Standing Committee B
Thursday 12 March 1998
(Morning)
[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]
Clause 52
Complaints receipts and initial classification of complaints
10.30 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I beg to move amendment No. 99, in page 25, line 29, leave out from "shall" to end of line 32 and insert
"be made to one of the following
(a) the Ombudsman;
(b) a member of the police force;
(c) the Police Authority; or
(d) the Secretary of State.".
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 100, in page 25, line 32, at end insert
"(1A) If a complaint is made to a member of the police force, to the Police Authority or to the Secretary of State, it shall be referred immediately to the Ombudsman.".
Mr. Moss: The amendments are merely intended to tidy up the drafting of the clause. They were proposed to Conservative Members by the Police Authority, which felt that the wording of subsection (1) was somewhat ambiguous. We agreed and tabled the amendments to enable the Government to look again at the drafting and to clarify the provisions.
Subsection (1) would be clearer if it stated that
"For the purposes of this Parliament, all complaints about the police force shall be made to one of the following: the Ombudsman; a member of the police force; the Police Authority; or the Secretary of State."
Those are the four bodies to whom the Government intend that complaints about the police should be made.
The second amendment would add a new subsection:
to the above bodies
"it shall be referred immediately to the Ombudsman."
That would make it clear that any of the four bodies can receive a complaint, but that it must always be sent on to the ombudsman. The word "immediately" is important; the ombudsman needs to know about complaints, of whatever kind, as quickly as possible.
The amendments are merely drafting amendments. No doubt the Minister will tell me that it is impossible to draft provisions in a new way, because the draftsmen say that it should be done in the previous way. However, sometimes the language of lawyers leaves some of us rather confused.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend said, and to put another slant on the argument. As he has pointed out, subsection (1) requires the Chief Constable, the Police Authority and the Secretary of State to refer any complaints to the ombudsman immediately.
We have no quarrel with the intention of the subsection, but we question the draftsmanship. If subsection (1) were correctly formulated, it would make full sense if either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) were omitted. That is what the syntax would demand. However, it does not make sense. There is confusion between an "either, or" construction and a series of categories. Surely, the Government intend that complaints about the police force should be made either to the ombudsman, to a member of the Police Authority, to the police force, or to the Secretary of State. If a complaint is made to any of them, it shall immediately be referred to the ombudsman. However, I do not think that the subsection makes that clear. Our amendments would correct the confusion and clumsiness that seems to be present. They would clarify the Government's intentions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): I must disappoint the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss); there is nothing wrong with his amendment. It would not bring about the end of civilisation as we know it. We prefer our wording. I feel that I am likely to repeat many times that the Government want the Bill to emphasise the fact that the complaints procedure will be under the control of the ombudsman. His will be the dominant role.
Clearly, others who are concerned with policing will want to support the structure. However, we prefer the present wording of the clause because it singles out the ombudsman's status as special and states that complaints should go to him or be forwarded to him if they are received by other parties. That pre-eminence of the ombudsman is not expressed in amendment No. 99, which gives the impression that he would be one among four possible recipients of a complaint, rather than the dominant figure. We want to emphasise his independence and supremacy.
Mr. Hunter: I do not remotely quarrel with the Government's wish to assert the primacy of the ombudsman, but where is the "or" that should follow from the use of the word "either" at the end of line 29? That is the point; the draftsmanship is clumsy.
Mr. Worthington: In my copy of the Bill clause 52 reads:
"For the purposes of this Part, all complaints about the police force shall either
(a) be made to the Ombudsman; or"
the word "or" is there. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Moss: I fully agree with the Government's intention in relation to the clause. It is important that the ombudsman should be set apart and given a pre-eminent status. We do not argue with that just with the wording. It would be possible for the clause to provide that complaints should preferably be made to the ombudsman, but that they could also be made to the other three parties on the list, and that in that case they should immediately be referred to the ombudsman.[Mr. Moss]
However, we shall not quibble about that. No doubt the draftsmen think that the provision is best and most succinctly put as it appears in the Bill. I thought that our suggested tidying up made more sense, but I accept the Minister's argument and assure him that we agree with his analysis and about the need for the ombudsman to be pre-eminent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 25, line 41, at end insert
"(aa) make reasonable effort to ensure that the complainant is informed that his complaint is being considered;".
The Chairman: The amendment does not stand in the name of any member of the Committee. I point out that it will also be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 25, line 42, at end insert
", and (c) make reasonable effort to ensure that the complainant is kept informed of developments in the consideration of his complaint, including any resolution or action resulting therefrom.".
No. 65, in clause 64, page 33, line 25, at end insert
"(cc) procedures for giving a complainant whose complaint has been the subject of formal investigation a record of the outcome of that investigation.".
Mr. Moss: Thank you, Miss Widdecombe, for that clarification.
I shall speak briefly to the amendments. They were tabled early on by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. \UOpik), a Liberal Democrat Member who has shown considerable interest in Northern Ireland affairs. His amendments were some of the first to be tabled, and at the time he fully expected to be on the Committee. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are not unreasonable. They seek to ensure that when a complaint enters the system, the complainant is kept abreast of its progress through the various stages.
It is quite a complicated system, and that is graphically illustrated in Dr. Hayes's report, "A Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland". On page 109 under the heading "How the proposed system would work" there is a complex flow chart. There are a number of stages and we shall address each in turn in the next few clauses. I have counted six potential stages for a complaint to go through the system: there may be more but I have cut them down as best I can. It is right for complainants to be kept as informed as possible as their complaints go through the various stages so that they know where they stand and what is being done.
As we have already ascertained in subsection (1), the complaint can go directly to the ombudsman or to three other bodies. Hopefully, it will shortly end up on the ombudsman's desk when he or she can decide whether it is a policy issue, in which case it goes to the Police Authority. If it is an issue of conduct, it goes into the ombudsman's own system where it is handled by his staff. Presumably there is some sort of preliminary sift of complaints. A decision has to be made about whether it is to be a formal resolution, whether it is to be investigated by the ombudsman because it is a serious complaint, or whether it is to be passed back to the Chief Constable under clause 57. After the ombudsman's decision a report is issued. Amendment No. 7 seeks to insert after (3)(a) that the ombudsman shall
"make reasonable effort to ensure that the complainant is informed that his complaint is being considered".
Amendment No. 8 seeks to insert,
"and (c) make reasonable effort to ensure that the complainant is kept informed of developments in the consideration of his complaint, including any resolution or action resulting therefrom."
Perhaps those matters will be dealt with by the regulation. The Government may argue that the working groups that are being set up will discuss the practical ways in which the system will work. They may argue that this is an administrative matter for the ombudsman to decide, that we must await the setting up of the ombudsman and his team and that they will decide how best to deal with this customer-client service, if I can call it that.
I think that the tabler of the amendment wanted to see that that was clearly stated in the Bill as a statutory requirement of the ombudsman to ensure that it is not overlooked later. It may be dealt with by regulation but there is no guarantee of that.
I have some sympathy with those who tabled the amendments and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to their arguments. I hope that he will clarify whether the matter is covered elsewhere in the Bill or will be dealt with, in the final analysis, by regulation.
10.45 am
| 
