HC Deb 18 July 1974 vol 877 cc638-9
3. Mr. Whitehead

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce his proposals for an independent review element in the investigation of complaints against the police; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I shall be announcing my proposals shortly, before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Whitehead

That is a welcome announcement after the year that was wasted by the working party. I pay tribute to the extent to which some of the interested parties, such as the Police Federation, have moved. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be two equal criteria—the extent to which the police are prepared to operate any system that is introduced and the extent to which the public have confidence that a genuine independent review element is involved?

Mr. Jenkins

Yes, indeed; I attach great importance to those principles—both to the fact that the system should be accepted and well operated by the police and that it should command confidence among the public. It is precisely in the endeavour to find the right balance be-between those two principles that I have taken a little time to give further consideration to the matter.

Mr. Marten

Although I agree that the investigation of complaints against the police is of extreme importance, will the Home Secretary look at the other side of the coin—the protection of the police and the public—which is of even greater importance? Is it not time for the House to consider whether, for the murder of policemen and for bombing, the death penalty should be restored?

Mr. Jenkins

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting into a supplementary question a publicity-attracting one which has no relationship to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Will the right hon. Gentleman refute the suggestion that the working party wasted a year? Will he also give an assurance that when he announces his proposals he will choose from the alternatives which he has put forward?

Mr. Jenkins

No, Sir, I do not agree that the working party wasted its time; I think that it may have operated on too narrow a basis. There are two important principles beyond those enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) to which I propose to stick. One is that the police should retain responsibility for investigating complaints against themselves; and the second is that there should be no question of double jeopardy. I repeat that the working party did not waste its time, but perhaps went too narrowly in respect of its terms of reference. I hope to be able to build on its work.

Mr. Crawshaw

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although we are anxious not to lower the morale of the police force, we must realise that members of the public are distressed by some of these investigations? The public agree that what happens in the police force in most cases requires little investigation, but they are concerned that in some respects there is white-washing—and this view is also taken by members of local authorities and watch committees. I hope he will bear in mind that as the mechanics of the system are gone through it is important to see that justice is done.

Mr. Jenkins

It is important to preserve the correct balance. Clearly, there can be abuses in the police force, as they occur in any other body. It is important that where they occur they should be investigated, and people should see that they have been properly investigated. That is why the case for the independent element is strong, and it is equally important that we do nothing to undermine the general morale of the police who are carrying out their duties properly, as overwhelmingly the majority of them are doing. It is also important that we should in no way give the impression that we do not value their services.