Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Rosser

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

I speak following the very courageous and relevant speech that we have just heard. I do not think that there can be any possible objection to strengthening the law, which is what is proposed. There can be no dispute at all that corrupt relationships between the police and newspapers are highly damaging to both, and they are unacceptable to the public, who must be able to trust both. In a democratic society, which I hope we are, it is absolutely vital that there should be trust in both, and the amendment simply seeks to bolster that position. I can see no objection at all to the purpose of the amendment. I ask anybody here to say what damage it could do to the law. In fact, I think that strengthening the law in this way is absolutely vital, and there should be no question about that.

For many years I practised in the criminal courts. I came across decent police officers who did not bend the truth at all, but I also came across certain police officers who were quite prepared to do exactly that, and in our society that is absolutely unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will appreciate how strongly those of us who have experience in this field feel about this.

I am pretty old now but I still attend this House, although some, including my wife, have some reservations about that. But I was particularly concerned about this issue. Everything which concerns the police is relevant to a democratic society. In my view, it is an absolute necessity as far as this is concerned. There is a gap at the moment, or there may be, that ought to be cured. Many people who have experience in this area recognise that. There should be no question about it.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for too long. As has been said, the amendment would require the Prime Minister to commission an independent inquiry into the operation of the police complaints system in respect of allegations of corrupt relationships between the police and newspaper organisations. It also provides that the inquiry would proceed only once the Attorney-General has determined that the inquiry, if conducted effectively and fairly, would not be likely to prejudice any ongoing relevant criminal investigations or court proceedings cases.

As has already been pointed out, in November 2012 the then Prime Minister reminded the victims of press intrusion that when he set up the Leveson inquiry he had also said that there would be a second stage to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police, and that the Government remained committed to the inquiry as it was first established. However, real doubts about the Government’s willingness to honour that promise have arisen—hence this amendment. Those doubts have been increased by the Government’s recent decision to consult, including on whether to stick by the promises previously given by the then Prime Minister that there would be a Leveson stage 2.

Police and press relations is a significant area still to be addressed. Briefings by the police in the immediate aftermath of the Hillsborough tragedy had a profound adverse impact on the families who had lost loved ones, and on the thousands who had been at the match and returned home in a state of some trauma, only to read a few days later that the police were blaming them for the deaths of their friends and family. The media were also manipulated in the case of the Shrewsbury 24, and part 1 of the Leveson inquiry found unhealthy links between senior Met police officers and newspaper executives—links which led to resignations. There is also, on occasion, an issue around the nature of relationships between the police and the press at a more local level, where sometimes prior information appears to have been provided about a particular person to be arrested or a particular search carried out.

Honouring a repeated undertaking given by a Government through a Prime Minister, to victims in particular, and with all-party support, is the issue that this amendment seeks to address. If, having heard the Government’s response, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, decides to seek the opinion of the House, we shall be voting in favour of the amendment.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

It is indeed, my Lords. If we thought that we would lose a large number—or a majority—of the experienced staff due to this change, we would not do it. However, I see no reason why aviation security specialists who currently work for the DfT would not be equally happy working for the CAA. If they were being invited to work in the private sector, that could be much more of an issue. However, they will be transferring from one respected government department to another respected organisation.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank my noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Clinton-Davis for their helpful contributions. The Minister said, I believe, that the driving force on the financial side was the principle that the user pays. Surely when we talk about aviation security regulation the principle that the user pays should not take precedence over the principle that we want the most effective security regulation arrangements.

I have not yet heard the Minister or anyone else argue that the current arrangements, which we have had for a number of years, are not highly successful and effective, as they are recognised to be. Frankly, if the real reason for this change is financial—namely, that the user pays—and is not based on improving the present arrangements for aviation security regulation, I suggest that the Government have got wrong the driving force for the change. Certainly I have not heard from the Minister any criticism of the current arrangements, any indication of how they have failed or any indication of how they will be made more successful and more efficient by the proposed change.

The Minister said that we should not go into detail about numbers. However, as I said, in Committee in the other place the Transport Minister referred to numbers and said that 80 staff might be seconded rather than transferred. I made reference to the view that was expressed that it might be better if staff were seconded rather than transferred.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

The Minister did not say how often this provision will be regarded. When I was Civil Aviation Minister, it was inevitably the case that this would be reviewed regularly. I hope that this provision will continue to apply.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank my noble friend for that point. Perhaps the Minister will comment on it in a moment.

I asked whether the Minister could give an update on how many staff will be transferred and how many will be seconded and say why secondment would not be a better option for staff generally. I am not asking him to go into the details of discussions that are taking place, but he might be able to respond to those particular points. Is the Minister willing to do so before I withdraw the amendments? I intend to withdraw them—as I said, they are probing amendments.

[Earl Attlee]

The Government believe that industry will benefit from the efficiencies that could be gained from having aviation security and safety regulation in one place. The CAA has potentially valuable experience of safety management systems that are designed to manage risks as effectively as possible. We think that this experience, coupled with the skills and experience of the DfT staff, could bring real benefit to how we regulate aviation security in the UK. That move would also mean that the principle that the user pays is applied to aviation security in the same way as it is applied to aviation safety.

Charging the industry for the regulation of aviation security will align it with the vast majority of other forms of regulation, including the CAA’s regulation of aviation safety. The aviation industry already meets the costs of providing security at close to £1 billion per annum, so the cost of regulation at £4.8 million per annum is a small addition that could be neutralised by efficiency savings arising from the reform package.

The noble Lord asked me about secondments, which the PCS trade union also raised in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. We can look at how secondments might be used as we develop our plans for the transfer. However, we consider that seconding DfT staff to the CAA instead of transferring them is unlikely to help to ensure that experienced staff remain with the CAA when the secondments end.