Schedule 3 - Handling of Complaints and - Conduct Matters etc.

Police Reform Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:00 pm on 13 June 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes 4:00, 13 June 2002

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 102, line 43, after 'injury', insert

'or involves corruption or racial discrimination'.

I start by saying that this is a probing amendment, which I understand is the formulation that one uses if one wishes to have it accepted into law. The amendment relates to the reference of complaints to the commission. Paragraph 4 gives the conditions that determine when it is mandatory for a complaint to be referred to the commission, namely when the conduct alleged to have taken place has resulted in death or serious injury. The amendment seeks to extend that to include corruption or racial discrimination, notwithstanding that there is the option for such

matters to be referred on, should they be deemed sufficiently important—that is especially the case with regard to paragraph 4(2).

I turn to the reasons why corruption and racial discrimination have been singled out. Corruption is a very serious offence, and it can involve corruption within the police itself, in which case it is essential that it be dealt with by an independent body, rather than by the police. With regard to racial discrimination, as the Under-Secretary will be aware, in the past 10 or 20 years, relations between ethnic minorities and the police have not always been as strong as they might have been. Although welcome steps have been taken to try to improve matters, relations between them are still unsatisfactory. As the Under-Secretary will know, the targets that have been set for the recruitment of police officers from ethnic minorities have been woefully under-met. That suggests that, sadly, there is still a perception problem with regard to the police and ethnic minorities.

In recent years, many serious complaints have been made on the grounds of racial discrimination, or failure to take action on allegations of racial discrimination, and if what I have suggested were expressed in legislation, that would give a welcome assurance to the sections of our community that feel alienated from the police.

The Under-Secretary might reply by saying that it is possible to pick out other crimes that are equally serious, and which have not been included in that list, and that if one wanted to make the list exhaustive, it would be very long indeed. I understand that point, but I ask him to put on the record his recognition that corruption and allegations of racial discrimination are serious matters, and that, in many cases, they would merit being forwarded to the commission.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

Amendment No. 5 would have the effect of placing a duty on the police to refer a complaint to the commission, if the conduct that is complained about involves corruption or racial discrimination.

Under paragraph 4, the police must refer a complaint to the commission if the conduct that is complained about resulted in death or serious injury or falls into a category specified in regulations, or if it is called in by the commission.

The categories specified in the regulations will include serious corruption and serious racist conduct, as well as shooting incidents in which an officer discharges a firearm in the course of an operation, miscarriages of justice that allegedly result from misconduct, and serious arrestable offences.

The regulations will have the full force of the legislative requirements. However, it is useful for the Secretary of State to be able, from time to time, to amend the categories for which it would be appropriate to have that automatic referral. Nevertheless, complaints about alleged misconduct that lead to death or serious injury will always have to be referred to the commission.

Given my assurance that the regulations will cover serious corruption and racist conduct, I ask the hon.

Gentleman to accept that the amendment is unnecessary.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I wanted to hear the Under-Secretary's response to the hon. Member for Lewes before intervening. It is no surprise that he anticipates such issues being covered in regulations that we have yet to see, and it would help members of the Committee to see a draft of the sort of regulations that the Secretary of State has in mind. If the Under-Secreary is as positive as that, there must be some sort of schematic presentation of such regulations somewhere in the Home Office, and it would help to see it without holding the Under-Secretary and his colleagues to every dot and comma. The Under-Secretary always tries to be helpful to Committees of which he is in charge, and it would help if he could disseminate that information.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

I cannot give a clear commitment, as I do not know how far we are down the road that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will let him know when we have something that we can put in front of him.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's characteristically helpful response. It would be good if he could circulate something, even if it is an early draft. However, I have one concern in relation to the general issue that the hon. Member for Lewes raised. When the Under-Secretary talked about what will be in the regulations, he introduced the qualification ''serious'' when he talked about ''corruption or racial discrimination'', which are not qualified in amendment No. 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. That may go some way to addressing another of my concerns. It is well known to all of us who have been involved in legal matters that if career criminals want to muddy the waters after their arrest, one of the easiest things for a serious gangster to allege is that the police are corrupt. That is commonplace. There should be some way of determining whether the commission should consider an allegation of corruption, or whether it is merely an attempt to muddy the waters.

As the hon. Member for Lewes rightly says, we are all aware of the sensitivity of issues relating to racial discrimination. Before entering the House, one of my jobs as a corporate lawyer involved representing a large national company. From time to time, as happens with large companies, members of staff made entirely spurious allegations of racial discrimination against it, because they thought that by doing so they could get in on what I call the compensation culture and make a large sum of money. I represented the company when a member of staff alleged that a regional manager was guilty of racial discrimination. Unbeknown to the person making this entirely spurious claim, it turned out that that the manager's parents had been refugees from the holocaust. Because of his family background, he was the last person in the world who would be guilty of racial discrimination. When I, and others, cross-examined the person making the spurious complaint in front of an industrial tribunal, it also turned out that one of her allegations in support of her claim was that the area manager had said to a chap in reception who happened to be from an ethnic minority, ''Oh,

you look like Neil Diamond.'' That was purely a reference to the dress that he was wearing. Neil Diamond was white, which completely undermined the basis of the complaint. It had been intended as a compliment—not racial discrimination—about his style of dress. Spurious complaints can be made as part of compensation culture. Cautious words, which the Under-Secretary suggests will appear in the regulations, are necessary about allegations of serious discrimination.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department 4:15, 13 June 2002

The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about racial discrimination, but I referred to racist conduct. The two are different: it is possible to behave in a racist way without necessarily discriminating against people. I am not sure whether we can go further, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that paragraph 27 of the White Paper provided a list of the issues that might fall into that category.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I am grateful, but a list in the White Paper might be different from the regulations that the Secretary of State makes. I am asking for a draft of what the final regulations might contain. Time has moved on since the White Paper. I used the words ''racial discrimination'' because the hon. Member for Lewes employed the term in his amendment. I accept that the Under-Secretary used different words when he spoke about the proposed regulations.

It is important to maintain a sense of balance. When members of the Committee see a draft of the regulations, we will have a better idea. On balance, there is little difference between the spirit and the intention of what the two Opposition parties want to achieve. We have to be aware that some people throw about allegations that could be intended to clog up the workings of the IPCC. We do not want its creation to lead to a vast explosion of the compensation culture. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes will understand why I say that.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tour de force around ''Neil Diamond land''.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about corruption allegations. When someone makes an allegation and a case is live, I am unsure whether it is better to leave it to one side until the case is settled, whether the police should settle it, or whether it should clog up the IPCC, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, that is not part of the amendment that I tabled. It is a probing amendment and I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's assurance that the issues that I raised will feature in the regulations. It would be helpful to see a draft set of regulations, but given the Under-Secretary's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 103, line 3, at end insert

'or—

(d) the complainant makes a written representation to the appropriate authority stating the grounds on which he or she is dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint and requesting that the matter be referred to the Commission.'.

The amendment relates to a matter that I raised on Second Reading, as reported in column 57 on 7 May 2002. My concern is that the IPCC may indeed become clogged up with allegations, some of which may be justified. I understand that only a small secretariat is proposed and that only about 3 per cent. of complaints would be dealt with directly by the IPCC, the rest being subject to settlement at a lower level.

Nothing is wrong with that. There is no reason why the IPCC should see every single complaint and deal with it directly itself. It may be satisfactory to ask for a complaint to be dealt with informally and deal only with the more serious matters. However, an explicit right should be given to a complainant who is not satisfied with how the complaint has been dealt with by the body about which the complaint was made to have an independent examination of that complaint.

I draw a parallel, as I did on Second Reading, with a local council. When someone complains about a local council he will perhaps deal first with the officer who has dealt with the matter or with a councillor. The matter may then go to the chief executive or through to a council's complaints panel. At that stage, if the complainant remains unhappy—this happens in a minority of cases—the complainant can take the matter to the local government ombudsman, which is an independent body that will look at that.

Unless the Under-Secretary corrects me, I see no explicit provision within the Bill that says that a person will have the right to refer the matter on to the IPCC if he is not satisfied with the way that the complaint has been dealt with informally. When I raised that matter on Second Reading, the Minister of State said:

''an individual who is dissatisfied by the action taken in a substantial number of cases that would usually be resolved at force level, as at present, will be able to complain to the commission about the handling of his case.'' [Interruption.]

Photo of Ann Widdecombe Ann Widdecombe Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is extremely difficult for the Chairman and Hansard staff to concentrate on what is being said if a continuous and audible conversation is taking place.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

Thank you, Miss Widdecombe. I am sure that the hon. Members to my right were discussing the importance of the amendment. The Minister continued:

''That facility is not available at the moment. Clearly, the commission's staff will carry out the investigation in only a minority of cases and the IPCC will directly manage, as opposed to supervising, a further minority of those investigations.''—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 57.]

I have no problem with that system. It is fine. Of course the IPCC cannot get involved in every nut and bolt, but an escape mechanism is needed for when a complainant feels that a complaint has not been dealt with properly. It should then be dealt with directly by the IPCC. My amendment achieves that and is also in line with the response given to me by the Minister of State on Second Reading when he recognised the importance of that independent process. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have sympathy with the

amendment and will recognise the importance of a complainant having the right to go directly to the IPCC and have the complaint investigated by that body if he or she is dissatisfied with the way that it has been dealt with further down the process.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I shall be fairly brief. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Lewes and apologise to you, Miss Widdecombe. I was involved in discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), but we were trying to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. If the complainant simply has to write a note to put the whole matter into the hands of the IPCC, it may achieve the exact opposite of his objective. The commission may have only a small secretariat. Once again I express my concern that the whole thing might be clogged up. As constituency Members we are all sadly familiar with the fact that a relatively small proportion of the population are professional complainers. They are never satisfied with anything. They always want to push any complaint to the nth degree. If that small category of people only had to do write a note to have the matter dealt with by the IPCC rather than a police authority, it would seriously clog up the commission's work, perhaps with the least serious of the complaints.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the intention of the amendment. Complainants would go through the normal process. They would make a complaint. It would be deemed appropriate to be investigated by the police force itself or whatever. Only if a complainant were unhappy after that would he be able to ask for that direct intervention and consideration by the IPCC, just as someone who had gone through the usual local council complaints procedure could complain to the ombudsman.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

If the objective is to have that exhaustive procedure before the right to write a letter can come into force, I am not sure whether that is achieved by the amendment. We will hear from the Under-Secretary about that in a moment. Even in those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman not think from all his experiences as a constituency Member that certain people will never be satisfied? I am sure we are all familiar with the situation where people will simply not take no for an answer. I am concerned about that, even if it occurs after an exhaustive process. If the proposal of the hon. Member for Lewes were accepted, we would need a fail-safe mechanism to rule out vexatious and spurious complaints and to ensure that the time of the IPCC was not wasted. There is also the compensation culture issue, whereby people may think that they could get money by taking something to the IPCC.

I will listen to what the Under-Secretary says. There are concerns about the proposal, although I understand its spirit and do not want to undermine its worthy motive.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

Let me say a word about the comment of the hon. Member for Lewes, which he has made before, on the percentage of cases that the IPCC will deal with; I have heard it said repeatedly that it will deal with only 3 per cent. We are trying to set up a system that will win and lift public confidence. That

will be damaged if it gets into the public mind that the IPCC will deal with only 3 per cent. I do not believe that that figure is accurate. At the moment, about 30,000 complaints a year are made; 10,000 of them are not proceeded with and 10,000 are resolved locally without a formal complaint being made. Of the remaining 10,000, we envisage that the IPCC will deal directly with about 1,000 and manage and oversee another 1,000. There is therefore a good argument that the IPCC will effectively deal with or supervise around 20 per cent. of cases. Those numbers compare with those for the Police Complaints Authority, which dealt last year with 600 cases. I do not want the impression to get out to the public at large that the IPCC will have a minuscule input because that would undermine the objective, shared by all parties, to raise the level of confidence in how complaints are dealt with.

Amendment No. 139 would have the effect of placing a duty on the police to refer a complaint to the commission if the complainant makes a written representation to the police saying why he or she is dissatisfied with the way in which the police are dealing with the complaint and asking for it to be referred to the commission. People could therefore jump in at any point while the complaint is being dealt with and have it referred to the commission, which would place the responsibility for deciding on the handling of the complaint with the commission rather than the police. However, if the commission decides that the complaint does not need to be investigated, it will be referred back to the police. Even if the commission decides that the complaint should be investigated it may in any case, under paragraph 15 of schedule 3, ask the police to carry out the investigation on its behalf.

Many complainants are likely to want the commission rather than the police to decide on the handling of complaints, especially where misconduct by an officer may undermine a complainant's confidence in the force as a whole. However, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, that would place an unnecessary burden on the commission as well as removing from the police responsibility for handling and therefore also ownership of complaints. No one wants that. The Bill places a duty on the police to refer complaints to the commission if the alleged misconduct has resulted in death or serious injury and regulations will place a similar duty on the police where an allegation involves, for example, serious corruption or serious racist conduct. Moreover, the commission will be able to call in any recorded complaint and the police will be able to refer any other complaint to the commission if they consider it appropriate to do so in serious or exceptional cases.

Those measures together should ensure that all complaints that need to be considered by the commission are referred to it. If complainants were given the right to insist that their complaints be referred to the commission, it is likely that the commission would have to consider a large number of additional complaints—of which the vast majority, if not all, will end up being dealt with by the police anyway. A considerable amount of the commission's resources would have been used in considering a

complaint, without there being any difference in the way in which it was dealt with. It is even possible that complainants' expectations of the commission's ongoing involvement in their cases may be raised to unrealistic levels, and that could undermine public confidence in the system as a whole.

I know what the hon. Member for Lewes wants to achieve, but I do not believe that the amendment would accomplish it. If, at the end of the process, a complainant is unhappy with the way in which the complaint had been dealt with and disposed of, nothing can stop the person writing to the commission, which would deal with such correspondence. We do not want to give the impression that the commission will be dealing with complaints when it will not. We do not want to impose an unrealistic burden on it and remove ownership of the complaints system from the police. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the ramifications of the amendment and to withdraw it.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes 4:30, 13 June 2002

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for replying at such length. To be fair, the amendment is not worded very well; I probably drafted it late at night. It would have a different effect from the one that I wanted. It would allow someone to refer on a complaint, which is not what I intended. When the process has been exhausted, I want people to have the right to contact the IPCC and say that they were not happy with the result, and ask the commission to reconsider it. The commission may undertake a cursory examination. It may say that it had examined the evidence and that it was satisfied that the matter was dealt with properly.

The Under-Secretary, Conservative Members and I all want the same thing. The hon. Gentleman referred to winning public confidence in the system, and that is what I am trying to achieve. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to a small minority of vexatious persons who will use the system and clog it up. I agree with him. We all repeatedly receive letters in our postbags and visits in our surgeries from the same people. At least, that happens to me. I understand that, but the difficulty is that those people, if refused the right to contact the IPCC direct at the end of the process, will then say, ''Oh, this process is useless. I believed that matters would change, but all that has happened is that the police investigated the matter. The investigation was not carried out independently. It is a stitch-up.'' I am confident that it will not be, but people will say that.

I was seeking a way in which people could have the last gasp and resort to the IPCC at the end of process. If people are unhappy with their dealings with the local council, they can contact the ombudsman. He may say that he is happy with the council's decision, but, in those circumstances, at least people know that such matters have been considered independently. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

Whether or not the complaints have been dealt with locally or formally, there is nothing to stop a complainant contacting the commission. That provides an incentive to the force to deal with the

complaint appropriately and to try its best to satisfy people. The schedule provides the back stop for which the hon. Gentleman is asking, without the need for his amendment.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for saying that people can write to the IPCC. He did not say that it would necessarily consider such complaints. That is perhaps the missing half of the equation. Nevertheless, I accept that the amendment is badly drafted and I have been able to raise my concern. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 111, line 36, at end insert—

'(c) the need to secure, preserve and promote public confidence in the independence of the system of dealing with complaints against police officers.'.

Photo of Ann Widdecombe Ann Widdecombe Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald

With this we may discuss amendment No. 247, in page 115, line 9, at end insert—

'(9) The Commission shall take into account the need to secure, preserve and promote public confidence in the independence of the system of dealing with complaints against police officers.'.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

The amendment relates to investigations and subsequent proceedings under part 3 of schedule 3. Paragraph 15(3) states:

''In making a determination—''

on the form of an investigation—

''under sub-paragraph (2) the Commission shall have regard to the following factors—

(a) the seriousness of the case; and

(b) the public interest.''

The amendment would add a third criterion for consideration:

''the need to secure, preserve and promote public confidence in the independence of the system of dealing with complaints against police officers.''

In a way, the amendment explains the reason for setting up the IPCC. Its purpose in many ways is to promote public confidence in the independence of the system for dealing with complaints against police officers, so the amendment is bang in the middle of what the Government are seeking to achieve. I think that we should add those words to the Bill, because although a case may come before the commission that is not regarded as particularly serious in a criminal sense and in which there is not an immediately obvious public interest, it might be important to proceed in a particular way to give the public confidence in the system's independence. Amendment No. 247 is consequential on amendment No. 6.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I shall be brief. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Lewes, and it would do no harm to add his sub-paragraph (3)(c) to the Bill. I simply wonder whether the widest possible definition of the words ''public interest'' in sub-paragraph (3)(b) might incorporate the meaning of the words in the amendment. Nevertheless, just in case it is necessary to be specific, I shall listen with interest to what the

Minister has to say. As the hon. Member for Lewes rightly said, the purpose of setting up a truly independent body is to try to ensure the factor that he sets out in the amendment.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

The hon. Member for Lewes will be surprised to know that I agree with him, too. He talked about the ''purpose'' of the IPCC. I understand the difficulties of opposition and of trying to see where there are potential gaps in clauses, but I refer him to clause 9(1), which deals with the general functions of the commission. It states:

''The functions of the Commission shall be . . . to secure that public confidence is established and maintained in the existence of suitable arrangements with respect to those matters and with the operation of the arrangements that are in fact maintained with respect to those matters''.

Clause 9(1)(d) deals with exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, so we believe that it is covered. He is right to say that it is central to the functions of the IPCC, but it is covered in the Bill. Having pointed that out, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

When the Minister began, I thought for a moment that he was going to accept the amendment, but there we are—one lives in hope. I understand what he says. My point is indeed covered earlier in the Bill, and it had also occurred to me before I tabled the amendment that it could be covered by the phrase ''public interest''. However, I thought, and still think, that it would be useful to spell the matter out at this point, because it relates specifically to the form of an investigation, rather than the general functions of the commission. Nevertheless, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 115, line 40, after 'authority;' insert—

'(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the subject matter of the investigation under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.

Photo of Ann Widdecombe Ann Widdecombe Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 155 to 167 and Government new clause 11—Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

One of the key objectives of part 2 is to increase openness in the police complaints system by providing for the maximum disclosure of information to complainants subject to a sensitivity test. There might, however, be circumstances in which a person, for example the relative of a deceased person, does not wish to make a complaint. As the Bill stands, that person would have no entitlement to receive information about the progress of the investigation into the conduct of those whose actions allegedly led to the death of their relative.

The Government believe that any person who has suffered serious injury or the death of a relative should automatically be treated as a complainant for the purposes of being kept informed. The amendments enable that to happen.

We want to extend the principle of the maximum possible openness for complainants to all people who

have a legitimate interest in a case. The police will have to keep specific people, such as relatives of those who have died allegedly as a result of police misconduct, informed to the same degree as complainants. The Secretary of State will set out in regulations the relatives who should have the right to be kept informed, but obviously they will be those who are closest to the deceased.

New clause 11 will allow the police or the IPCC to be proactive about keeping any people whom they consider to be legitimately interested informed about the investigation without such people having to make a complaint first.

Photo of James Paice James Paice Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

The Under-Secretary will not be surprised to hear that we are more than happy with the principle of transparent sharing of information, which the amendments and new clause will bring in. However, our discussion relates to the previous amendments because my concern is to ensure that the process of keeping people informed does not become so burdensome that it detracts from the principal purpose of achieving a proper investigation.

I ask the Under-Secretary the people whom he envisages will be considered as relatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said earlier, the sad situation is that people can be awkward and take up much time by wanting to know every dot and comma of progress, and that detracts from the progress of the inquiry. We are discussing not the outcome of the inquiry, but its progress. The principal objective is to get the progress going and to maintain it rather than getting too bogged down by telling all and sundry about it.

I was especially worried about new clause 11(2)(b), which mentions

''a relative of a person whose serious injury is the alleged result from that conduct and that person is incapable of making a complaint''.

Obviously, somebody would have made a complaint because otherwise there would not be an investigation. There is a case for limiting the number of people who may ring up to ask how the inquiry is getting on. Will the Under-Secretary give us more detail about how narrow the criteria will be?

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he raised a question that I touched on. The word ''a'' rather than ''all'' is used. We intend—we shall get the wording right in the regulations—that in the overwhelming majority of cases, people who will inquire will be the main relative, who is usually the next of kin. We want to allow for circumstances, such as those due to family situations, in which two main people may inquire. We do not want to impose the burden of a necessity to inform all people down to second cousins or to have a situation such as that about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly worried. It is highly appropriate and desirable to keep families informed through a main person or, if one person is insufficient, a couple of people.

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Labour, Lewisham East

The Opposition have a point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some reassurance. I am sure that many of us are aware of people who jump on bandwagons at times of crisis for families in such

circumstances. Such people, usually a makeshift organisation, persuade families in emotional difficulties to take them on board, and front up the complaints system. I hope that the Under-Secretary will ensure that such people will not have to be constantly kept informed.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department 4:45, 13 June 2002

I hope that some of my comments have reassured my hon. Friend. We are discussing a person who has been identified as responsible for keeping a family informed. Obviously if they do not want to be informed, that will not be forced on them. We do not intend to give everyone a right to be kept informed but only a main individual.

In addition, a complaint does not have to be made for an investigation to be conducted. The commission may decide to conduct an investigation without a complaint having been made, in a proactive way. In such circumstances, we need the legal ability, which the Bill would lack if the amendments were not made, to keep a family member informed of progress.

Hon. Members are right about the burden that could result if we do not get this right. I am sure that everyone agrees with the sentiment behind the proposal and that we must have the legal ability to do what we want competently and without imposing a duty on organisations that would detract from their main purpose of conducting the investigation. The points have been well made and are well accepted, and I hope that we shall satisfy hon. Members when we draft the regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 155, in page 117, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

'(4) It shall be the duty of the Commission to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (4A) if criminal proceedings are brought against any person by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any matters dealt with in a report copied to him under sub-paragraph (2)(c).

(4A) Those persons are—

(a) in the case of a complaint, the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and

(b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section.'.

No. 156, in page 117, line 46, leave out from '(7)(b)' to 'setting', in line 48, and insert

'the Commission shall give a notification to—

(a) in the case of a complaint, to the complainant and to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and

(b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section.

(8A) The notification required by sub-paragraph (8) is one'.

No. 157, in page 117, line 50, leave out 'that determination' and insert

'the Commission's determination under sub-paragraph (7)(b)'.

No. 158, in page 118, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

'(4) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (4A) if criminal proceedings are brought against any person by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any matters dealt with in a report copied to him under sub-paragraph (2)(b).

(4A) Those persons are—

(a) in the case of a complaint, the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and

(b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section.'.

No. 159, in page 119, line 3, leave out from '(5)' to 'setting', in line 5, and insert

'the appropriate authority shall give a notification to—

(a) in the case of a complaint, to the complainant and to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and

(b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section.

(6A) The notification required by sub-paragraph (6) is one'

No. 160, in page 119, line 7, leave out 'that sub-paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph (5)'.

No. 161, in page 119, line 36, after 'authority' insert

', every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant)'.

No. 162, in page 120, line 39, after 'complainant;' insert—

'(bb) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.

No. 163, in page 120, line 45, after 'complainant;' insert—

'(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.

No. 164, in page 121, line 35, after 'complainant;' insert—

'(bb) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.

No. 165, in page 121, line 41, after 'complainant;' insert—

'(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.

No. 166, in page 123, line 14, after 'complainant' insert

'and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant)'.

No. 167, in page 123, line 24, after 'complainant' insert

'and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant)'.—[Mr. Ainsworth.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.