| Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
|
|
Mr. Ingram: Let me try to explain to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee what the Government are trying to achieve. Informal resolution, at any level, is a lesser form of investigation; that is why there is a need for consent. It is not a full-blown investigation and, clearly, the consent of the complainant is required under those circumstances. That individual is accepting something less than he might receive under another form of investigation, and which falls short of the serious complaint procedure that might be carried out. That is a cogent reason for consent to be given for informal resolution of complaints. The clause deals with the formal investigation of complaints. It takes full account of the independence of the ombudsman, who should be seen as an independent authority at all times. That is consistent with Dr. Hayes's recommendations. The ombudsman should be able to make judgments about how, where and when investigations should take place. We are discussing a relatively serious level of complaint and the ombudsman has to give the best judgment about the quality of the investigation that can be delivered. The judgments cannot be based only on the consent of the complainant. If that were the case, a complainant might believe that his complaint was serious--not serious as defined in the legislation, but serious in the mind of the complainant--and might not give consent to the ombudsman, or might say nothing. The ombudsman might decide that he needed to get consent in order to refer the case, but the complainant might say nothing. That complaint might well not be taken further. The seeking of consent would, therefore, not be desirable under those circumstances. These matters rely on the ombudsman's independence and on his flexibility in determining the flow of complaints. It is important that there should be safeguards that give absolute security to complainants, to deal with any suspicions that they--or the wider community--might have about the way in which an investigation was being carried out. There are two safeguards. The first is that the ombudsman can, at any time, take back control of the investigation if he is not satisfied that the complaint is being properly addressed. The second safeguard is that, in any event, the report is returned to the ombudsman for consideration and evaluation. The Government will have to establish a well defined audit trail to ensure that every complaint that is received is appropriately dealt with when it passes out of the ombudsman's hands. That will ensure that the complaint is being considered; other assessments will have to be made about the quality of the judgments on the complaint, depending on the basis on which such judgments are delivered. I hope that that explanation will help the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. He is looking quizzical; perhaps he would like further elaboration of the matter. The ombudsman must have flexibility. He must have the capacity to move a complaint forward when it cannot be dealt with through informal resolution. Such complaints must remain under the control and direction of the ombudsman and not rest solely with the complainant. There is a wider public interest. Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): My hon. Friend referred to clause 54(3)(b). However, we can look forward to clause 57(4), which says that the ombudsman can decide to keep control of the investigation. Clause 57(6) explicitly refers to the inquiry being conducted by a
That runs contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that investigations would always be carried out by the RUC.
5 pmMr. Ingram: My hon. Friend's useful intervention relates to the way in which complaints are dealt with. In dealing with formal complaints, not informal ones, it is always better that the ombudsman should have control. Where an outside force is called in, that can happen and it is likely to happen. That adds another layer of confidence to the process. My hon. Friend's intervention was most helpful. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh suggested that the clause contained a hidden agenda and was all about resources. He suggested that the clause is about machinery by which we can avoid dealing with cases, and is an attempt to avoid giving the ombudsman adequate resources. I can assure the Committee that we have examined the sums to be allocated. The way in which the Northern Ireland Office has previously worked on public confidence issues suggests that if there were a major breakdown in service delivery--and the ombudsman service relates critically to confidence in the RUC--resources would be made available. However, I cannot give a blank cheque; if commitments became open-ended, we would have to consider other efficiencies and how best to deliver the service. However, past evidence has been that we have found the means to act where public confidence is concerned. There is no hidden agenda and no attempt to avoid meeting the full costs by transferring cases somewhere else. The ombudsman will be independent and will not be under the direct control of the Secretary of State. He or she will make a judgment based on the merits of the complaint. If direction of the complaint were left to the consent of the complainant, the ombudsman might, by exercising judgment based on knowledge of past complaints, be able to see a quick route to a resolution that would satisfy the complainant, but still have to put the complaint at the end of a very long queue if the complainant determined that the case had to be handled in a particular way. Hon. Members will be aware that in other services--such as the health service--that offer ombudsman investigations, people may wait a long time for a response because of the volume of complaints. We hope to create a mechanism by which the ombudsman can find the best resolution to a formal complaint. That matters not just to the complainant but to the whole community's confidence in the system. The ombudsman should not be dictated to by the complainant. There is a wider community interest. I hope that that explains the matter. I see that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is shaking his head so we are in for a long debate. I have been as clear and precise as I can--in Committee, it is ever thus--but I see that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire wants to participate in the debate. Mr. Moss: As ever, I am trying to help the Minister. In subsection (3)(b) the amendment seeks to insert the words
If we trace the informal complaint from inception we find that it has come from clause 53 where the ombudsman has decided that it goes to one of the appropriate disciplinary authorities. Let us say that in this example it is the Chief Constable. Clause 53(4) states:
The Chief Constable appoints one of his own officers to investigate the complaint. The complainant has had to give his consent under subsection (2). If that case has not been resolved informally under the terms of clause 53(6), it comes back to the ombudsman and that is referred to in clause 54(1)(b). In this case the ombudsman sends it to the Chief Constable; the Chief Constable gets one of his officers to look into it and if it is not resolved it goes back to the ombudsman. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked why the ombudsman can decided to send it back to the Chief Constable--where it has already been. Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am not talking about cases that can be resolved informally but about cases that are less serious and on which there is no right of consent by the complainant. There is a right of consent in cases that are dealt with informally. If it is right in one instance, why is it not right in the other? That is the thrust of my argument. It does not relate to any transfer involving the informality and the role of the ombudsman. Mr. Moss: I apologise if I misinterpreted the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. Since it goes in line 22 after paragraph (b) it relates to subsection (3), which concerns other complaints under clause 53(6). I do not know what those others are but they are not serious complaints. If the hon. Gentleman wanted his amendment to apply only to serious complaints I think it should go before subsection (2). Mr. Mallon: My point is not relevant to what are termed the serious complaints. It applies to those that will be resolved informally. I am asking that it be applied specifically in relation to clause 54(3)(b) where that element of consent exists. I am simply asking for the complainant to have the option of giving his consent in that broad body of cases where the ombudsman decides whether to investigate it or to hand it over to the police to investigate. Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes his position clearer. Certainly other complaints in subsection (3) include those that have been referred back after passing through the informal process and not being resolved. I can see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. He wants the phrase
to apply both to those that have already been to the Chief Constable and to any others before they return to the Chief Constable or that are being passed to the Chief Constable for the first time. He has made a valid point. Let us concentrate on complainants who have already been through the informal resolution stage: they have already been to the Chief Constable; they have already had their complaint investigated by an officer appointed by the Chief Constable. Under clause 53(6), the Chief Constable decides that he cannot resolve the matter and he hands it back to the ombudsman. Why should the compaint be referred back to the Chief Constable again under clause 54 (3) (b)? That makes no sense unless the consent of the individual is assumed.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 12 March 1998 |
