| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord said: By moving this amendment we seek to establish whether the police authorities, and the chief officers of police, will be consulted by the Secretary of State before the guidance that he issues to the complaints commission is circulated and put into effect. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments would simply place an obligation on the Secretary of State—that is understood—to consult when drawing up guidance. We are happy with that proposal and are willing to take it away and give it fair consideration. It is a matter that we want to perfect, and I am fairly optimistic that we can return on Report with something that probably reflects what the noble Lord is seeking to put on to the face of the Bill this evening. However, I ask him to withdraw the amendment so that we can give it further careful consideration. That certainly accords with what we want to do and with the spirit of our approach to these matters.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, and in view of the emollience which he seems to have taken from the Minister, I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, a question. I see that the Secretary of State being required to consult would have a trickle-down effect. But, in fact, would one not expect that the commission would consult before constructing a requirement? That would be the prudent thing to do. I put that idea before him.
Lord Bradshaw: I believe that the Secretary of State is the person who issues the guidance. While it is possible that consultation will take place between the commission and police authorities or chief officers
Lord Renton: I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, say that he will take away the matter and reconsider the contents of Clause 21 because, quite frankly, I find the whole issue rather confusing. It concerns a power given to the commission to issue guidance to police authorities, chief officers and people serving with the police other than their chief officers. But it also requires the approval of the Secretary of State for the issue by the commission of guidance. Then subsection (4) becomes very complex in detailing the nature of the guidance and the way in which it is to be given. Although I realise that it is anticipating the next amendment to be taken—Amendment No. 166, which seeks to leave out paragraph (c)—I believe that it would be wise of the Government to reconsider the complexity that will arise in relation to the giving of this guidance. I believe that the whole clause could well be simplified.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I believe that our reconsideration of the clause is rather more limited, and I am certainly not in a position to be quite as emollient as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would wish us to be. My noble friend Lord Rooker and I are brothers in emollience today and we share that emollience generally. We believe it to be a prudent course. But we have given a limited commitment and are happy to give the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, fair consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 165B not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 166:
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 166 echoes the concerns of my noble friend Lord Renton. It is a probing amendment, I hope of the customary emollience of the Bill. The section provides that the commission has the power to issue guidance in relation to whether or not a complaint is suitable for local resolution. It clearly has to be right that some of the more trivial complaints can be dealt with at the local level and resolved at the local level. Where those complaints are not resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, there must be some basis for saying that the individual has the right to have that complaint escalated, as is the case, for example, with regulatory ombudsmen. The problem is that guidance is a blunt instrument. Are certain categories of complaint to be excluded from the commission's remit? When is a complaint to go to the commission?
If one proceeds on the assumption that local resolution is preferable to the police officer to an investigation by the commission, is it right that the
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies, I feel that I should make a further point about paragraph (c), which deals with two separate matters. One such matter is about guidance being given on how to decide whether a complaint is suitable for being subjected to local resolution. Then we come on to an entirely different matter, which I should have thought would be better put, as a matter of drafting, into a separate paragraph; that is, guidance about the information to be provided to a person before his consent to such a resolution is given. Those are two separate matters and could well be put into separate paragraphs.
Lord Rooker: As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, subject to the expert team which backs us up, and the esteemed parliamentary draftsmen in Whitehall, with whom I have had many a clash—I have tremendous respect for the work that they do—we shall consider paragraph (c). The noble Lord, Lord Renton is right. It appears to contain two entirely separate issues, which probably should be separate paragraphs. I shall take advice on that and report back to the noble Lord either by letter or by tabling an amendment.
Amendment No. 166 would remove from the complaints commission the power to issue guidance to the police about how to decide whether the complaint is suitable for local resolution and about the information to be given to a complainant before he or she agrees to an attempt at local resolution of his or her complaint. As I said earlier in our debates, currently, about one-third of complaints are resolved locally; that is about 10,000 of approximately 30,000. There is much to be said for dealing with complaints as locally as possible. There is widespread support for this process. We want to extend its use.
The legislation provides the framework within which decisions with regard to local resolutions should be made. The guidance will provide clarification and facilitate the making of those decisions.
The specific aims of the guidance issued in relation to this provision will be twofold. First, all police forces should know when they should be attempting local resolution straightaway, when they should be applying to the IPCC for approval to attempt local resolution, and when local resolution should not even be considered. There are some complaints which are just like an elephant on a doorstep; one would recognise it when one saw it even though one could not necessarily write a description of it. Without this there would be a real danger that officers who committed similar acts of misconduct could be dealt with very differently just because they were members of different forces.
Secondly, complainants should understand what the process for local resolution should be, as appeals following attempted resolution can be made only on the grounds that the process has not been followed properly. Otherwise, complainants might feel that they have not been treated fairly. That could seriously undermine public confidence in the system as a whole.
The police as a rule appreciate guidance. The guidance provided for in both of these subsections—that is in relation to the subsections which refer to Amendment No. 165B that was not moved—will be essential in ensuring that there is consistency of practice across the country with regard to both dealing with conduct matters and local resolution. That said, there is clearly a case which has been made most powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for us to look at the construction of this part of Clause 21 and to report back to the Chamber.
Lord Elton: The Minister said that if my noble friend's amendment was made it would remove the power from the commission to issue guidance on the level of complaint which can be resolved locally, But that is not how I read the Bill. The introduction to Clause 21(4) states:
(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities in England and Wales; and
(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police of forces maintained by those authorities"
9.45 p.m.
Page 19, line 19, leave out paragraph (c).
"Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions".
The first of the preceding provisions is Clause 21(1):
"The Commission may issue guidance—
(a) to police authorities,
(b) to chief officers, and
(c) to persons . . .
concerning the exercise or performance, by [them] . . . of any of the powers or duties specified in subsection (2)".
The whole of subsection (4) is unnecessary if the matter is not exclusive but only permissive. Subsection (4) does say,
"may be issued under this section".
The commission is still at liberty to give other guidance. I wonder why so much work has been done before the body is formed in telling it what it should be providing guidance on. I daresay that subsection (4)(f) is required because that is, as it were, internal to the Secretary of State and the commission, but I cannot see that the rest of it is needed. I do not want a long answer now. I just ask the noble Lord to have the matter in mind when he is thinking about the structure generally.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page