HC Deb 11 April 1973 vol 854 cc1469-78

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar)

I take as my text for the short observations that I shall make at this late hour the words of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on Second Reading of a Private Members' Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby. North (Mr. Whitehead) in a speech which won the warm approval of the whole House.

The right hon. Gentleman said: As Home Secretary, I must stand up for the police—for the 999 police officers of all ranks"— I suppose he meant, "out of 1,000"— who do their work for us with outstanding integrity as well as courage and a very high sense of duty. However, if I am to do this and to carry conviction with the people in doing it, I must also be able with confidence to tell people that the rare black sheep among the police forces will be sought out and dealt with without fear or favour and without any suggestion of matters being covered up."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February 1973; Vol 851, c. 994.] Such suggestions, of things being covered up, are widely made and are widely held, not least in East London, the part of this great metropolis with which I am most familiar.

That is an area where the police force has no easy task and where a policeman's lot is by no means at its happiest. But for that very reason it is an area where the police, overstretched and under-manned as they are, most need the confidence of the general public if they are to carry out the tasks allotted to them.

One matter that I want to raise is the time it takes to investigate complaints against the Metropolitan Police. I am not referring here so much to inquiries carried out under the Section 49 procedure, because that procedure is laid down in detail in law, has many stages and is inevitably a long-drawn-out procedure. However, even on those inquiries, I know of two or three cases in which the time could reasonably have been halved without interfering at all with the procedure or cutting any corners. What I am thinking of much more than the Section 49 procedure is the simple business of getting a report from the Commissioner.

In common with other hon. Members, and especially those who represent constituencies within the Metropolitan Police area, I have had the experience from time to time of directing the Home Secretary's attention to some complaint against the police, in the same way as every hon. Member from time to time directs the attention of other Ministers to some complaint against the workings of a Government Department.

In the last couple of days I have examined all my files. I have been a Member of the House for a long time and I have taken up a great many cases. I find that the average time taken to get replies from the Home Office in cases involving the Metropolitan Police is more than twice as long as the time taken to get replies from all other Ministers on all other types of case.

I am not talking about Section 49 where people are tied down by the procedure. I am talking about exactly parallel situations in which a Minister has to get a report from the chief officer and pass it on to an hon. Member who writes to him. Getting a report from the Commissioner should be exactly the same as getting a report from the office of the Department of Health and Social Security in my constituency. But it takes more than twice as long.

What makes matters worse is that the reply is nearly always totally uninforma-tive. One waits for eight to 10 weeks, and sometimes for three months, for a simple report. But then it says nothing. The reply gives a verdict without backing that up with evidence or argument. Almost invariably the reply states the Commissioner's or the Home Secretary's conclusion on the complaint. But the Home Office treats hon. Members with contempt in that an hon. Member is not considered sufficiently competent to be told of the considerations which led to the conclusion of the Home Secretary or the Commissioner on the complaint.

That is not the case with any other branch of our public life or any other sector of public servants. I know of no other branch of our public life or sector of the public servants in relation to which a Member of Parliament puts forward a complaint and is told "We have looked at it. We do not think that it is right. But mind your own business about the reasons which led us to that conclusion."

When one is dealing with the public it is not the soft, quick answer but the clow answer which arouses suspicion. The delay and the fact that the reply, when one gets it, is so uninformative give substance and encouragement to suggestions of cover-up and whitewash.

I have said that no other sector of our public life and no other group of public servants are so relieved of examination as this group. In no other sector can a public servant be so totally absolved from the consequences of his errors or even the consequences of improper activities.

I should like to quote to the House the case of one of my constituents. I shall not mention his name. The Minister of State knows the name. As I do not want to cause any further difficulty, I shall not mention the names of the police officers who were involved in the case. The Minister of State knows the case because I put down a Question to him about it.

It concerned a constituent of mine who was wrongly arrested, taken to the police station, examined by five police officers— a police constable, two detective constables and two detective sergeants—and beaten up very badly, to the extent that he could not go to work. He complained about this, and, according to the reply which the Minister gave me a few weeks ago, my constituent's complaints were duly investigated under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. The Director of Public Prosecutions advised that the evidence was not such as to warrant criminal proceedings against any police officer. The Commissioner … after considering the evidence … decided that no disciplinary action was justified."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1973; Vol. 852, c. 333.] In 999 cases out of 1,000 that would have been the end of the matter and my constituent would have been branded as a liar, as a man who made accusations against the police which did not stand up. But in this case my constituent proved himself to be the one citizen in 1,000 who knew his rights, who believed that it was his civil duty to assert his rights, and who was prepared to spend time and money in asserting his rights. So he sued the police officers for damages.

In an action heard in January this year in the High Court my constituent was awarded £950 damages against the five officers for the assault which they had made upon him. Included in that amount was compensation for the loss of his earnings when he could not go to work because he was so badly beaten up. In addition, he was awarded a further £100 damages for wrongful arrest.

So it became clear as soon as the matter was subjected to examination under our proper judicial principles under which evidence has to be sworn to that it was not my constituent who was the liar, but the officers who were the liars, that it was not he who was making a frivolous complaint, but they were.

Let us be clear what the verdict of the court was. The five officers faked an arrest. That is what the court said. They beat the man up. Having done that they lied to the investigating officer. They must have lied or the investigating officer would not have found that there was nothing wrong with their behaviour. In spite of that, no disciplinary action has been taken against them. They have not even been reprimanded. One of the five, a detective sergeant, has since left the force. I would love to know why, but we shall never be told. The four others are there doing the same jobs without a word of reprimand.

I should like to know in what other walk of life anybody would get away with that. That is why the Home Secretary must get a move on to bring in the new proposals he promised in the debate on 23rd February, and he should do that not only in the interests of the public but in the interests of the police. The police need the confidence of the public, and they are not going to get the confidence while cases such as the one I have quoted, stinking to high Heaven, are still happening.

Therefore, I add my voice to those who in the House a few weeks ago were urging the Home Secretary not to use the process of consultation as an excuse for procrastination. We know he has to consult people before changing the arrangements. I hope he will not consult only the police. I urge him not to allow the vested interests that he must consult to bar the way to progress. The majority of our police are men of integrity who are doing a fine job. They can do that job only if the public is behind them. We should remove this hangover of a century which has driven a gap between the police and the public, this business of them being the only people who are judges of their own affairs.

11.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle)

The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has raised the whole issue of complaints and the administration of the complaints procedure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced in February that he is proposing to set up an ex post facto inquiry into the procedure of police complaints, which would include an independent element. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office does not intend to delay. As my right hon. Friend said, it is necessary to enter into negotiations, discussions and consultations with the police service and the police authorities with a view to working out and introducing the arrangements that he proposes. The timetable which he announced still stands.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a case concerning one of his constituents. He said that one of the officers concerned in that case had since retired from the police force. He asked to know the basis on which that officer had retired. I am told that it is right that one of the officers concerned in the case which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned has retired since the incident which gave rise to the hearing. The officer who resigned was a detective constable. He resigned from the police force because of illness following a heart attack that he suffered in 1969.

The Police Act 1964 requires that any complaint made by a member of the public must be recorded and investigated. That investigation is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, but a matter wholly for the chief officer of the area concerned. That investigation is set out clearly by Section 49 of the Police Act.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there are often delays in receiving reports from chief officers of police when hon. Members write to the Home Office. The cause of much of that delay—I accept that it is substantial in many cases—is due to the care and the thoroughness with which any complaint by the public is investigated by the police. When I tell the hon. Gentleman that, for example, in 1972 there were 5,671 complaints made against the Metropolitan Police and 15,543 complaints made against all police forces, and that 95.8 per cent. of the complaints made against the Metropolitan Police and 91.4 per cent. of those made against all forces were found to be unsubstantiated, he will realise that a great deal of the time of senior officers is taken up in investigating complaints which in the end prove to be unsubstantiated. The other 4 per cent. were found to be substantiated.

When such a volume of complaints is referred to the police, and have to be dealt with by the careful scrutiny under Section 49, it is inevitable that a certain amount of time must be taken up in proper investigation, and those complaints which are justified are affected by the volume of unjustified complaints which are also made.

Mr. Mikardo

We are talking different languages. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I need an interpreter between us. He says that there are all these complaints and that over 90 per cent. have been proved unjustified, and argues that for saying that complaints were frivolous. That is rather like Stalin's votes at elections. No one believes it. It is too good to true. The case of my constituent and similar cases in Leeds and Sheffield prove that point.

Mr. Carlisle

I do not think that it proves that point. I will stick to the fact that, after thorough investigation, over 95 per cent. of the complaints against the Metropolitan Police in 1972 and over 90 per cent. of the complaints against all police forces were found to have been unjustified.

Mr. Mikardo

By whom? By policemen.

Mr. Carlisle

Of course by policemen. The hon. Gentleman must accept that the only body which can inquire into complaints made against the police in this country is the police, who we trust to carry out all other complaints against individuals.

I accept, as my right hon. Friend has accepted, that there is a need for an independent element in an ex post facto review of the investigation of complaints, but having thought about this very carefully, I do not believe that there is any body other than the police which could carry out the investigations of complaints against the police themselves.

I believe that the investigations are thorough and that the independent element in all ex post facto inquiries into the investigation of complaints will find that the police in the vast majority of cases investigate very closely into the allegations made against policemen.

The hon. Gentleman asked who can do it. In the Metropolitan Police, there is now a procedure for dealing with complaints, which was set up by the present Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, under the general supervision of A Department of New Scotland Yard. It is directly responsible to the Deputy Commissioner. That procedure was designed to ensure that the investigations should be clearly seen to be absolutely impartial, that investigating officers of the appropriate rank and experience are always appointed, and that the investigating officers have no operational responsibility for or in connection with the officers against whom the complaints are directed. The General Orders of the force provide that the investigating officer must in general be serving in a different division or branch from the officer complained against.

Within A Department is A10 Branch, which became operational on 1st June 1972. It was set up specifically to investigate all serious complaints. The branch is composed of senior officers specially selected for their experience and suitability to carry out the most important investigations. In this context, "serious complaints" includes allegations of crime and those which also have serious implications as a result of the circumstances, the number or rank of the officers involved, or the extent to which the complaint has been the subject of publicity. All such cases are now referred to the A10 Branch of the Metropolitan Police.

If I may move rapidly to the case raised by the hon. Gentleman about his constituent, I understand his concern about this matter. I must tell him that in this case the Commissioner of Police decided that no disciplinary proceedings, just as the Director had decided that no criminal proceedings, should be taken against the various officers mentioned in the case. I am satisfied, having looked into the case, that it was thoroughly investigated by the police.

The essence of the complaint against the police was that they had committed a serious assault which was not only a disciplinary offence but also a criminal offence. The investigation was conducted under Section 49 (1) of the Police Act under a then detective chief inspector. It was a careful and thorough investigation. As a result of it, as a result of interviewing all the people who it was considered could possibly give relevant information, a report was made which, in accordance with the Act, was referred by the Commissioner to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director advised that no criminal proceedings should be instituted against any of the police officers concerned. That decision was reached by the Director not only after his own careful consideration of the facts but after consulting Treasury counsel.

Of course it is right for the hon. Gentleman to say that since then a civil action has been successfully taken by the individual complainant against the police, but I must point out that there are two major differences. First, in civil proceedings the complainant does not have to establish that any individual officer of the officers concerned was responsible for the assaults, whereas the Director would have to be satisfied that there was evidence against any individual officer before bringing criminal proceedings.

Secondly, the burden on the complainant is lower in a civil action than in a criminal case; and on the view of the investigation which was carried out the Director was satisfied, after consulting Treasury counsel, that there was no case to bring criminal proceedings.

Mr. Mikardo

Is the Minister saying that the High Court was wrong?

Mr. Carlisle

Not at all. I am saying that the issue before the High Court was slightly different from that which the Director had to consider I am saying also that, the Commissioner of Police being faced with the decision of the Director and asking himself whether disciplinary proceedings would be appropriate, it would be wrong for chief officers of police to bring any form of disciplinary proceedings which related to the same facts as had gone before the Director of Public Prosecutions on the basis that a lower burden of proof was necessary in disciplinary proceedings than was necessary in criminal proceedings.

Mr. Mikardo

How wonderful if one can get away with it!

Mr. Carlisle

I believe that this was before A10 Branch was brought into existence but I am satisfied that a thorough investigation was made of the case and that the Commissioner acted on the advice he received from the Director and from senior Treasury counsel.

I am particularly satisfied also that, with the advent in June 1970 of A10 Branch, set up to investigate serious allegations of crime against the Metropolitan Police, the procedures for investigating complaints against the Metropolitan Police are working satisfactorily. The public should realise that complaints against the police are fully investigated and that where a bad policeman—if that is the right word—is found as a result of that investigation, appropriate action is taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.