Police Reform Bill [Lords]

[back to previous text]

Mr. Denham: Let me deal with those three points in talking about the clause as a whole. Obviously, getting right the handling of disciplinary proceedings is a vital element in ensuring that the public have confidence in the police and the police complaints procedure. That is why the clause extends the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers. One effect of the regulations will be to give the IPCC a more active role in disciplinary proceedings, which relates to the hon. Gentleman's second point.

The complainant and the general public must be confident that evidence at a hearing will be presented fully and robustly. We have sought to address the concern that has arisen in the past that a case might not be presented robustly, particularly at an internal disciplinary hearing such as may currently follow a recommendation from the Police Complaints Authority. In particular, concerns might arise in future on occasions when the IPCC has already had to direct the appropriate authority to bring certain disciplinary proceedings against an officer because it had not previously agreed to do so. In those circumstances, it might be appropriate for the IPCC to attend and, if necessary, present the case itself or instruct counsel to ensure that the case against the officer is presented robustly.

I understand the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but it is necessary to maintain public confidence in the system as a whole. The clause allows regulations to be made that will have a significant role in achieving that. They will also update the procedures regarding persons who can attend disciplinary proceedings.

To take the hon. Gentleman's third point, it is not part of our intention that the provision should be an open door to any lobby or interest group that comes along and says that it wants to be part of the process, but we think that up to three supporters of the complainant should be able to attend disciplinary hearings. The presiding officer may decide in special circumstances that more can attend the hearing, and will of course be expected to be even-handed in the treatment of the officer facing the charge.

Column Number: 203

I shall mention a point not raised by the hon. Gentleman. In order to meet a recommendation from the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the clause enables regulations to provide for inferences to be drawn from failure on the part of a charged officer to mention any relevant facts. That will bring the police conduct regulations in line with those in criminal proceedings, to which a change was made after the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The hon. Gentleman's first issue was whether there should be a possibility of public access or public disciplinary hearings. He invited me to rule that out, but I regret to say that—as I think the Police Federation of England and Wales is aware—I cannot do that in the absolute terms that he asks for. I understand the point that he makes about media reporting. There are other types of hearing that can be harmful to a person's reputation, such as those of the General Medical Council, with which I am familiar from my previous position as a Health Minister.

The fact that someone is cleared on the seventh day does not usually get the same prominence in the press as the evidence dragged up in the first six. We all understand the strength of the hon. Gentleman's point and the concerns that have been expressed by the Police Federation. However, we have had extensive consultation on the issue.

There are strong feelings on both sides. On the one hand, there is an argument for openness and the importance of having some access to the disciplinary hearings in order to maintain public confidence that issues have been properly pursued. On the other hand, there is the matter of police confidence in the system. There is also the argument that the hon. Gentleman put so well, which is that the public should not be admitted to what is essentially a management exercise. Of course, it must be remembered that three quarters of disciplinary hearings are not the result of public complaint in any case.

Taking into account all those arguments and the need to maintain public confidence, it is our view that, in certain exceptional cases, the option of a public hearing should be available. We would not want to make that routine practice, but there are certain circumstances in which, for a variety of reasons, there is a case for allowing public access in order to show that a matter has been fully and properly pursued. We intend the regulations to cover those exceptional cases. That is not the answer that the hon. Gentleman invited me to give, but I hope that I have at least given him a clear and straightforward answer about what we intend to do and how the regulations would be framed.

Mr. Johnson: I wonder whether the Minister could give us a taster of the circumstances in which the public might be admitted.

Mr. Denham: An example is a case in which there had been high-profile public concern that a member of the public had been seriously and wrongly injured by police action. The necessary procedures might have

Column Number: 204

been gone through and, for a variety of reasons, it might be inappropriate to bring a criminal action, which would normally be the preferred course if someone had broken law. If there had been concern to ensure that the circumstances of the case had been properly examined, and the IPCC concluded that there had been a breach of the disciplinary code, it might be appropriate to have a public hearing to avoid allegations that an incident in which a member of the public had been seriously harmed had in some way been covered up.

Despite the reservations about media coverage that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath raised, under those circumstances it could be better for the reputation of an officer to have been cleared through a process that had clearly been carried out properly, and that people had seen reported, than for someone to have been cleared in an entirely private hearing with the inevitable allegations and suspicions that it was a ''police cover up''.

Norman Baker: I listened to the Minister carefully and I agree with him. However, sometimes the hearings are private and sometimes they are public, so the decision whether the hearings are private or public needs to be objective and set down clearly in regulations. Such decisions must be defensible. They cannot be seen to be the result of media pressure or an approach of a particular Minister.

6.15 pm

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is something that we shall need to deal with not in the Bill, but when drafting the regulations that the clause enables us to do. I defend the idea that issues of public confidence are of necessity or, by definition, high profile cases, so I cannot rule out the level of public interest as being a factor. I agree that the regulations will need to set out a clear basis on which decision are taken.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has characteristically made an extremely thorough response, for which I am grateful. It is helpful to know that only in exceptional cases will there be media reporting or public access of the sort that would lead to media reporting. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman knows from experience that the Government and those who advise them are conscious of situations in which lurid allegations are reported for six days, yet the fact that the person is acquitted on the seventh day receives no coverage and the public are left with the impression that the allegations were true. I am glad that his comments will be on the record.

I am somewhat less happy, however, with the Minister's response to our concerns and those of the Police Federation about the IPCC both bringing and conducting the disciplinary proceedings. I hope that he will continue to discuss that with his officials because there may be a better way in which to proceed. We may have to return to that issue on Report. As for my worry about other bodies being given an ''open sesame'' to the disciplinary proceedings, I was reassured by what the Minister said. It was helpful that he did not anticipate single-issue lobby groups or quangos having a right to interfere. He gave us some

Column Number: 205

valuable new information when he said that he envisages that the guidelines will say specifically that there could be up to three supporters of the complainant. That detailed response suggests that the Minister may already have some draft guidelines in his ''if pressed'' notes. I see that the Minister is putting his head in his hands, but if there were some guidelines—even if they are at an early draft stage—it would be helpful to see them. I hope that the three supporters are individuals, not bodies. As always, his response has been helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Police powers for police authority employees

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 34, line 6, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (11),'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 140, in page 34, line 6, at beginning insert—

    'Subject to subsections (9A) to (9H) below,'.

No. 141, in page 34, line 15, at beginning insert—

    'Subject to subsections (9A) to (9H) below,'.

No. 142, in page 35, line 13, at end insert—

    '(9A) Before exercising his powers under this section, a chief officer of police of any police force or a Director General must submit to the police authority maintaining that force (the relevant police authority) or, as the case may be, the Service Authority a draft scheme (a ''designation scheme'') setting out—

    (a) the purpose of the proposed designation scheme relating to the designation of persons under this section and the expected benefits for the policing of the area;

    (b) how the designation scheme contributes to the 3 year strategy issued by the authority under section 6A of the Police Act 1996 and the local policing plan issued by the authority under section 8 of that Act or in the case of a Service Authority how the scheme contributes to the Service Plan issued by that authority under section 4 or section 50 of the Police Act 1997;

    (c) the extent and nature of the powers he proposes to confer on designated persons;

    (d) how the suitability and capability of persons to be designated under the scheme will be assessed;

    (e) the arrangements for the provision of training to such designated persons;

    (f) the arrangements for the provision of equipment to such designated persons and any health and safety implications of the proposals; and

    (g) an estimate of the direct and ancillary costs of the scheme to the police fund kept by the police authority or, as the case may be, the service fund kept by the Service Authority.

    (9B) The Chief Officer or Director General shall not exercise his powers under this section until the relevant police authority or Service Authority has approved a designation scheme for this purpose.

    (9C) Before approving any scheme, or any modified or revised scheme, which differs from the draft scheme submitted by the chief officer or Director General, the relevant police authority or Service Authority shall consult the chief officer or Director General.

    (9D) Before approving any such scheme, a police authority shall consider any views obtained by the authority in accordance with arrangements made under section 96 of the Police Act 1996.

Column Number: 206

    (9E) Before approving any such scheme, a Service Authority shall consider any views obtained by it in accordance with arrangements made under sections 41 or 85 of the Police Act 1997.

    (9F) The chief officer or Director General may from time to time submit to the relevant police authority or Service Authority a revised or modified scheme for its consideration.

    (9G) After a scheme has been approved by the relevant police authority or Service Authority, the chief officer or Director General shall bring into force.

    (9H) It shall be the responsibility of the relevant police authority or Service Authority which has approved any scheme under subsection (9B) above to undertake a full review of the workings of the scheme 12 months after it has come into force and in particular to—

    (a) seek the views of the principal local authority for the area; and

    (b) monitor the impact of the scheme on public confidence in the force maintained by that authority.'.

No. 98, in page 35, line 25, at end insert—

    '(11) Any proposals by the chief officer of police under this section must have been included in his annual policing plan and have been approved by his police authority.'.

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 18 June 2002