| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: The effect of Amendment No. 163A is to place on police authorities and inspectors of constabulary an obligation to keep themselves informed about the working of Section 14. As the
noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has noted, police authorities, inspectors of constabulary and chief officers are already placed under such an obligation by Clause 15(1) and (2). Those subsections impose on police authorities, chief officers and inspectors of constabulary an obligation to keep themselves informed about all matters with respect to any provision in Part 2, anything done for the purposes of those provisions, and to act or refrain from acting in respect of matters that have arisen under this part, but which have not yet been complied with or have been contravened.Therefore, the amendment is superfluous. There is no need to place it anywhere in the legislation. It is clearly there in a much wider form than it would be just in Amendment No. 163A.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall consider the wider implication of what he has suggested and, if not happy, return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [General duties of police authorities, chief officers and inspectors]:
[Amendments Nos. 163B to 163D not moved.]
Clause 19 [Use of investigatory powers by or on behalf of the Commission]:
[Amendment No. 163E not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 164:
- Page 17, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: Surveillance is a sensitive issue, which raises legitimate concerns about the infringement of human rights. The Acts in question were subject to close scrutiny when passing through Parliament. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in particular was controversial in its reach. Primary legislation, especially on such a sensitive topic, should not be amended by ministerial diktat. If changes are needed, they should be brought before Parliament, where they can be subjected to proper scrutiny and debate. We regard this as an important amendment and I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: Clause 19 will give the Secretary of State the option of providing, by regulations, the complaints commission with the ability to use powers and techniques that fall within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State being able to provide the complaints commission with those powers.
We believe that the power is required to ensure that the complaints commission, when dealing with serious criminal offences that are alleged to have been
committed by police officers, has similar powers to those given to the police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.To meet recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee and the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, along with longstanding demands from the public and police, the complaints commission will be an investigative body. It will be able to investigate criminal and disciplinary allegations against police officers on its own, separately from the police. As I said earlier, it will decide who to employ in that regard. This will include all serious crimes that are committed by police officers, such as serious corruption cases, rape and murder. That goes well beyond the current police complaints commission rules.
For the complaints commission to be a fully effective, independent alternative to the police in carrying out those types of investigations, it is necessary that it has the same capabilities and powers. It is very likely that in some cases, such as serious corruption, there will be a need for surveillance or similar techniques if the complaints commission is to conduct an effective investigation. Therefore, Clause 19 provides for the use by the complaints commission of the same investigatory techniques as those that are available to the police. It will allow the Secretary of State to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Police Act 1997, enabling the complaints commission to use surveillance and covert human intelligence sources techniques, as set out in Parts II and IV of RIPA and Part III of the Police Act.
The regulation-making power in the clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. That was accepted as appropriate by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The IPCC will have its own investigative teams, which will be made up of a mix of seconded police officers and civilian investigators. Those teams will receive all the necessary training that will be required for them to use those investigative techniques. They will be subject to the same responsibilities and procedures as the police in using the powers. It is expected that only members of the complaints commission will be able to authorise the use of those techniques.
The complaints commission will have to build up its expertise to be capable of undertaking complex investigations that require the use of such powers, and we expect it to work closely with the police on such investigations, particularly early on in its life. However, it will be open to the complaints commission to take the view that, for the purpose of independence and public confidence, it should be able to undertake certain kinds of investigations separately. It is therefore considered that an order-making power allowing the Secretary of State to provide those powers is necessary.
Today, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its latest report, which basically amounts to a very long letter addressed to me. It contains 17 questions, some of which relate to this clause and the
power. I shall obviously reply urgently to it, but I should not like to do that off the cuff tonight, using a few bullet points. I could do so, but it would not help our debate.I hope that I have given the Committee a coherent explanation of why these powers are needed for the complaints commission. If anything will bring home to the public and to noble Lords in this Chamber the fact that this complaints commission is not the Police Complaints Authority, the knowledge that is has such powers to use will, I believe, make that crystal clear.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. As the noble Lord mentioned a word that occurs in a subsection of the clause, I should very much appreciate elucidation. Subsection (1)(b) refers to,
- "the conduct and use of covert human intelligence sources".
Lord Rooker: I shall most certainly obtain an answer to that question and write to the noble Lord.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for his full explanation. We are particularly reassured that the commission will have an independent role. We also look forward to the reply on the formidable document that the noble Lord has received from the JCHR. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Duty to keep the complainant informed]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 165:
- Page 18, line 27, after "person" insert "(other than a person against whom a complaint is upheld)"
The noble Viscount said: It is right that the Home Secretary should be able to keep confidential information that might adversely affect an individual—for example, a complainant or an accused—if he is then cleared. However, a guilty person does not deserve the protection of secrecy and should not benefit from the exceptions. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The Government are committed to creating a police complaints system in which there is the maximum degree of openness but also a proper regard for the rights of individuals, including the people about whom the complaint has been made. The provisions in Clause 20 are intended to ensure that complainants are kept informed both during and after investigations. However, the regulations made under this clause will not apply during or after disciplinary proceedings. There are separate provisions under Clause 32 for complainants to be involved in disciplinary proceedings. Complaints can only be
either upheld or dismissed during disciplinary proceedings. That being the case, the amendment is quite unnecessary.Moreover, it is worth stating that if this amendment had the intended effect, it might lead to all information on the person complained about being disclosed to the complainant, even if it had nothing to do with the complaint. Of course, that could lead to an unnecessary breach of privacy of the person about whom the complaint was made.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for his reply, which will require a certain amount of study. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Power of the Commission to issue guidance]:
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 165A:
- Page 19, line 10, at end insert "and before giving such approval, the Secretary of State shall consult—
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |