free-standing amendments within that group and that we would choose to oppose some. This is one such, and I gave notice to the noble Baroness a moment ago.
There is nothing in the provisions of Part III of the Bill which would restrict or limit the present powers and functions of the Police Complaints Authority and therefore I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The commissioner will be concerned with the operational decisions of authorising officers; the Police Complaints Authority, on the other hand, will remain
I return to a point made at Committee. If, in the course of his investigation of a complaint, the commissioner finds that intrusive surveillance has been carried out with the authorisation of an authorising officer or that, for example, unnecessary force or damage has been caused, it would remain a matter for the chief constable to investigate under the normal complaints procedure, involving the Police Complaints Authority as necessary. With the complainant's consent, there is nothing to stop the commissioner referring such matters to the chief constable for the appropriate investigation.
In the light of those comments, particularly because there is nothing in this Bill which would restrict or limit the present powers and functions of the Police Complaints Authority, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance. It is extremely important that all citizens should have recourse to the Police Complaints Authority as appropriate. We were particularly concerned--because it was clear at one stage that the commissioners would be operating very much behind the scenes, not being required to give reasons for their decisions, and so on--that other ways of complaint or objection to what had happened should be open to the public. In the circumstances, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 79:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 80:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 96(4) states:
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have some difficulty in seeing how this would work. Removing the subsection would leave the accountability arrangements unclear and would open the decisions of the commissioner to judicial review and appeal. Under the amendments agreed there is no appeal process. The commissioner is a High Court judge, past or present, and it would be entirely new for the decision of a High Court judge to be questioned in this way. It would bring the commissioner into the domain of operational decision making which we believe would inevitably lead to his being questioned on his decisions in a number of cases and might lead to criminal prosecution. That must undermine the role and the function of the commissioner.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I do not quite understand the position. Unless I am completely mistaken, the commissioner is applying judicial review principles. He is not taking operational decisions himself. That is the vital point. He applies judicial review principles. What I do not understand--
Page 38, line 22, at end insert--
("( ) The powers of a Commissioner to investigate a complaint shall not prevent a person making a complaint under Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.").
11 p.m.
Page 38, line 25, after ("The") insert ("Chief").
Page 38, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
"The decisions of the Commissioner under this Part (including decisions as to his jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court".
The question I raise is the following. Assuming that a chief officer of police makes what he is convinced is a necessary application, and is absolutely certain that it is in the overall public interest that the application should be granted, and assuming his application is not granted, should there not be the opportunity for a chief constable,
in what I readily accept would be rare and exceptional circumstances, to appeal? That is certainly something that the Government might wish to think about. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page