| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving me the reassurance that he will consider the matter at least if I write to him and further tell him what is proposed. It is important that he also understands that police authorities need to, and do, keep themselves apprised of the procedures. I am reassured by what he says. I shall consider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Duty to keep the complainant informed]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 118:
- Page 18, line 35, leave out from "required" to end of line 36 and insert "on proportionality grounds"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119. Under Clause 20(6)(iii) the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to prevent the disclosure of information or investigation reports to complainants to secure that no person is adversely affected by the disclosure.
In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, moved an amendment which had the intention of ensuring that disclosure would not be prevented on the grounds that it would adversely affect the person complained about where the complaint had been upheld. In fact, as I explained then, the duty to keep complainants informed under Clause 20 does not apply at the stage in the process where a complaint may or may not have been upheld. Complaints can only be either upheld or dismissed during disciplinary proceedings by which time any disclosure under this clause will already have taken place. There are separate provisions under Clause 33 for complainants to be involved in disciplinary proceedings.
Nevertheless, it is important for the sensitivity test under Clause 20(6) to provide for the prevention of disclosure where someone could be adversely affected. A substantial amount of information on the person
complained about will often come to light during the course of an investigation, and much of it may have no bearing whatever on the complaint. To disclose that information to the complainant would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily breach the privacy of the person complained about.However, it has never been the Government's intention to allow the person complained about to prevent disclosure on general grounds that he would be adversely affected. The amendment would make clear that disclosure should be prevented only when it would disproportionately adversely affect someone. It will be explicit in the Bill that in all cases a judgment will need to be made based on the balance between the need to keep the complainant informed and the need to avoid unnecessary breaches of anyone's privacy. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the provisions are entirely equitable and we support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 119:
- Page 18, line 38, at end insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Power of the Commission to issue guidance]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 120:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 122.
It has always been the Government's intention for the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and others to be consulted before issuing regulations and guidance. For that reason, we were happy to give fair consideration to the proposals made at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and to return today with something that reflects what was sought.
The effect of Amendment No. 120 will be to place an obligation on the independent police complaints commission to consult people representing the interests of police authorities, chief officers and others on guidance that it intends to issue before seeking the approval of the Secretary of State to issue that guidance.
The government amendment varies from the amendment moved in Committee in that it will require the commission to consult on guidance that it intends
The reason for that is that the commission will want to take account of the views of the key players in drawing up the guidance and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to consult them again. To do so would mean either the key players having to confirm their views or, if they were not reflected in the guidance, a risk that the independence of the commission would be impugned if the Secretary of State sought to introduce those views into the guidance.
Similarly, the effect of Amendment No. 122 would be to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under Part 2. In addition to persons representing chief officers and police authorities, the consultees would naturally also include the independent police complaints commission. So our amendments reflect the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, proposed, but also respect the independence of the new independent police complaints commission. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I rise simply to thank the Minister for his consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 122:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 123:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125, 128, 129 and 130. The Government share the wish that an officer who is subject to proceedings should have a full and fair opportunity to present his or her case. The government amendments will have that effect. They will go a substantial way to meet the intended effects of Amendments Nos. 124, 126 and 127, although we disagree with some aspects of them.
The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 123 will require three distinct courses of action: first, the officer would have to be given an explanation, in writing, of the police authority's grounds for calling on him or her to retire or resign; secondly, the officer would have the right to make representations, in writing, in person or through someone acting on his or her behalf; thirdly, the police authority would be under a statutory duty to consider those representations.
Correspondingly, in cases in which the Secretary of State intervenes under Section 42, Amendment No. 125 provides for the officer to be given notice of the Home Secretary's intention to intervene and a written explanation of his reasons for doing so. Amendment No. 128 provides for the right to be heard by the inquiry and for the officer to be heard in person. That amendment also provides a statutory right for the police authority to make representations to the inquiry if it wishes. Amendment No. 129 is a consequential amendment and merely ensures that an officer's right to a written explanation from the police authority is disapplied in a Section 42 case, for which the explanation will come from the Secretary of State.
I hope that, following our debate in Committee, I have been able to persuade the House that the purpose of Amendment No. 126 has been achieved and that retention of the inquiry provisions for Section 42 cases, at which Amendment No. 127 appears to be aimed, is part of the Bill.
With regard to Amendment No. 124, as I said, the police authority would be able to put its views to the Section 42 inquiry. The amendment would go further and introduce a statutory process of consideration of representations for suspension cases. In the Government's view, consultation will be the norm, where such cases arise. There may be cases in which urgent and critical action is vital. If such a serious situation arose, it would not be right to inhibit the capacity of the Secretary of State to move swiftly, if circumstances made it imperative.
Government Amendment No. 130 creates a requirement for consultations to include representatives of police authorities and chief officers before regulations are made in respect of Part 3.
In moving Amendment No. 123, I hope that I have touched on some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 124. The Government's amendments to Part 3 of the Bill are welcome. They provide additional important safeguards in cases where a chief officer is forced to retire or resign. That is right. However, those safeguards apply only in cases in which the decision has, in effect, been taken to exercise the power; that is right at the end of the process. There should be an earlier dialogue between the Home Secretary and the police authority, before the Home Secretary tells the authority to remove its chief officer.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that dialogue will go on and that the Home Secretary will not simply get out of bed one morning and issue a peremptory order that a particular chief constable must go. However, it would be more reassuring if that safeguard were built into and reflected in the legislation.
We made it clear at Second Reading that we have considerable difficulty with the idea that the Home Secretary should have the power to require a police authority to suspend its chief officer. We are not persuaded that the Home Secretary should second-guess the judgment of the authority on whether local confidence in the force demands that the chief officer be suspended. That is a matter for the local community and its representatives; namely, the police authority. I see that the Minister accepts that argument.
If the Home Secretary insists on taking the power, we would be considerably reassured if, before exercising it in any given case, he were required by statute to consult the police authority concerned and consider its views. Currently, the Bill simply gives the authority the opportunity to make representations after the Home Secretary has reached a conclusion. The effect of our amendment would be quite simple. It would require the Secretary of State to consult and to have regard to representations received. That should be enshrined in the Bill.
The Minister has assured us that it is a power of last resort, but the Home Secretary may come under considerable pressure from the media and others to use the power as an instant response. We would not want that to happen. Our amendment would help to ensure that the power was used only after full and thorough consideration. We believe that it would protect the operational independence of a chief constable, to which we on these Benches are deeply committed. As I said earlier, this provision would provide a buffer between the Home Secretary of the day and the potential for direct interference and undue influence. I
"( ) The non-disclosure of information is required on proportionality grounds if its disclosure would cause, directly or indirectly, an adverse effect which would be disproportionate to the benefits arising from its disclosure."
Page 19, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) Before issuing any guidance under this section, the Commission shall consult with—
(a) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of police authorities;
(b) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and
(c) such other persons as it thinks fit."
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"CONSULTATION ON REGULATIONS
Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State shall consult with—
(a) the Commission;
(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;
(c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and
(d) such other persons as he thinks fit."
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL OF SENIOR OFFICERS
(1) In subsection (2) of section 9E of the 1996 Act (removal of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) for the words from "an opportunity" to the end there shall be substituted "—
(a) an explanation in writing of the Authority's grounds for calling upon him, in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or to resign; and
(b) an opportunity to make representations;
and the Authority shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the Commissioner.
The opportunity given to the Commissioner to make representations must include the opportunity to make them in person."
(2) In subsection (3) of section 11 of the 1996 Act (removal of chief officer of police), for the words from "an opportunity" to the end there shall be substituted "—
(a) an explanation in writing of the authority's grounds for calling upon him, in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or to resign; and
(b) an opportunity to make representations;
and the authority shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the chief officer.
The opportunity given to the chief constable to make representations must include the opportunity to make them in person."
9.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page