| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should inform noble Lords that, if Amendment No. 135 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 137.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I have had relatively recent experience of serving on an ombudsman's scheme. That scheme related to financial services, but it has now been subsumed under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It had a controlling body of eight, five of whom were independent, with three from the building societies industry. The chairman was of course an independent.
I assumed from the Bill's wording that the considerations which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, had powerfully influenced the Government on the need to establish independence in the minds of the public. I recognise that the scheme is not the same as an ombudsman scheme; there are critical and essential differences, not least in the range of issues which will be covered by the commission. I am conscious that although the ombudsman for the Northern Ireland police service did not serve in the RUC, she did serve on the police authority of the RUC, when it existed, prior to the present police board being set up.
I refer to the views of my noble friend Lord Peyton and to those of the noble Lord, Lord Condon. Does the Bill preclude appointments to the commission—I refer to the relevant amendment from the Opposition Front Bench—on the part of those who have experience of these matters, even if they have not served directly in a police force? That is the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, raised. I understand the Government's view on the matter, but I shall be interested to hear their response. I wonder whether there is virtue in exploring compromise in order to satisfy the point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton; that is, that if the commission comprised entirely independent members it would not understand how policing works in general.
Lord Rooker: I accept that we are in totally different territory in this part of the Bill. I welcome the broad support for the changes that we are making. I shall not argue about the definition of titles. However, the independent police complaints commission will certainly be independent of government. It is funded
centrally and therefore it is not totally outwith the system. Nevertheless, it will be set up as an independent body. Certainly, its decisions will be utterly and totally independent of both the police and the Government. The Home Secretary will have no involvement in those decisions.I refer to some of the points that have been made. It is crucial that the Committee understands that the appointments will not be made on a whim. A code of practice will be drawn up by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. When Members of the Committee opposite were in government, there was no Commissioner for Public Appointments. That person was not appointed until about 1996. The present system is innovative, is much more codified, and has many rules and regulations to ensure transparency. We do not want to restrict appointments to people of particular backgrounds. We shall operate a totally open recruitment process as regards the appointments. The members will be representative of the community and will provide the new commission with a wide range of skills, experience and expertise.
I say at the outset in response to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that constables will be excluded from membership of the commission. I shall discuss the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in a moment. I am fairly certain that any citizen who has served as a member of a police authority would not be excluded from membership of the complaints commission. We are not putting up a cordon except as regards serving or former police officers. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, expressed the matter much better than I when he said that public perception is crucial to the success of the organisation we are discussing.
Amendment No. 135 would limit the field of people with necessary competencies. We do not believe that there is any advantage to be gained by placing the responsibility for appointments in the hands of any other bodies. This is a new, non-departmental public body. It is common practice that appointments to the boards of public bodies are made by Ministers. The power to appoint and dismiss board members is an important safeguard of a Minister's ability to supervise a public body. The chairman of the new body will be appointed by Her Majesty rather than the Home Secretary. Anyone who looks at Schedule 2 and the rules with regard to the removal of the chairman of the commission will see clearly that the chairman will be an extremely powerful, independent figure who will not be beholden to any Minister whatever or any Member of either Chamber of Parliament. The commission will be set up in a similar way—
Lord Dixon-Smith: In describing the appointment of the chairman the Minister has provoked me to inquire: who in this instance is Her Majesty?
Lord Rooker: Subsection (2) of Clause 9 states:
- "(a) a chairman appointed by Her Majesty; and
- (b) not less than ten other members appointed by the Secretary of State".
I accept that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is seductive; nevertheless it runs directly counter to the principle that the public's perception of the commission should not be that of the police investigating the police. The expertise will come from the people employed by the commission. It will be free to employ whoever it chooses to carry out investigations. That includes former police officers, serving police officers, people from other police forces or from none, such as private investigators. The front-line experience will come from the people employed by the commission; it will not be found at the level of the commission where the final decisions will be taken.
We are confident that the commission will be able to recruit people with the abilities and expertise necessary to fulfil their role from a variety of walks of life. We do not believe that the competencies required are exclusive to the police service. As I say, if police expertise and experience is required—it clearly is in respect of investigations—it is more appropriate for it to be held within the investigative teams of the commission, rather than in its membership.
I can be a little more emollient as regards Amendment No. 137. There are some important points to consider as regards who is or is not a member of the police family. There is an attraction in Amendment No. 137 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The amendment stipulates that those who have been involved in a community safety accreditation scheme should be barred from membership of the commission. Such persons will be members of the extended police family and, as such, will work closely with the police. Although they are not employed by a chief constable, they exercise very limited police powers. It would not make sense to have on the commission someone who is doing that job, or who has done that job.
Perhaps I may examine further Amendment No. 137. The employer of an accredited person is a private citizen. Accredited persons could be involved with shopping centre security or local authorities. It would be wrong to exclude from membership of the commission employers of accredited persons. An accredited person is accredited with very limited police powers. However, that does not apply to employers of accredited persons. We must consider those two different roles. As I say, it would be unfair to exclude from membership employers of accredited persons. However, as regards accredited persons themselves, so far as I am concerned, it is an open and shut case. They are part of the police family, exercise police powers, and should not be eligible for membership of the commission. I shall return in due course with a suitable amendment to that effect.
7 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his support of my amendment. However, having heard my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, I would like to set an example and say that I recognise that my amendment was mistaken and I would not wish to press it further. I was quite convinced by their arguments.
Viscount Bridgeman: As regards the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I agree that I was wide of the mark. However, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation of his ideas for the appointments to the commission. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: There is one question which I would like to ask the Minister under clause stand part. It relates to the scale of the budget for the commission. My particular reason for doing so is that in Northern Ireland, which I agree is not a directly analogous case, the budget for the ombudsman exceeds by more than a factor of two the budget of the Police Board. Consequently, there have been some observations in the community in Northern Ireland as to whether that is an appropriate comparison.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page