| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is entirely appropriate that this group of amendments should be considered together because they all relate to the protection of those in the police who report misconduct. The intention behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Borrie is to remove the current exclusion of police officers from the public interest disclosure provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. My noble friend has taken careful note of representations made by the organisation, Public Concern at Work, of which I note my noble friend is a venerable patron.
We are very interested in my noble friend's amendment. As a government we are fully committed to this. In 1998 my right honourable friend Ian McCartney made clear his commitment in this regard. We want to ensure that full and adequate protection is given to those who are prepared to stick their necks out and report misconduct or corruption of which they are aware in their workplace—in particular, in this instance, within the police force and its support services.
We are satisfied that there are procedures in place for the protection of police officers who wish to report wrongdoing which are sound and comprehensive. This protection would have been enhanced by the provision in Clause 10(4)(b)(ii). However, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, seeks to remove it. I am slightly puzzled by the amendment. Perhaps it has been tabled simply to flag the issue.
We accept that these procedures do not provide redress in the extreme case where an officer feels that he or she has no alternative but to resign. In this instance, the officer would not have the same opportunity as that of an employed person to make a case to an employment tribunal for constructive dismissal.
Having heard the carefully thought through arguments put by my noble friend Lord Borrie, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and also by my noble
friend Lord Harris of Haringey, we shall be more than happy to reflect between now and the Report stage on the amendment tabled by my noble friend and into the possibility of bringing police officers within the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 for protection in regard to "whistle-blowing". We think that the case has been well made. If that were to be undertaken, then Clause 10(4)(b)(ii) would not be required, and so we shall consider at the same time the amendment tabled by the noble Lords opposite. Thus, if we bring forward an amendment on Report—we are giving it active consideration—we shall be able to wrap up the issue once and for all.A good case has been made and I should like to pay particular tribute to the group Public Concern at Work, who provided an extremely comprehensive briefing note for my noble friend Lord Rooker, which I have now had sight of. It presents a well structured and well argued case. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment. In saying that we shall consider this matter further, we shall of course wish to consult with noble Lords on the construction of a new amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has satisfied our concerns about possible abuse. Perhaps I may turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. We very much support it and we hope that the Government will be able to produce modifications to the Bill to incorporate it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 11 [Reports to the Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 149:
- Page 10, line 2, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Viscount said: This amendment refers to the reports of the independent police complaints commission. It is right that the commission's annual report should be made public, but we suggest that that obligation should be extended to reports made on matters to be drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary because of their gravity or other exceptional circumstances. By definition, these are matters of importance which the Home Secretary should not be allowed to keep secret.
Public scrutiny plays an important part in maintaining police standards and the commission's reports will form an integral part of the monitoring process and could provide a valuable early warning of
problems which may be developing. They should be open to public debate and should not be for the Home Secretary's eyes only. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): If this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 149A on the grounds of pre-emption.
Lord Tope: I rise briefly to support the amendment, or at least the intention behind it. As has been said, it is important that all the reports of the commission are published unless there is a very good reason that they should not be; in other words, the presumption should be that all reports produced by the IPPC should be published and made available. The presumption must be that the Home Secretary will not publish them only if there is a particular reason. In that case, perhaps he should be required to give the reason. I hope that that is the Government's intention and that the Minister is about to reassure the Committee on that point. Perhaps in due course the legislation will reflect it.
Lord Rooker: The commission's annual report will have to be laid before Parliament and published. In regard to other reports, I can tell the Committee that there will be a general presumption in favour of publication. That is as clear a commitment as the Committee could get.
The Home Secretary will consider whether publication of a report is in the public interest and will exercise his discretion. It will of course be possible for reports to be released having had any sensitive information removed. The presence of sensitive information would not be an excuse not to publish; the presumption would be in favour of publication.
The commission, as guardian of the system, will have a much increased role in comparison with the Police Complaints Authority. One of its functions will be to make recommendations and give advice on police practice in relation to matters with which it deals or comes across during the course of its work. It may be that there are occasions when reports made by the commission on matters such as dysfunction cover solely police practice and would therefore not be a matter of public interest. Nevertheless, the presumption would be in favour of publication and we would not rule out publishing reports with any sensitive information taken out.
If the legislation is too onerous, I have to say that there is always the possibility that the reports will not be written. That is a problem we have to guard against in the real world. However, as I have said, the presumption would be in favour of publication, but the discretion provided in the clause allows the future integrity of the system, the confidence of the public and those who operate the system to be preserved. We shall soon know if reports are not being published and I should imagine there would be a row about that. But given the presumption in favour of publication, I trust that noble Lords will leave the matter at this point.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We must rely on the ability of the
commission to ensure as far as possible that reports are not suppressed. We shall look carefully at the wording of the amendment which the Minister has undertaken to produce.
Lord Rooker: I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. With respect, I have not promised to bring forward an amendment. The last thing I want to do is to mislead the Committee. In order to avoid any doubt in this area, there will be a presumption in favour of the publication of reports. That is the position. It does not need to be put into the legislation. It will be repeated here and it will be repeated by the Home Secretary in the other place. The commission will know that the presumption is in favour of publication.
Viscount Bridgeman: The Minister's emollience has caused me to drop my guard. I understand what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 149A and 149B not moved.]
Clause 12 [Complaints, matters and persons to which Part 2 applies]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 150:
- Page 11, line 9, leave out from "public" to end of line 13.
The noble Viscount said: The amendment refers to the issue of who can lodge a complaint. At present any member of the public can lodge a complaint. Although, at first sight, it may appear to be sensible to limit that right to the victim or witnesses, there are dangers in confining the right to complain to those immediately affected.
Part of the misconduct in question may be a threat of action against the victim if he or she complains and there may be no witnesses. If someone else—perhaps a friend or a family member of the victim, or even of the police officer—was willing to lodge a complaint, it would be wrong to prevent that and, as a result, let misconduct go unpunished. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: It will take me a little longer to explain why we hope that the noble Viscount will not press his amendment than he took in moving it. He has raised an important point.
In order that there should be no misunderstandings and greater clarity for the public, we have embraced the principle of much greater accessibility to the complaints system. We want a system under which the conduct of anyone serving with the police which has an adverse effect on a member of the public is dealt with efficiently and effectively. That is why not only victims will be able to make a complaint but also witnesses—including people in control of CCTV systems—and people acting on behalf of either victims or witnesses. People who may be apprehensive about approaching the police themselves will be able to make complaints through "gateways"—that is, through community organisations or individuals who have regular contact with members of the public.
However, the amendment as drafted would enable any member of the public to complain about the conduct of anyone serving with the police, whether or not they had any connection with anyone connected with an incident or would be able to contribute in any way to any investigation. This would radically change the nature of the system by creating a significant amount of additional administrative work as a consequence of the wide-ranging rights. This would have a major impact on overall resources and divert them from more serious matters.
We have to strike a balance. It is clear that anyone connected with an incident or helping anyone connected with an incident, or any community organisation connected with anyone involved in an incident, will have ample opportunity to complain either as a victim or as a witness. There should not be any major blocks to anyone presenting a complaint under the system, but the way the amendment is drafted goes a little too far.
As to Amendment No. 156, the current jurisdiction of the commission as set out in the Bill includes special constables and civilians employed by police authorities who are under the direction and control of members of the police forces. Accredited persons will not be part of the police force or employed by police authorities and so are outside the scope of the system.
Some issues are raised in regard to this because of what was said in the earlier debate about people who are accredited not serving on the authorities. There is already a provision to ensure that an effective complaints system exists for dealing with complaints against accredited persons and it is not necessary to bring such persons within the scope of the system. They will not be employed by the chief constable and, in order to get them accredited in the first place, their employer will have to ensure and assure the chief constable that there is a proper, legitimate complaints system.
Accredited persons will not be allowed to use any force in the work they undertake and are not comparable to members of the police service. Their accountability will be to their employers. If there is an allegation that an accredited person has committed a crime, then the police will be able to investigate the matter in the normal way. If an allegation of misconduct is made that breaches the relevant employer's stated disciplinary code, the chief police officer will be able to insist that appropriate action is taken, otherwise the accreditation scheme would be put at risk. So there is a sanction on the employers who wish their schemes to be accredited to ensure that they have a viable, effective, open and transparent complaints system.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page