HC Deb 27 January 1972 vol 829 cc1591-3
5. Mr. Whitehead

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the procedures whereby information is conveyed to the Press by the Metropolitan Police relating to persons voluntarily visiting police stations and against whom no charge has been made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave to Questions from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) and the hon. Member for Hackney Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 22nd December.—[Vol. 828, c. 381.]

Mr. Whitehead

I am grateful for that reply, but will the Minister impress upon the Metropolitan Police the serious view taken in the House when an hon. Member is reported as having been breathalysed because of his condition—I think that was the phrasing—and when that information appears to emanate from or be corroborated by the police? Will he impress upon the Metropolitan Police that tests of breath and blood are taken to determine the condition, and not the cause of the condition, of someone reporting to a police station and that in such cases serious harm is done by innuendo which is never redressed by the subsequent publication of negative findings?

Mr. Maudling

I have not had a full report on the case, and I do not think one would want to discuss it anyway. I have looked carefully at the procedures followed by the police and I think that they are the right ones.

Mr. Evelyn King

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, not only in London but in the counties, there is a growing practice of the police relating to the Press information received in an official capacity? Not infrequently, that information has no relation to the prevention of crime. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the function of the police to put out gossip?

Mr. Maudling

I should be grateful if hon. Members would bring any examples of that to my attention.

Mr. Ashton

Does not the Minister agree that one of the disturbing aspects in this case is that only two weeks earlier the right hon. Member involved had asked for an investigation into police affairs in his constituency? When such an incident as this occurs two weeks later, are not rather disturbing inferences drawn?

Mr. Maudling

I do not think that anyone, least of all the right hon. Member concerned, would make such an imputation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

There is concern, as I know from correspondence about the relationship between the police and the Press. As the Police Journal recently commented, while there was speedy contact with the Press in the first part of the case there was dilatoriness when it came to clearing it up. Should there not be a set procedure?

Mr. Maudling

This case has been investigated in meticulous detail by the Commissioner of Police at my request. I am in the process of communicating with the right hon. Member concerned and I think this is the right procedure to follow.

18. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances in which the Metropolitan Police made public the findings of a breathalyser test against a named person at Tottenham Court Road Police Station on 14th December, 1971, at a time when no proceedings had been initiated, particulars of which case have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central.

Mr. Maudling

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has held an inquiry. The investigating officer found no evidence that the result of a test was initially made public by the police.

Mr. Clinton Davis

That is a profoundly unsatisfactory reply. If a meticulous inquiry has been carried out, why is the House uninformed as to the details, as is the public at large? Who divulged the name of my right hon. Friend to the Press or whoever else it was? To whom was it divulged? Is it not a fact that the police refused to make an apology to my right hon. Friend even when they had publicised his name and it became clear that no prosecution could possibly follow? Does this not call for a public inquiry?

Mr. Maudling

No, Sir. I do not agree with that at all. The inquiry, made at my request by the Commissioner, was the result of a letter to me from the right hon. Member concerned. It is right and courteous for me to do what I am doing—namely, first writing to give him all the details.

Mr. Clinton Davis

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.