POLICE (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 23 April 1975)

I beg to move.

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for remedies and complaints against the police. The Bill will amend Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 which deals with complaints against the police. At the moment, as the House will know, complaints against police officers are investigated by officers from another force. This I believe to be totally unsatisfactory.

My Bill seeks to provide for the introduction of an independent element into the procedure for handling complaints against the police. It is my view—and, indeed, it is a view supported by the present Home Secretary—that an effective and independent element able to command the confidence of the public and the police must be brought into operation while a complaint is being investigated.

I would not regard it as satisfactory to institute merely ex post facto investigations, as many individuals and organisations have advocated. able to act only after the event, in a sense as a form of inquest. What is proposed, therefore, is the establishment of independent statutory commissions in each police authority, with members appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who shall be full- or part-time depending upon the experience of the volume of work in their area.

The procedure for handling a complaint is envisaged as follows. A complaint made by a member of the public 1485 shall be made in writing through the clerk of the commission in the area in which the subject matter of the allegation first arose. No complaint shall be accepted without the consent of the chairman of the commission if more than six months have elapsed from the date of the incident forming the basis of the complaint.

The clerk to the commission shall refer the complaint to a single member of the commission who shall decide whether it raises matters of a substantial nature. If it does not raise matters of a substantial nature, it will be considered by a single member of the commission. He will be required to give a reasoned decision on the complaint and may recommend to the commission that a complaint be rejected if it is regarded as trivial or malicious.

There shall be no appeal against the decision of the commission. If, however, an individual member of the commission does not so recommend, he shall be required to investigate the complaint, conduct the investigation without a hearing, but, before making an adjudication, provide an opportuniy to the complainant to decide whether or not he is satisfied with the explanation given.

Should either party to the complaint not be satisfied with that adjudication there will be a right of review by the commission, provided that the chairman of the commission grants leave for such a review. If, on the other hand, the individual member whose responsibility in effect is to sieve complaints is satisfied that the complaint raises a matter of a substantial nature, he will refer it as a matter of course to the commission.

The commission shall then be required to furnish the letter of complaint to the police officer complained of and to his chief officer. The commission will be required to determine whether the complaint is substantiated and to give a reasoned decision.

Both the commission and an individual member shall have power to call witnesses and documents and will hold hearings in public. In extraordinary circumstances they may hold them in camera at the request of either party, and subject again to the consent of the chairman of the local commission. Both the complainant and the police officer against whom the 1486 complaint is made shall be entitled to legal representation.

Should a complainant reveal prima facie evidence of a criminal act, the commission will not continue its investigation but will refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This is a somewhat sketchy outline, setting out the guidelines and, more importantly, the principles behind the Bill. Other matters will, I hope, be filled in on Second Reading.

I should make it clear that neither the Bill nor anything that I have said is intended in any way to cast aspersions on the police or upon individual officers. It is no part of my purpose to cast a slur on the integrity of the vast majority of police officers. With the exceptions that exist in any occupation, I believe the police to be generally honest and conscientious.

At the same time, however, a situation such as now exists, in which the police are prosecutor, judge and jury of complaints against themselves, is clearly unsatisfactory. While it is supposed to be the case that police officers do not investigate complaints against other officers who are known to them, this is not always followed in practice. For example, a Sunday Times article of 13th April quoted a police officer in the Metropolitan Police A.10 squad, which is the Anti-Fraud and Serious Crime Squad, as saying I worked on a case where I had known the officer in the CID for 20 years. I knew his wife and his kids. Nine of us were on that case and seven knew him well. That is clearly unsatisfactory. While I do not suggest that justice was not done in that case, it certainly does not inspire confidence in the fairness and in the impartiality of the present complaints procedure. Few of my constituents who have had cause in the past year to complain to me about various activities of the police are satisfied that the procedure as it now exists adequately, impartially and fairly deals with their complaints. I accept, because I have no evidence to the contrary, that justice is done. However, it is manifestly not seen to be done.

It is my conviction that by introducing an independent element into the complaints procedure we shall restore public confidence in the police, rather than weaken it. For this reason I believe that 1487 the police would welcome the Bill. It will further eliminate the spread of false and malicious rumours of police malpractice, by providing an acceptable mechanism through which they can be substantiated or quashed.

It will provide an additional means of public scrutiny over police activity and, in so doing, ensure that the police continue to maintain the highest possible standards of conduct. It is accepted that we have complaints procedures in many other areas. We have a Parliamentary Commissioner for complaints against the central Government, local government ombudsmen, and local tribunals for appeals against decisions, malpractice or maladministration of social security officers. Yet, in this one important area, where enormous and widespread power is exerted by a public authority, there is no public accountability for their actions. This is a serious anomaly and should be quickly remedied.

In conclusion, I can only echo in my support the words of the Metropolitan Police Commission, Sir Robert Mark, when he said in an interview reported in the Observer Review on 23rd March: I believe that in a free society a small unarmed police force with limited legal powers depends for its effectiveness on public accept- 1488 ance. That acceptance depends on integrity, which in turn depends on quality of manpower, supervision and accountability. The more open and accountable the police are, the more likely they are to be respected and supported. I believe that that sums up the case for the implementation of an independent element for investigating complaints against the police. The reputation of the police force is only likely to be enhanced by the introduction of the Bill. I believe that this proposal will elicit the support of people throughout the country and hon. Members on both sides of the House.