| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: I think that the answer is yes. I apologise for being less than clear. I know that I have read all my notes more than once because they are marked up, but I obviously have a problem with one of my bullet points. I am reluctant to join up what may be two separate bullet points. I may have to write to the noble Lord. I shall certainly repeat one point that I made—which I probably had some difficulty delivering. Any admission relating to any matter not being subjected to the local resolution process is admissible in any subsequent criminal or civil disciplinary proceedings. I do not know whether that means that the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes, because the offence that he later described might be criminal. I may have to take advice and write to him on the specifics of his detailed question.
Viscount Bridgeman: I refer to the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has spoken. We are concerned about the possibility of double jeopardy. We very much look forward to reading what the Minister has said on the subject. Perhaps he will be good enough to write to us. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 159 to 161 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Direction and control matters]:
Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 161A:
- Page 12, line 18, leave out "Nothing in"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to highlight an important gap in the existing complaints arrangements which will continue to be an important gap in the future arrangements. It relates to complaints about the direction and control of a force rather than about a specific incident or particular actions.
I can imagine a number of circumstances in which the issue might be important and in which people might wish to frame complaints. For example, people might be concerned that a force was giving insufficient priority to road safety and might wish to make a specific complaint about how that decision was taken.
A rather different example might be a complaint that a chief officer or senior officer had in effect encouraged reckless behaviour in the way in which they had given direction and control to the officers under their command. That might relate to a general tone that was set over a period of time rather than to a specific act.
The problem when examining such cases is that it is unclear what route the complaint could take, either now or under the future arrangements. That is brought to mind particularly by a recent case in which someone wished to complain about a decision to appeal a court case in a civil action. The complainant was not clear who had taken the decision and chose, rightly or wrongly, to pursue a complaint about the direction and control of the force that led to that decision.
I make no comment on whether the substance of that complaint or the route that the complainant wished to follow were justified. However, when she approached the Police Complaints Authority, she was told that it could not pursue complaints about the direction and control of a force. The authority suggested that she should contact the Home Office. She then did that. The Home Office replied that it could not deal with the matter, but referred her helpfully in the direction of her local police authority. The local police authority had to point out that we could not pursue a matter in terms of the direction and control of the force and the approach that had been taken in that particular case.
Not surprisingly, the complainant found that extraordinarily frustrating. She wrote to many other people, including No. 10 Downing Street. Some noble Lords in the Committee tonight may have had letters or communications from the person concerned.
My point is not about that specific case but about the fact that there is no route by which someone can properly pursue a complaint about the direction and control of a force. My noble friend the Minister may be able to tell me what the route is. That would be an achievement that was beyond officials in the Home Office when they drafted their original reply to the complainant. However, I should be enormously grateful if such a reply could be put on the record, no doubt to be quoted on many future occasions.
Maybe my noble friend will suggest that there is a route in the Bill. It provides for the possibility of the Secretary of State issuing guidance to chief officers about the handling of such matters, but that seems to me also not to work. Any complaint about the direction and control of a force almost certainly relates to the direction and control that is set by the chief officer concerned, or by people acting on behalf of the chief officer, in which case complaining to the person who made the decision is probably not the way to achieve satisfaction.
Perhaps the best route is to direct such complaints to the police authority. I believe, however, that that would be an inappropriate solution to the problem. I should hope that the force's direction and control had themselves been approved by the police authority when it established the force's overall priorities and strategy.
We need essentially a single channel for such complaints. If we had one and someone wished, rightly or wrongly, to make a complaint about a force's direction and control, that complaint could be dealt with in a specific way. The new complaints body is the
logical place to deal with such complaints. If they were dealt with by any other body, we would find that people make a complaint, become frustrated with the outcome received under the new complaints procedure and subsequently turn the initial complaint into a complaint about the force's direction and control with a view to having it reheard. That would be unsatisfactory. That is why we need to have a single channel and we must deal with the matter explicitly. It is also why I have tabled this amendment and seek to clarify the matter. I beg to move.9.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has moved the amendment with his usual ingenuity, on which I congratulate him. We recognise that complaints about direction and control should be dealt with. It is also true that the principal function of a chief officer is the direction and control of the police force to which he has been appointed. The Government realise that complaints about direction and control need to be attended to.
The effect of the amendment is clear enough: it would bring complaints about direction and control within the new police complaints system. As I sat there, I tried to meet the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of devising another route of dealing with the matter, but I am afraid that, even with my knowledge and experience of these matters, I have not come up with an answer. I shall therefore have to join the sad army of Home Office officials who have not come up with one either.
We regard the IPCC—as I am sure the noble Lord does— as being designed primarily to deal with cases of real or alleged misconduct. Complaints about issues such as direction and control are essentially complaints about management rather than conduct. Therefore, such complaints should usually be dealt with by the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, anticipated one of the points that I was going to make in reply. He has spotted that Clause 14 already provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to chief officers on the handling of complaints about direction and control. Indeed, it goes further and places a duty on the chief officer to have due regard to that guidance when handling any such complaint. That seems to us to be right. As I sat there thinking, I also thought that in some circumstances the police authority might be the appropriate route. I think that I share the noble Lord's view on that.
We believe that any direction and control decision or action that might constitute misconduct will be covered by the new system. However, as the noble Lord has raised a perfectly sensible point, we are happy to take it away and give it further consideration. In some specific cases in which there is a particularly high level of public concern, it may be appropriate for the IPCC to have an investigatory role. However, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, we shall have to give that very careful thought.
It is not an easy provision to frame. It also goes very much to the root of what a chief officer does. However, if we are bringing this type of issue within the IPCC's remit, perhaps we have been wise to seek to increase its staff. I can see circumstances in which a complaint of this nature could lead to an explosion in the number of complaints about the management and direction of forces more generally. It is a difficult issue for us to consider. Nevertheless, I make the commitment that we shall consider it further. As it is a particularly sensitive issue, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, others involved in police authorities and chief officer organisations will undoubtedly want to be carefully consulted on it so that it is pursued sensibly and with some consensus.
In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Condon: I sympathise with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the lack of a route. However, I also share the Minister's concern that, should Amendment No. 161A be adopted, it would significantly change the role of the IPCC. It would move it on from considerations of misconduct issues to considerations of management, choice and priorities. Those are all issues which should rightly be challenged and for which there should be a route to enable such challenge to take place. However, that would significantly change the nature of the IPCC, the nature of the staff and processes it would have to engage and the processes that would lead to judgments being made about chief officers' priorities and management. Although I am broadly sympathetic to the mischief the noble Lord seeks to remedy and the gap he seeks to fill, I would have some anxieties if the IPCC were the chosen vehicle.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page