Clause 10 - Reports to the Secretary of State
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 10, line 22, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).

This is a small but important amendment. As the clause stands, when the Secretary of State receives a report that falls under subsection (5), he only has to lay a copy of it before Parliament and cause it to be published

''if and to the extent that he considers it appropriate to do so''.

We do not think that it is sensible to attach that condition to the Secretary of State's duties. We think that any report made to the Secretary of State on something as important as the matters dealt with in part 2, which relates to complaints, misconduct and reports from the IPCC, should come before Parliament. After all, we are here to consider matters of concern.

If the IPCC thinks something is sufficiently important to report on it to the Secretary of State, surely every Member of Parliament should see that report. I cannot think of many issues that have caused more controversy and used more parliamentary time than complaints about police. There have been acres of newsprint on the subject, some justified and some not. In the more than 10 years in which I have been in the House, and in the many years before that when I practised at the Bar, police complaints were a matter of huge public and media concern.

If the new independent commission, which will reassure many of those who thought that the old Police Complaints Authority was not sufficiently independent, makes a report about something, it should not be left to this or a future Secretary of State to decide whether it is convenient for Parliament to have sight of it. The provision gives far too much power to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friends and I have said about many aspects of the Bill that the Secretary of State is arrogating to himself far too many draconian powers. The provision is constitutionally dangerous, and it is terribly dangerous for the Secretary of State to have the discretion to say, ''I might tell Parliament about it if I choose to, but I might not.'' The Under-Secretary will have to work quite hard to convince my hon. Friends and me that the limitation is needed.

The amendment's reference to subsection 5(a) and (b) was purely probing, and enabled me to raise the issue. It is the condition in sub-paragraph (b) and the words

''if and to the extent that he''—

that is, the Secretary of State—

''considers it appropriate to do so''

to which we object. I shall listen with interest to whether the Minister can justify the restriction on what the Secretary of State must do.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do that, because if he does, I am hopeful that I will be

able to convince him that his amendment is inappropriate. However, his motivation, which is to ensure that there is openness, is right. That is the founding principle of the system that we are seeking to establish.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, and cause to be published, every report that he receives from the IPCC. It must be remembered that reports will be made to the Secretary of State because he has asked for them, or because the commission feels it is necessary to bring something to his attention.

That is not the only avenue for the commission to make its reports. If it feels that information should be made public, or made available to the police service, it can do that through the annual report, or through its ability to give advice directly to the police service and other interested persons under the provisions of subsections (10) and (11). Therefore, it will not be possible for this—or any future—Home Secretary to prevent the publication of information that the commission wishes to be made known to a wider audience than the Secretary of State.

It would potentially be harmful to the public interest if the Bill were to demand that reports to the Secretary of State be published. It is highly likely that this amendment would result in the commission not writing any reports for the Secretary of State, or in useful information being excluded because it was felt that it might be harmful if it were made public. The Secretary of State should have discretion with regard to whether to publish these reports, having considered all the relevant factors.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the system is based on openness, and that to fulfil the spirit of the system it will be appropriate to make the reports available to the public in as many cases as possible. Nevertheless, there may be times when it is not right for these reports to be disclosed.

The hon. Gentleman is worried about an abuse of power by the Secretary of State, and he wants to ensure that everything is open. However, when the commission has the ability to put anything it likes into the public domain through a variety of mechanisms, in some circumstances the effect of the amendment would be to prevent—or at least to discourage—not the Secretary of State from doing anything, but the IPCC itself. There might be circumstances in which it wanted to make a report to the Secretary of State, and it would feel more comfortable doing that if it knew that he had discretion with regard to what should be put into the public domain. If it wants to make an open report, it is free to do so. No Home Secretary will able to stop it doing that.

Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman's intention is to be open—his desire is to ensure that the Home Secretary does not have any powers that he should not have—I fear that the effect of his amendment will be to restrict not the Home Secretary, but the IPCC. He said that he would listen to what I had to say. Therefore, I ask him to take on board my comments—to accept

that the Secretary of State has no power to prevent the IPCC from putting whatever it wants into the public domain—and to withdraw his amendment. That would allow the IPCC, where it believes it to be appropriate, to make reports to the Secretary of State, without the inevitable consequence that each and every part of that report has to be put into the public domain.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary has said, and I understand his point that there might be exceptional reasons why a certain category of report might not need to be published. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I may not have chosen the perfect approach, but I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for at least accepting that the spirit of our intentions is worthy and for understanding the philosophy behind them. My worry was more broadly concerned with parliamentary scrutiny than the whole matter going before a wider public. I freely concede that the words

''and cause the report to be published''

would place every report in the public domain.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that my suggestion that parliamentary scrutiny could be dealt with differently? A different exception could be added at the end of subsection (5), saying:

''and caused the report to be published (except in circumstances where the commission and the Home Secretary both felt that there was an exceptional public interest reason for it not to be in the public domain).''

Alternatively, will the Government consider tabling an amendment, under which the Home Affairs Committee can see every report? We want to ensure that an issue that is sufficiently important for the IPCC to report it to the Home Secretary is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. A form of wording may enable that to happen without all reports having to enter a wide public domain. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will consider that. He knows where we are coming from. There is no division in the Committee about the need for openness.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I shall make changes. I try to be reasonable and consider all proposals that are put to me. I hope he accepts that, given our previous exchanges in other Committees. I am sure that he accepts my point that the amendment would trammel the IPCC and not the Home Secretary. I am not saying that I shall not consider the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not want to give the impression that I want to move away from allowing the IPCC to give reports to the Home Secretary with the comfort of knowing that, when it is not appropriate, they will not go further than him.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I accept from all my dealings with the Under-Secretary that he is reasonable and thinks constructively about such matters. I am grateful to him for his intervention. It gives me the comfort of knowing that he will give further thought to the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I accept that there could be

better ways in which to deal with the problem to take account of our worries and the risks that may arise from the wording of the amendment. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.