(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
‘(e) for sanctions to be imposed on serving officers who fail to comply with the interview process.’.
One of the advantages of a Committee stage that directly follows Second Reading is that every Member in the Chamber has heard the preamble. Everyone is aware of the issues, and everyone has heard the Minister’s initial response. That means that my speech can be much briefer than it would otherwise have been: I hope to be able to complete it in two or three minutes.
We have all heard the arguments, and we have all heard the discussions. We have heard the discussion about whether former police officers should be forced to attend hearings, and the discussion about whether officers who attend hearings but refuse to give evidence should be included in the scope of the Bill. I want to concentrate on an issue on which I think we can have an impact: whether sanctions should apply if a police officer refuses to engage in the investigation process. That was mentioned to us by the IPCC itself, and we ought to give further consideration to whether it should be included in the Bill.
One question is whether the Bill should include a requirement on Ministers to draw up sanctions. To that end, I and other members of the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster have proposed a probing amendment, to encourage the Minister to explain why such a provision is not included in the Bill. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that it is not designed to obstruct what is an important and necessary emergency Bill, and that he will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, which is to raise a serious question that requires a serious answer.
The Bill compels serving officers to attend interviews in the course of an IPCC investigation, but it does not give an indication of what sanctions can be imposed on a serving officer who fails, or refuses, to attend an interview. As the Bill stands, sanctions for non-compliance will be dealt with by the relevant authority tasked with dealing with the misconduct of the officer in question. However, whether the non-attendance of the officer is to be determined as misconduct is also left to the discretion of the relevant authority.
I agree with the IPCC that a refusal to attend an interview should be immediately categorised as misconduct, and that appropriate disciplinary action should be instantly triggered. The IPCC says in its briefing document:
“The Commission is firmly of the view that if this power is to be effective, a failure to comply with a direction to attend should amount to misconduct. The Bill does not provide for such a sanction and we have expressed some concern about this, as we anticipate that some chief officers would welcome this unambiguous approach. The Commission hopes that Parliament will make clear that it is its express wish that police personnel should co-operate with IPCC investigations.”
By adding the amendment to the Bill we will instantly deal with all of the IPCC’s concerns in this area. Parliament will be giving a clear indication that police personnel should co-operate with IPCC investigations. Parliament will also be offering a clear, unambiguous approach to chief officers across the country as to the disciplinary action that we expect to be taken if a witness fails to comply with an interview request. The IPCC will have the confidence to deliver on its duty, in the full knowledge that Parliament is prepared to support its difficult work in calling police officers to account through an unambiguous legislative framework.
What I am not seeking to do through this amendment is tell the Minister what form any sanctions should take, although the IPCC has made a firm statement that it believes the failure to comply with a direction to attend should amount to misconduct. The amendment merely requires the Minister to make a provision for sanctions to be imposed on a serving officer who fails to comply with the interview process. It is a simple provision that failure to comply would be a breach of the prescribed standards of behaviour as defined by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 and would result in misconduct proceedings. That would satisfy all the issues raised and would be clear and unambiguous to all involved. I therefore encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider agreeing to this amendment.
I began by saying that it was a probing amendment to explore the issues involved in imposing sanctions on serving officers who fail to comply with a direction to attend, but I hope the Minister will send out a clear, unambiguous message about the sanctions that he expects to be imposed on those who fail to comply. I am sure that if he does so, he will get the clear and unambiguous support of all Members of this House.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I want to raise a couple of issues. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) that our Second Reading debate served to provide an eloquent account of the context and importance of the Bill, so I shall not repeat any of those themes, but let me repeat, as I never tire of doing, my personal tribute to the families of the 96. As I said before, they should think of this as their Bill.
Our amendment was designed to be a probing amendment, and again I thank the Minister for his response to my letter yesterday. With your agreement, Mr Evans, I shall just ask a few further questions and I hope the Minister will help the Committee by answering them. He said that effective sanctions are available to deal with those officers who do not wish to attend. The question we seek to ask through this amendment is this: to whom are those sanctions available? From what he has said, I take it that they are available to the officer’s force, but we are trying to push for them to be available to the IPCC. What we are doing here is giving the IPCC sufficient powers to make the necessary investigations, so my question to the Minister is this: how will the Government ensure that the IPCC has effective sanctions to deal with those who do not wish to attend?
Arising from that is my second question: is deferral to the police force in question enough? Does the Minister have any evidence to suggest that that is a sufficient way of approaching this issue? I was helped in my thinking about this amendment, which we tabled in recent days, and here I must thank Sally Lipscombe of the House of Commons Library. She quickly looked up for me the regulations that apply, and it appears to me that there are some questions on which an answer from the Minister would be helpful, not the least of which is the point that I have just made about what evidence there is that such a sanction is enough to compel officers to attend.
Thirdly, what happens once a sanction is applied? How does the interview and the evidence-gathering process then proceed? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned, we are concerned here with not only those honourable members of police forces who will be happy and keen to co-operate with the IPCC, but those officers whose evidence is vital but who do not wish to co-operate, for whatever reason—they must understand that for themselves in their own heart. If the force in question does choose to use the sanctions, does the IPCC then have sufficient powers available to ensure that the evidence-gathering interview proceeds properly and informs the investigation?
In essence, I wish to probe the answer to the three questions. How will the Government ensure that the IPCC, de facto as much as de jure, has effective sanction to make sure that people attend and give evidence? Is deferral to the force enough? Do we have any evidence that that is enough? If a sanction is applied, what then happens? How does the IPCC make sure that it has sufficient power for evidence-gathering to proceed?
I will not trouble the Committee any further on the issue of retired officers, except to repeat my earlier words of hope and anticipation that, notwithstanding the fact that many retired officers would want to give evidence freely and happily, all retired officers who may add to this investigation and bring about justice in a speedy fashion will find it in themselves to do so.
In conclusion, I just wish to say that although “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a hackneyed old phrase, it could have been written for this debate. So I anticipate speed, as the Minister has suggested, and I thank all Members of this House, not least those on both Front Benches, for their efforts to date.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I want to press the Minister on a couple of points relating to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), which reflects concerns we have put privately to the Minister outside the Chamber about the powers in the Bill. We had concerns about the sanctions available in the event of officers not participating in discussions with the IPCC when requested according to the provisions in the Bill. The Minister has given me some helpful reassurances—I am sure he will do so again today—on the potential sanctions available to police forces under the current legislation. He recently produced the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012, which relate to the Bill.
I have two questions for the Minister. Can he point out the elements of the draft statutory instrument on the police in England and Wales that he published yesterday that highlight that the sanctions are available to forces? He has outlined that to me privately and I have no doubt that he will do so again today. My cursory reading of the regulations—I accept that it is cursory—shows no mention of sanctions. I accept that provisions are elsewhere in primary legislation, but it would have been helpful to have put in the regulations the sanction we have discussed that is available to police forces.
I want to test the Minister on where the buck will stop ultimately when it comes to exercising the sanctions under other legislation that he has mentioned in our discussions outside the Chamber. We now have police and crime commissioners and chief constables. Where will the buck finally stop on these issues, which are essentially personnel matters? If an officer did not participate in a discussion on a non-criminal matter at the request of the IPCC and the sanctions that the Minister has outlined to me privately and will no doubt outline to the Committee are available, will they be the sole responsibility of the chief constable or could they be overridden by a police and crime commissioner who took a different view? Are these matters operational or strategic?
Stephen Mosley
Surely one of the advantages of police and crime commissioners is that we will have someone who is democratically accountable to the people. If a police and crime commissioner tried to override the decision, I am sure that they would feel the full wrath of public opinion.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think he has missed my point, which is about where the buck stops. This is about the employment terms and conditions of individuals who work in the police service, and if the sanction for not participating in action with the IPCC was dismissal of a police officer, removal of pension or something else under the disciplinary proceedings the Minister has mentioned to me privately, would the chief constable exercise that or could the police and crime commissioner? Would the police and crime commissioner stand aside from the decision or would the chief constable take it alone? I am not trying to complicate matters; I simply want clarity, and this is the time for clarity on the Bill.
If a police and crime commissioner took a different view from the chief constable, where would the buck stop? Is the matter operational? Is it protected, or is it not? That is an important point in achieving clarity, because the Bill is not only about the important matters we are debating on Hillsborough but will be in place for future IPCC investigations until it is amended or repealed. Such investigations might be serious, like Hillsborough, or they might be relatively trivial. I want clarity from the Minister about where the responsibility will lie.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways around the point that he raises would be for the Minister to write to individual forces to provide guidance on what he believes would be an appropriate process for forces to follow, should officers refuse to take part in interviews?
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The Bill is about giving powers to the IPCC to compel officers to give evidence. If officers do not give evidence because they choose not to do so—in discussions with us, the Police Federation gave examples of circumstances where officers may not wish to do so—the IPCC will not be able to take forward the investigations as it wishes in relation to Hillsborough, which is my hon. Friend’s main concern at present. However, the legislation is in place for all time, until it is repealed.
If there are no sanctions, an officer could retreat into their shell. The sanctions that the Minister outlined to me privately are available to the force, but who takes the decision on such sanctions? Would it be appropriate for a police and crime commissioner to learn about the case from constituents or through representations from the MP and to take decisions? Or is it solely a chief constable matter? I pose those questions for debate.
I share the wish for a strong examination of the point made by the hon. Member for City of Chester, supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed the amendment, because the question of what happens when an officer says no is critical to the effectiveness of the Bill. The Minister needs to give a strong assurance that that issue will not cause difficulties with the Hillsborough investigation or for future investigations into matters of concern yet to arise, involving a particular force in a particular area.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The amendment seeks to make express provision, on the face of the Bill, for sanctions in relation to a failure to attend an interview. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and other members of the all-party group for tabling it. As the shadow Police Minister has just said, it airs an important issue. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend and the Committee that such a provision is not needed because the Secretary of State already has the power under the Police Act 1996 to make regulations about misconduct. The effect of the amendment, were it put into law, would be to duplicate a regulation-making power that already exists in the 1996 Act.
I absolutely support the need for an effective sanction for non-attendance. Various suggestions have been made about how we should convey this to those who will have to operate the sanction. I am fairly sure that this discussion will be important in conveying the will of Parliament to those who do that. I must resist the temptation of the suggestion from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) that I should write to chief constables telling them in detail what they should do. That would be the classic interference in operational matters that we seek to avoid, for obvious reasons.
I am satisfied that, in relation to serving officers, an effective sanction for failing to comply with the witness attendance requirement in clause 1 already exists. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 include a provision to the effect that misconduct means a breach of prescribed standards of behaviour. A failure to attend an interview, where required to do so, would be a breach of one or more of the prescribed standards, with the result that the officer should become the subject of misconduct proceedings. Those would be serious misconduct proceedings and could result in the officer’s dismissal.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister has explained the procedures. If he will not write to chief constables to tell them what the disciplinary action should be, I take it that they will be made aware of exactly what is intended and what he has just said.
Damian Green
Absolutely. As I have said, I think that chief constables will be following this debate with some interest.
To answer one of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the draft regulations for the Bill do not include that sanction, because we are clear that it can be imposed under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. Of course, we are in continuing talks with the IPCC about the regulations. To answer his other point, it is right that responsibility for matters relating to discipline and the misconduct of serving officers rests with chief officers. They are the people who should deal with that.
Damian Green
The police and crime commissioner is there to hold the chief officer to account. If they believe that the chief officer is behaving wrongly, they will have a discussion about it, and because the commissioner is elected, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester rightly said, any sensible chief officer would inevitably wish to avoid a public dispute. The point is that the chief officer takes the operational decisions and the police and crime commissioner holds them to account for their effect. His basic question was who was responsible for enforcing the discipline and misconduct regulations, and the answer is the chief officer.
Bill Esterson
I do not want to stray too far into the role of police and crime commissioners, but if a police and crime commissioner has a conversation with a chief constable because they are unhappy about that, or anything else for that matter, what power will the commissioner have to enforce that provision?
Damian Green
Police and crime commissioners have very significant powers in relation to chief constables. Their ultimate power is to dismiss the chief constable if they believe that they are behaving so badly that that ultimate sanction is necessary, so the legislation provides considerable powers.
My main point is that the effect of this change will simply be to replicate powers that are already provided for in statute, but it is also important to note that clause 1 places a witness attendance requirement on different categories of individuals. It applies not only to serving police officers, who are members of police forces and subject to the conduct regulations, but to police staff, who operate under a different conduct regime and are outside the scope of the conduct regulations. As such, it would be neither appropriate nor effective for the Secretary of State to make regulations for a universal sanction applying to those two very different categories of individual.
In clause 1, we have been careful to mirror, as far as possible, the existing provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 relating to the interview attendance requirement for those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC. As such, the two powers should be similar. The existing provisions in the 2002 Act relating to those under investigation do not include any provision for sanctions. To provide expressly for a sanction in primary legislation in relation to witnesses but not to those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC would be anomalous. Such a provision would suggest that the new power relating to witnesses is somehow of greater importance and should be more robust than the existing power relating to suspects, and that position risks falling into confusion, as the right hon. Member for Delyn rightly warned, when we want clarity. That, I am afraid, would be the effect of the amendment; there would be more confusion than clarity. In any case, the Secretary of State has the power to do that.
Let me address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). If a serving officer refuses to attend an IPCC interview, they should be subject to sanctions, which are serious and could result in dismissal. If the officer continues to refuse to attend, they can still be investigated by the IPCC and, where appropriate, charges can still be brought regardless of whether they attended an interview or refused to do so. Therefore, failure to attend the interview is not a way of avoiding the decisions of the IPCC. Such a failure would be a breach of prescribed standards of behaviour, and the officer would rightly become the subject of misconduct proceedings.
The final, overarching point in reply to the hon. Lady’s questions is that the IPCC is an investigatory body. It has not asked for the power to impose sanctions, nor is it particularly well-equipped to exercise that power; it is there to investigate. Having said that, I recognise that we are all anxious to ensure that there is clarity on the availability of an effective sanction.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I do not have the information in front of me, but my impression is that the IPCC did ask for sanctions.
Damian Green
I have spoken to the IPPC, and it clearly stated that it did not want sanctions to be included in the Bill for some of the reasons that I have given. While I am certain that there is no need to amend the Bill, I am happy to give the Committee the assurance that I will continue to discuss the matter with the IPCC to see whether it needs any longer-term changes. In making any changes to regulations, we need to take a consistent approach in terms of sanctions on those who fail to attend as a witness or as a suspect.
Alison McGovern
So that we can absolutely clear, and as the Minister is, I am sure, in constant conversation with the IPCC, will he write to me, as chair of the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster, to confirm that point?
Damian Green
I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady, as indeed I have written to the IPPC. I will send her a copy of that letter so that everyone knows that the position is absolutely clear and that we are all saying the same things in all forums.
If my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester will agree to withdraw his amendment, I assure him and the Committee that we will continue to examine this question further to ensure that the effectiveness of the procedure is maintained as much as possible.
Stephen Mosley
I thank you, Ms Primarolo, and the previous Chairman for allowing the amendment to be debated. It is about an important issue and it was important that Members across the Committee had an opportunity to discuss it. I thank the Members who supported the amendment, which was, as I said, a probing amendment to allow the Minister to clarify the situation. I think that he has done that, and I look forward to reading his response to the chairman of the all-party group. Having heard his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Damian Green
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Members will be relieved to know that I do not intend to detain them for long, because they have heard what I need to say. More importantly, there is broad agreement about the Bill’s urgency and importance. I hope that I have answered the questions raised during this good and detailed discussion. There will, of course, be a further opportunity to consider any issues when the other place debates the Bill next Tuesday. We have considered some important matters today, such as those relating to retired officers and the sanctions available should a serving officer fail to comply, and I hope that Members of all parties who are concerned about those issues are now content.
This short Bill raises important questions, because the underlying issues are extremely important. The Government are grateful for the support of the official Opposition and hon. and right hon. Members of all parties for the Bill, which will allow the Independent Police Complaints Commission to get on with its investigations and finally achieve justice for the 96 victims of the disaster, the many injured and all the families and friends affected by the tragedy.
Mr Hanson
I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to take account of a range of views with regard to this important Bill. I hope that, prior to the debate that will be held soon in another place, he will reflect on the comments made on Second Reading and in Committee and on those that might be made on Third Reading. Obviously, we will watch what happens in another place, but I wish the Bill a speedy passage, because ultimately it is one part of a number of measures to give justice to the 96 Hillsborough victims and their families. It is long overdue and I hope that the IPCC’s investigation will be as swift as possible and thorough. I look forward to the Bill giving it the ability to call officers to account for their actions on that dark day in April 1989.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.