HC Deb 11 April 1962 vol 657 cc1460-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

It is now nearly seven months since the incidents in Trafalgar Square which the Commissioner of Police was asked to investigate and I had hoped that it would not have been necessary at this late date to make reference to those events again. Nevertheless, the report of the Commissioner which was submitted to the House in a statement made by the Home Secretary on 1st March was of such a nature that I have felt it necessary to ask for this Adjournment debate tonight and also to recapitulate briefly the main points which the Commissioner was asked by members of the public who were concerned at the events in Trafalgar Square to investigate.

In a debate on the Adjournment on 17th October last my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) mentioned a number of incidents involving violence on members of the public who were in Trafalgar Square at that time. He mentioned them by name and he gave full particulars of several very serious cases. At the conclusion of the debate he asked for an independent inquiry into these incidents.

On 19th of October, in another place, Lord Kilbracken gave additional evidence of incidents which should be investigated. He mentioned that after midnight in the square a large force of constables fell upon the few hundred remaining demonstrators and that they acted in a collective organised way and, therefore, obviously with orders from above. Constables would grab hold of demonstrators by an arm or leg, or by the scruff of the neck, and drag them at the double the full length of the square.

The noble Lord went on to draw attention to one very serious aspect of the matter. That was that, after midnight, of the six Members of Parliament who had gone as observers five had gone home and only the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) was left and he was arrested at 12.15. One reporter was arrested while taking notes in the square, two B.B.C. cameramen and a Granada cameraman were arrested in the square, another reporter was threatened with arrest unless he left the square, and a third who requested re-admission was violently told to leave. A fourth was pulled from a telephone box as he was phoning copy to his newspaper and told to leave the area and not come back. A crew from the I.T.A. stated that they had full co-operation from the police until 12.25, but were then told by the police that they could use no lights and were later escorted from the square.

I reiterate these points because these were incidents which were mentioned in the House and in another place which anybody who was concerned about the behaviour of the police and the rights of the public would expect an investigation to examine and report upon. The National Council for Civil Liberties published a very full account of other incidents and gave eye-witness accounts of them. One in particular refers to a Mr. Adam Roberts. The Council's report said that The police deliberately hurled him to the ground so that his head struck the floor with an eggshell sound. That was a statement by the Mayor of Greenwich, who saw the incident.

The report goes on: About five policemen came in dragging him with their hands and kicking him with their knees and feet. These incidents led a number of Members of this House to ask the Home Secretary again on 9th November if he would hold a full public inquiry. He said that he could not do that, that he was awaiting the Report of the Commissioner of Police. On 1st March the Home Secretary made a statement about the report of the Commissioner which he had then received. The statement he made to the House was a very brief one, and I should like to quote the main part of what he said. It was that the Commissioner had investigated each of the 54 specific complaints made, and that he had concluded that the great majority of the police officers concerned acted properly and indeed, in very difficult circumstances, with commendable restraint. But towards the end of this long operation there appear to have been a few cases, during the clearance of the Square and afterwards, in which some officers fell short of this standard. In particular, it appears that four or, possibly, five individuals were put in the fountain basins. This was, of course, most improper. Unfortunately, the complainants were unable to identify any officers concerned and most searching inquiries have failed to do so. A police sergeant has been admonished for allowing a hose to be turned on in the yard at Bow Street when some demonstrators were there, although it was not directed at them. A woman police sergeant has also been admonished for a remark to which objection could properly be taken. That was practically all that the Home Secretary said about the Commissioner's report, although he did add: Police records show that only six members of the public asked for medical attention because of injury and I am glad to say that all the injuries were slight and no one was admitted to hospital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1537–8.] This seems to me to be a most inadequate answer to the very serious charges which have been made. It is all the more inadequate in that the Home Secretary refused, when I asked him by means of a Question, to publish any kind of précis of the Commissioner's report. He also refused, in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), to publish the particular part of the report dealing with the more serious allegations.

Therefore, we are left with this great difficulty, that charges have been made, the Commissioner of Police has made a report to the Home Secretary which is regarded as inadequate, and the only information we have about that report is the very brief statement which the Home Secretary made to the House on 1st March. There has been no comment made on the very serious case of Mr. Adam Roberts. There has been no adequate comment made on the people who were dragged across the square, which quite a number of observers have reported upon.

There has been no adequate comment on the removal of the reporters after midnight, and it is significant that the cases against all of them were subsequently withdrawn. There has been no light thrown on the precise orders which were given to the police after midnight in clearing the square. In fact, no one accepts responsibility for the incidents which occurred and which have been substantiated by witnesses.

I had hoped that when the Commissioner's report was submitted to the Royal Commission on the Police the Royal Commission would be publishing that report, as it does the other evidence submitted to it, but according to the Home Secretary it will not be publishing the Commissioner's report, and, once again, because it is confidential. It seems clear that although the report has gone to the Royal Commission the Royal Commission will not be able to deal in detail with any of these points to which I have been drawing attention, and that it will not be able to do so simply because the report itself is confidential; and it cannot, obviously, comment in detail on a report no part of which can it publish.

This ties up with the previous comments which have been made that it is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with this type of complaint for police officers to be investigating complaints against other police officers. It is true that the police officers investigating the complaints were not concerned in the incidents, but, nevertheless, it is a most unsatisfactory way of conducting an inquiry.

Clearly, the incidents to which I have referred have two interpretations-the interpretation of the people concerned and the independent witnesses whom they produced, and the police interpretation—and no member of the public can be satisfied which is the correct interpretation unless there is some machinery for calling witnesses and cross-examining them and the police and the people who make the allegations. That is the only way in which the truth can be established and a satisfactory outcome ensured.

I would say, in passing, that the test which the Home Secretary seemed to apply of cases needing medical attention, and the fact that none of the people needed hospital treatment, is not a very fair one, because, as was pointed out in another place, it is possible to drag people face downwards across the ground and to bruise and lacerate them, without necessarily causing them to need hospital treatment. It is no answer to say, or to imply, that violence has not been used because people did not go into hospital. They could be injured without needing hospital treatment.

It is extremely difficult for people to take these cases to court themselves. The expense involved is very considerable, and there is the great difficulty of establishing identity. It has been pointed out in the House that the present methods of expressing grievances against the police are extremely unsatisfactory, and that is one of the reasons why the Royal Commission on the Police is sitting at present.

Some of the people who have made complaints to the Commissioner of Police have received letters from him since they made their complaints, and have been told that he was unable to identify the officers who might have been concerned in the incidents which they described. Others have been told that where they gave the numbers of particular police officers who, it was said, were concerned in the incidents, those officers were not in that place at that time, or that the complaint could not be checked. This is my opinion, is most unsatisfactory.

There is one further point I wish to make regarding the Royal Commission on the Police, and that is that when the Home Secretary spoke on this point on 1st March he made it quite clear that the Royal Commission is reporting on the general issue; namely, how future complaints should be handled. That disposes of any suggestion that the Royal Commission will go more deeply into these particular incidents than the Commissioner of Police has already done. Therefore, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he will ask the Home Secretary to publish the report of the Commissioner of Police, so that we can all examine it, or, at any rate, a very full précis of it. There is precedent for publishing a précis of a confidential report, where there is difficulty in publishing a full report.

If the Home Secretary will not publish it, I think that the case for a full independent tribunal is quite clearly established. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have been pressing for an independent inquiry all the way through. We reluctantly accepted an investigation by the Commissioner of Police, hoping that that, at any rate, would clear the air and establish the facts. It has not done so, and, therefore, the case for a full and independent inquiry remains quite convincing, even at this late date.

The object would not be to cover old ground, but to establish the facts, so that justice is seen to be done and the public are satisfied that a proper independent inquiry has been conducted, which is of the greatest importance to all the members of the public and not just to the individuals concerned with what happened on 17th September.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton)

The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has raised a number of points connected with the report of the Commissioner of Police on police conduct on the occasion of the demonstration organised by the Committee of 100 in Trafalgar Square on 17th and 18th September last. It may be helpful if I start by reminding the House of the circumstances in which the report came to be made. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) with us this evening, because we appreciate the interest that he has shown in this matter.

In the Adjournment debate in answer to the hon. Member on 17th October, I referred to the statutory procedure for dealing with complaints against the police. Such complaints are dealt with under the police discipline code. Every complaint has to be thoroughly investigated, and if it turns out that there is a prima facie case for thinking that any provision in the police discipline code may have been infringed, a charge is then formulated and there is then a hearing under the statutory procedure.

I went on to explain on that occasion that the Commissioner, and not the Home Secretary, is the disciplinary authority although there is a right of appeal to the Home Secretary in more serious cases. I also explained that action had been, or was being, taken under the established procedure.

Later, in reply to a supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition on 9th November, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he was prepared to see that the experience of the handling of complaints against the police on that occasion should be put before the Royal Commission on the Police, which had already been sitting for a great many months. It was appropriate to put this matter to the Commission because it fell within its terms of reference. As the hon. Lady has said, that was done.

A copy of the Commissioner's report was sent to the Royal Commission for confidential information so that it could have before it this very full account of the way in which the statutory procedure operated. It is that procedure which, among other things, the Commission has to consider. It has the advantage of this recent example of the way in which the procedure works.

The Commissioner's report was based on inquiries made into detailed complaints against individual officers. Since the object of the inquiries was to establish whether there were grounds for taking action against any member of the Metropolitan Police under the statutory provisions governing police discipline, they were necessarily confidential. As the hon. Lady has already been informed by my right hon. Friend, it is not intended to publish the Commissioner's report. It is a well-established principle that inquiries by the police for seeing whether disciplinary action should be taken should be of a confidential character. There can be no question of publishing the detailed record in this case.

In his statement on 1st March, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined the conclusions that had been reached as a result of what I have described as a most thorough investigation. I remind the House that in the course of looking into no less than 54 specific complaints, statements were taken from over 400 police officers—that is a very large number—and from about 50 private persons. They were in addition to those from the complainants who also numbered just over 50.

The broad conclusion reached—and, incidentally, it corresponds with the broad conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Rossendale when these events were still fresh in people's minds—was that while the great majority of police officers concerned had acted properly and with commendable restraint, there were a few cases during the clearance of the square and afterwards in which some officers fell short of this standard.

The hon. Lady has suggested that a confidential report of this kind is inadequate to allay public disquiet about the conduct of certain police officers on that occasion. She says that since the report cannot be published, there ought to be a public inquiry. I remind the hon. Lady that the adequacy of the existing procedure for the handling of complaints is the very question which is before the Royal Commission. By the way, the Commission's Report may be expected in the near future. Its terms of reference cover: the relationship of the police with the public and the means of ensuring that complaints by the public against the police are effectively dealt with … As my right hon. Friend has already said, we can only await the Commission's final Report.

As to the occasion which we are discussing this evening; no inquiries could have been more thorough than those made by the investigating officers appointed by the Commissioner to carry out this inquiry. There is no doubt that the senior officers concerned, who had the good name of the force much at heart, have been as determined as anyone to try to bring to light any breach of discipline.

It has been suggested that the inquiries have not been conclusive because in many cases it has not been possible to identify the officers concerned. As my right hon. Friend said in his statement of 1st March, it is true that the complainants were unable to identify any officers concerned in some of these incidents, in particular, the putting of several demonstrators into the fountain basins in the square. We should bear in mind that when there is a melee at night, with a vast crowd of members of the public—there were still a thousand demonstrators in the square after midnight and some hundreds of policemen were concerned—it is an inescapable difficulty if the police cannot be identified even by their number. That is a difficulty which would face a public inquiry just as it faced the officers holding the Commissioner's inquiry. It is a difficulty which would have faced the Royal Commission if it had felt it necessary to go into this matter all over again and to adjudicate, which it is not its duty to do. I agree that it is also a difficulty which arises with proceedings in the ordinary courts.

The hon. Lady says that we need machinery for calling witnesses, cross-examining, adjudicating and so on. We have that machinery in our courts with their great tradition for justice, but unless the people concerned can be identified, they cannot even be brought before the courts.

It is also true that other inquiries would have been facilitated had better particulars of the officers said to have been concerned been available. But it would be quite wrong from that to draw the conclusion that the Commissioner's inquiries showed large-scale misbehaviour by officers who could not be identified.

Had the police behaved as some complainants have suggested, kicking demonstrators on the ground and dragging others for long distances across the square, serious injuries must have resulted; not in every case, but in some cases surely. But—and the hon. Lady has been very candid in drawing attention to the matter by quoting what my right hon. Friend said—the police records show that only six members of the public asked for medical attention on account of injury and in all those cases the injuries were only slight.

The hon. Lady has questioned not only the behaviour of individual officers but the manner in which the square was cleared after midnight. This question of how the square should be cleared after midnight was the result of a decision taken on the spot by those in charge of the operations. It was decided, when half the demonstrators had left and an opportunity had been given to all of them to leave, if they wished to do so, that the indefinite occupation of the square contrary to the direction that had been given should not be permitted, and it was on the basis of this decision that the square was cleared.

I am assured by the Commissioner—and this must be apparent to those who know the vast experience of the officers concerned in dealing with demonstrations of various kinds—that there was no question of any encouragement by senior officers of the use of unnecessary force. It may well be that some sorely tried constables, who had been on duty continuously, some of them for about 12 hours, and I think all of them for 9 to 10 hours, and who thought that they could see the end of this protracted operation in sight, were pretty impatient when bustling loiterers off the square or in arresting those who refused to move. But the Commissioner is satisfied that there is no evidence that the action taken justified, by any reasonable standards, accusations of brutality.

Particular reference has been made to the case of Mr. Adam Roberts, and it might interest the hon. Lady to know that the statements of no less than 50 people were considered in relation to him alone. His case was gone into in the greatest possible detail. His own statements were carefully considered. The Commissioner had ample evidence before him to show that the allegations made by Mr. Roberts of brutality both in the square and at Bow Street Station afterwards were greatly exaggerated, and, what is more, they were not borne out by the medical evidence.

Mr. Roberts has been informed that in reaching the conclusion indicated in my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 1st March account was taken of the full investigation made into his complaints. In my right hon. Friend's view, there are no grounds for departing from the general rule and making the report available to Mr. Roberts, as I understand he has asked.

May I go back to the generalities of this matter; to the more general issues raised by the hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the present statutory procedure for investigating complaints against members of the Metropolitan Police has been followed with the greatest possible thoroughness in this case, and that there are no grounds for any further inquiry. It is, of course, open to any complainant in any case in which the identity of the officer concerned has been established—and there must be some such cases if the complaints are genuine in this matter—to consider the possibility of action in the courts, but that is a matter for them to decide.

On the general question of the procedure to be followed in handling these incidents, my right hon. Friend accepted without hesitation the suggestion that a detailed account of the way in which these complainants had been handled should be placed before the Royal Commission, and I suggest to the House that before attempting to draw any conclusions about the adequacy, or suitability, or fairness or otherwise of the present system we should wait and see what the Royal Commission has to say. After all, the Royal Commission has an opportunity of considering the procedure in relation to this particular matter.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.