| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the amendments spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, but which were in fact tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. We proceed on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, meant that "personnel" should replace "personal". The Patten report said that intrusion into sensitive "personnel" matters should provide grounds for questioning whether a report or inquiry should be held. The Bill says "personal" instead of "personnel". It does so simply in order to be consistent with Section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 which refers to
"sensitive personal data". It might be right for sensitive data about an individual to be protected if necessary. In the light of that, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, to withdraw the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.Perhaps I may deal with government Amendments Nos. 206, 213, 218 and 236. Amendment No. 206 replaces a reference to "one month" with "30 days" in Clause 57(4), thus ensuring consistency with the reference in Clause 58(4). Amendment No. 236 applies to the Bill general rules governing the calculation of periods of time.
Amendment No. 213 to Clause 58(9) effects a presentational change in respect of the roles of the Secretary of State and the policing board in the appointment of a person other than the Comptroller and Auditor General, the inspector of constabulary or a police ombudsman to conduct an inquiry under the terms of the clause. Under the amendment the Secretary of State would "agree" rather than "approve" an appointment. The change reflects the Government's desire to meet, where possible, concerns about the balance between the Secretary of State and the new policing board.
Government Amendment No. 218 reflects a commitment made in Committee in another place for the ombudsman to receive a copy of an inquiry report from the board. It must be right that the ombudsman should receive such reports as they may be relevant to her work.
Turning to government Amendment No. 214, Clause 58(11) sets out clearly that,
- "An inquiry ... may not deal with acts or omissions which occurred, or are alleged to have occurred, before the coming into force of this section".
Recognising, however, that there may be facts that are relevant to a current inquiry, the Government accept that there are grounds for qualifying Clause 58(11) so that the inquirer may consider historical or pre-commencement material if it is necessary for him to do so in the course of an inquiry.
The inquirer would not have the same power as he would for post-commencement material. Were, for example, an inquirer to be given access to previous guidance on the use of plastic baton rounds, he would be able to consider that in an inquiry into the current use of plastic baton rounds. We should expect the inquirer to be provided with such statistical and general information but not necessarily information relating to specific cases.
This meets Patten's general principle that his recommendations are about a new beginning, not,
- "a series of judgements about who was culpable for each of the tragedies and mistakes of the past".
Amendment No. 207, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, would prevent inquiries into police conduct if that conduct took place more than a certain period before the inquiry was initiated. We believe that there are sufficient safeguards and it would be difficult to prescribe a straightforward period. For example, a matter may not come to light for several years. Remembering, therefore, that the inquiry can only deal with post-commencement matters as its subject, I invite the noble Lord not to move the amendment.
Amendment No. 209, seeks to remove paragraph (b),
- "would serve no useful purpose".
Amendment No. 210 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, Amendment No. 211 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and Amendment No. 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, seek to remove the Secretary of State's approval for the appointment of a person to hold an inquiry, other than bodies listed in Clause 58(7); namely, the ombudsman, the inspector of constabulary or the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Amendments Nos. 210 and 212 require consultation with the Secretary of State instead. The board's powers in this area are unique in terms of UK police authorities and it is right that the Secretary of State should be assured of the competence of any person appointed to wield the considerable powers at the inquirer's disposal. I should emphasise that if one of the professional bodies to which I have referred is decided upon, the Secretary of State's approval is not required.
I turn finally to the funding of inquiries. Amendments Nos. 216 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and Amendment No. 217 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, require the Secretary of State to pay for inquiries instead of the board, which is the present position under the Bill. The Government believe that resources should rest with those using them. The board will be expected to bid for its resources as the Police Authority of Northern Ireland currently does, but the Government cannot be expected to write blank cheques for the board to carry out inquiries. This is not a way to block the board's use of its power--it is government accounting. Naturally, the Government would consider carefully any bids by the board for additional resources but, as I have said, the Government cannot give the board a blank cheque. I invite noble Lords not to move their amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for providing a further listening ear in relation to Amendment No. 209. I seem to be having my teeth drawn, but it is proving a painless extraction.
Secondly, perhaps I may express gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for having referred to my Amendment No. 216 and the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 217, which I simply overlooked in opening the debate.
This is not the moment to re-open the issue. I have heard what my noble and learned friend has said. However, he says that government budgeting is not a way of preventing people exercising their powers. I should have thought that that is precisely what it is, and precisely what the intention is. Whether it ought to be in a particular situation is a matter which we may debate on Report.
Finally, as to the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Desai, I am not sure that my noble and learned friend got the point. It was almost certainly my fault because of the way in which I spoke to them. He does not seem to have noticed that there is a difference between "personnel" and "personal". It is not simply a matter of drafting, as other noble Lords have said. I should have thought that the intention is that the word should be "personnel". However, we shall try again between now and Report. I am in a dilemma in any event because the amendment is not mine but that of my noble friend. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 206:
- Page 30, line 4, leave out ("one month") and insert ("30 days").
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Inquiry by Board following report by Chief Constable]:
[Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 209:
- Page 31, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
[Amendments Nos. 210 to 212 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213:
- Page 31, line 10, leave out ("approval") and insert ("agreement").
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 214:
- Page 31, line 15, leave out from ("with") to end of line 17 and insert ("a pre-commencement matter.
The noble and learned said: I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may ask a question. I appreciate and thoroughly support the policy implemented in subsection (11) to fulfil Patten's desire that this procedure should look forward and not backwards. Therefore, subsection (11) states:
I do not expect the Minister to deal with the matter conclusively straightaway. However, I believe that he will see that it is possible to envisage that certain circumstances may arise in which an episode which perhaps occurred several years prior to the matter being inquired into will be said to be germane to the inquiry. I believe that that would be harmful. I wish that more people understood how difficult it is to establish the facts of an episode which occurred even one year ago, let alone many years ago. Therefore, if the Minister sees force in my submission, perhaps he will undertake to consider it and I shall be greatly assured.
( ) But subsection (11) does not prevent a person conducting an inquiry under this section from considering facts relating to a pre-commencement matter if, and only to the extent that, consideration of those facts is necessary for him to be able to discharge his functions in relation to the subject matter of the inquiry.
( ) "Pre-commencement matter" means any act or omission which occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before the coming into force of this section.").
"An inquiry ... may not deal with acts or omissions which occurred ... before the coming into force of this section".
However, there is a proviso in Amendment No. 214, which states that that will not,
"prevent a person conducting an inquiry ... from considering facts relating to a pre-commencement matter".
I appreciate that the facts must be relevant to the inquiry. However, I do not believe that it is quite enough to say "facts". How is it to be established what is a fact and what is not? That can be established only by a process of inquiry and, in the type of inquiry which we are considering, I do not doubt that there will be provision for legal representation. However, that provides a way back into pre-commencement episodes which goes against the policy of Clause 11.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page