House of Commons Standing Committee B (pt 2)

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

[back to previous text]

Mr. Mallon: I think that I understood what the Minister said, although some small matters of clarification still worry me. He says that there will be an independent tribunal when the ombudsman and the Chief Constable disagree. I take it that an independent tribunal would not be chaired by the Chief Constable, who has already taken a position by refusing to proceed with the case. I also take it that there will be an independent tribunal when the Chief Constable and the ombudsman do not disagree, and that the tribunal's independence would be reflected in both circumstances. It would be difficult to sustain the argument that in one set of circumstances there would be an independent tribunal, which, I take it, would not be chaired by the Chief Constable, and that in circumstances where there was no disagreement between the ombudsman and the Chief Constable, the tribunal did not have the same independence.
I ask the Minister to clarify those points. I shall seek to withdraw the amendments. I am never sure of the proper time to do that, but I give notice that that that is my intention. However, if the anomaly and absurdity in the provision is not removed, I will have to return to it later.
Mr. Worthington: I again give the assurance that the independent tribunal will be chaired not by the Chief Constable but by an independent legal figure. The independent tribunal is appropriate for cases of disagreement between the Chief Constable and the ombudsman about the action requested of the Chief Constable by the ombudsman. That is right and just. Where there is no disagreement and it is agreed by both the Chief Constable and the ombudsman that disciplinary charges should be brought, normal police disciplinary procedures will apply.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will accept my full assurance that those matters are all under the control of the ombudsman, not the Chief Constable.
Mr. Mallon: In circumstances of agreement between the Chief Constable and the ombudsman, would it not strengthen the Bill, the police, the control of the ombudsman and the credibility of the entire process for the same independent tribunal to apply in both circumstances? I put that question to the Minister and ask him to consider the matter again. All the evidence shows that the process would be strengthened without taking any powers of discipline away from the Chief Constable. It would be a much more credible process.
Mr. Worthington: That goes way beyond the amendments. Guided by Maurice Hayes's investigation, we maintain that an important element of the constitutional framework for the police force is the Chief Constable's responsibility for discipline and that should not be undermined by an external body. The check is present, albeit not on individual cases. If the ombudsman felt that internal police disciplinary procedures were not working, it would be publicised and brought to the attention of the Secretary of State. We would then be aware of a breakdown in the system.
This procedure is necessary to deal with disagreement between the Chief Constable and the ombudsman. It will probably be used in only a tiny number of cases, but it will provide an important assurance that the process is driven by and is under the control of the ombudsman. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke about the Chief Constable unwillingly bringing a case on which he would have to pronounce judgment, but that will not happen. I hope that I have provided him with powerful assurances.
Mr. Moss: I have a quick question for the Minister. In his reply to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, he said that the special procedure of the independent tribunal will come into play, under subsection (8) only when there is disagreement under subsection (5), to which subsection (8)(b) makes reference:

"in compliance with a direction under subsection (5)".

However, subsection (8)(a) states that the ombudsman can bring the "special procedures" into play in "exceptional circumstances"nothing to do with agreement or disagreement.
The Minister was not seeking to mislead the Committee but the procedure under subsection (8) is relevant not only in cases of disagreement; it can come in differently, provided that the ombudsman believes that there are "exceptional circumstances" surrounding a case. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify and endorse that point, as well as giving the Committee some idea of the "exceptional circumstances" that the subsection is designed to embrace.
Mr. Worthington: I think that I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. This morning I received a letter from someone asking me to define "exceptional", and this seems to be the day for trying to crack it, although it is difficult.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out subsection (8)(a), which I forgot to mention when responding to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. There is nothing different about subsection (8)(a): the power exists already in the 1987 order. It is a failsafe power. If the ombudsman believes that there are good reasonsbecause of the exceptional, the out-of-the-ordinary, or the unprecedented circumstances of a casewhy a special procedure should be set up, we should do so.
Mr. Mallon: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I shall wait to see what may appear on the amendment paper on Report. I have heard his assurance that the Bill will deal with the absurdity of a Chief Constable who does not wish to bring proceedings having to adjudicate on those proceedings as chairman of the tribunal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 59 and 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61

Reports

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 32, line 25, after "2(4)(a)", insert

"and any other information which the Police Authority may reasonably require for the discharge of those functions.".

The clause deals with the reports that the ombudsman will make during his or her activities and responsibilities. Subsection (7) deals with general or statistical information which the ombudsman considers should be brought to the attention of the Police Authority in connection with the authority's functions under clause 2(4)(a). We have revisited that subsection, which sets out the overriding duty and responsibility of the Police Authority, many times. Given the import of that responsibility, it should not be left to the ombudsman to decide what information he or she passes to the Police Authority; it should be for the Police Authority to say to the ombudsman, "Because we, not you, are tasked with the responsibility under clause 2(4)(a), we would like this additional information so that we can satisfy ourselves that we are exercising our duty properly." The amendment would add the words

"and any other information which the Police Authority may reasonably require for the discharge of those functions"

to the end of subsection (7), making it clear that in the transfer of information, it is not just left to the ombudsman to decide what information is important to the Police Authority. If the authority feels that there are gaps in the information, that it is not explained in enough detail or that there are limitations in the statistics, it will be empowered under the Bill to ask the ombudsman for that additional information.

11 am

I cannot see a problem with that and, from the Police Authority's point of view, it is important to state clearly in the Bill that the authority takes ownership under clause 2(4)(a). It should be in control at all times of whatever means are necessary to discharge its extremely important functions.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): For the sake of brevity, I shall not repeat the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, but there is another small dimension that can be stressed in support of the amendment. My hon. Friend said that under subsection (7), as it stands, the onus is on the ombudsman to provide the Police Authority with the information that he believes should be brought to the authority's attention. My hon. Friend rightly argued that the Police Authority itself should have significant input into the type of information that it receives.
Another factor that should be noted, however, is the limitation of definitions of information in subsection (7). The draftsman has specified two categories of informationstatistical and generalbut it would not be unreasonably pedantic to suggest that some information would fall into neither category. Detailed specific information might be required by the Police Authority, so why has it been excluded as a third category? The amendment would give the Police Authority not only a statutory power to request information, but would include the third category of "any other information", which is information that is distinct from statistical or general. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Mr. Worthington: The amendment is about the relationship between the Police Authority and the ombudsman. The clause states:

"The Ombudsman shall send to the Police Authority any statistical or other general information which the Ombudsman considers should be brought to the attention of the Police Authority in connection with its functions under section 2(4)(a)."

It complements the requirement in clause 61(5) for the ombudsman to send his or her reports to the Police Authoritythe subsection places a mandatory duty on the ombudsman to send information to the Police Authority. That would include information that comes into the possession of the ombudsman or which he or she establishes, for example, through research.
The subsection repeats the provisions of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints in article 17(6)(b) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. As far as we know, that has not been a contentious issue. If the Police Authority requested certain information from the ombudsman, the clause would require the ombudsman to send that information, if he or she had it, provided it was relevant to the Police Authority's function. The amendment adds nothing to that requirement.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that if the Police Authority wanted additional information, it should be in control of the situationI realise that I am extemporising a little. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is important to establish that the ombudsman is independent of both the Policy Authority and the Chief Constable. The ombudsman cannot be told what to do. However, he has a mandatory duty to supply the Policy Authority with information that is relevant to clause 2(4)(a), which will ensure that the Police Authority has the information that is necessary to fulfil its function.

©Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 17 March 1998