Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Brett (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 October 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.


Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, the IPCC was set up in 2004 to undertake a dual role of ensuring the effective and efficient operation of the whole of the police complaints system for England and Wales, and to raise public confidence in that system. It was established by the Police Reform Act 2002, Section 10 of which sets out its general functions. Those include securing the maintenance of an effective system for handling complaints against the police in England and Wales. The Act gives the IPCC the necessary powers to investigate complaints by the public against the conduct of any person serving with the police, and the ability to carry out its own independent investigations into the most serious cases. For example, the IPCC is undertaking a number of independent investigations following complaints about police conduct during the recent G20 demonstrations. The Act purposely does not extend the remit of the IPCC to deal with complaints relating to matters of direction and control, which would of course be the effect of the proposed amendment. However, the powers given to the IPCC include that to make recommendations following an investigation into a complaint, and such recommendations could extend to suggesting a review of strategy or tactics. I understand the concern that the police should be properly accountable, not only for the conduct of individual officers but more generally. Chief police officers are of course accountable to police authorities. The police are also subject to the law of the land, and their actions can be scrutinised by the courts. The proper body for providing oversight of the more general strategic and operational nature of policing tactics is, clearly, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. As the, ""fierce advocate and guarantor of the public interest"," it has responsibility for monitoring the performance of police forces and authorities. The inspectorate is best placed to deal with issues regarding operational and strategic policing, which are not tackled in the first instance by the chief constable of the police authority concerned. HMIC is about to publish a full and comprehensive review into policing and protest, and we will work with the police service to ensure that its recommendations and conclusions are properly assessed and acted upon. That is the correct way forward, and in the light of it, I hope that this report is helpful and that the noble Baroness will find it unnecessary to leave her amendment on the Marshalled List. I believe that the accounting mechanisms we have are, with strict application, fit for purpose.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c683-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Criminal records Codes of practice Accountability Crime prevention Crime Bail Demonstrations Assets Costs Confiscation orders Crown dependencies Aircraft Airports Customs officers British Transport Police Department for Transport Crown Court Finance Fees and charges Licensing Extradition Human rights Immigration Genetics Drugs Isle of Man Home Office Independent Police Complaints Commission Ministerial powers Parking Personal records Northern Ireland Police Powers Public appointments Proceeds of crime Property Railway stations Magistrates' courts Proof of identity Police authorities Scotland Vetting Stop and search Republic of Ireland Training Security Trespass Right of search Video recordings Rendition Sex establishments Airspace Common travel area European arrest warrants
Legislation
Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk