| Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
|
|
Mr. Worthington: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were tabled by Liberal Democrat Members. We have no objection to the intention behind the amendments, but there may be a difficulty in defining precisely what is meant by "developments". That will need clarification. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire guessed, we intend to deal with those matters in guidance, and regulations will be consequent upon the Bill. Those regulations could provide examples of developments and clarify how often complainants should receive information about their complaint. We shall need to return several times this morning to the issue of what is appropriate on the face of the Bill and what should be dealt with by regulations. The difficulty of putting all the provisions into the Bill is that that makes it very difficult to amend without further primary legislation. Regulations, however, make it much simpler to do so and to respond to problems as they arise. As I say, we shall return later to the important issue of keeping complainants in touch with developments through regulation. With that assurance, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn. Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): I drafted amendment No. 65, which also relates to clause 64. The amendment is necessary in order to keep in accord with clause 64(2)(b), which deals with informal complaints. Information relating to formal complaints does not match the provision made there for informal complaints. The same argument for open and transparent communication about the outcome of the complaint should apply in both cases. The amendment would insert a new paragraph (cc) which specifies
If amendment No. 65 is accepted, that information and report would be available as a matter of course rather than on application by the complainant. That would serve the interests of transparency, and ensure that every complaint reaches a conclusion, with the complainant having full information about its resolution. The same type of procedure should apply in relation to the formal investigation as is specified for the informal investigation in clause 64(2)(b). No doubt the Minister will agree that every subsection should promote transparency. I hope, therefore, that he will accept this technical amendment, which will make the subsection consistent with the others in the clause. Mr. Worthington: I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) especially as it applies to clause 64(2)(b) that there is a regulation-making power in the clause for the informal resolution of cases. We are at one with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to enhance confidence in the system for dealing with complaints. Making the system more open will play a major part in achieving that aim. However, what the amendment would achieve is already covered in the Bill. Clause 64(2)(j) states that
We intend to use the regulation-making power and guidance to place a requirement on the ombudsman to inform complainants of the outcome of their complaint within a specified time. That covers the hon. Gentleman's point and, indeed, goes further, in that it covers time limits and will allow the ombudsman to give a report to the complainant on his or her case. That will encourage greater openness, which will be picked up in the regulation-making power. The power is in the Bill anyway and the regulations will make it even clearer. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Mallon: I remain unconvinced. Clause 64(2)(j) states that
Will the Minister tell me where in the clause is the requirement, not just the power, that the ombudsman should supply the relevant information? If he can convince me that there is such a requirement in the clause, he will have convinced me that there is a mechanism to ensure that records will be provided. The power to take action and the requirement in legislation to do so are two different things. I remain to be convinced. Mr. Worthington: Let me try again. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about "shall have power", but that follows on from the Secretary of State issuing regulations. The Secretary of State will produce regulations so that
That places an imperative on the Secretary of State, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will happen. Detailed guidance in regulations will cover his points. Mr. Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Moss: This extremely important clause deals with how complaints will be addressed in the first instance by the various bodies that can receive the complaints or by the ombudsman. Subsection (3) sets the point at which the ombudsman begins to record the complaint and assess its merits and type. From subsection (4) on, the clause deals with the initial sifting and assessment of complaints. The Committee for the Administration of Justice has raised the problem of identification of individual officers. Subsection (4) depends on a correct assessment being made of a complaint against a member of the police force. It
I assume that that can be read to include more than one member. The subsection requires identification of individuals or groups about whom the complaint has been made. The CAJ has made several approaches about the wearing of identification numbers by officers and has found that it is not currently possible to ensure that they are always worn. The CAJ states that
That seems a valid point because complaints against a divisional officer, which the ombudsman would have to assess under subsection (4), are important. From that initial assessment follows the procedure that we shall discuss when we come to clauses 53, 54, 55 and 56. If it is impossible to identify a specific officer, where will the complaint or the complainant go? Will it be taken as a general complaint against policy the policy being that identification numbers are not being worn in public places on such occasions? Will the complaint be referred back to the Police Authority as a general complaint about implementation of policy by the Chief Constable or a senior officer?
11 amIt would be helpful if the Minister would explain how proper criticism from the CAJ will be dealt with to[Mr. Moss] assuage the fears that the clause, especially subsection (4), lacks teeth. There is a loophole because police officers who do not wear their ID cannot be identified in the way specified in the Bill. Mr. Worthington: The clause is important, as is identification. A crucial point is that the Bill covers all complaints and not just those about specific wrongdoing. It covers complaints about operational or policing policy and not just the actions of individual officers in specific situations. That is what Dr. Hayes recommended in his report and it is worth reflecting on what he said. Paragraph 18(15) states:
I believe that the point made by the hon. Gentleman would have been true about the previous arrangements. In this case, if there is a complaint about individual officers who cannot be easily identified because their identification numbers are concealed, the complaint would go to the ombudsman and then to the appropriate section of the police. There would be accountability and responsibility because those police officers must be under the command of superior officers. I am sure that the ombudsman would regard that as a matter of concern, and the Bill provides the clarity for him to decide that it is a complaint that must be investigated. If there was a problem of indiscipline, he would hold the relevant police officers accountable for their actions. The new arrangement, giving additional power to the ombudsman over the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, would cover the points raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 12 March 1998 |
