HC Deb 04 August 1976 vol 916 cc2086-96

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

11.10 a.m.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of command and co-operation in national police inquiries. I am also grateful to the Minister for being present to answer the debate. I know that she has had a long and somewhat arduous night. At this hour of the morning I am pleased to see her looking so refreshed.

This matter springs from the recent Black Panther case inquiry, but I refer to that inquiry only as a springboard from which to debate the wider question of national police cross-border responsibilities in serious crime and the arguments surrounding a unified or national police force.

The Black Panther inquiry highlights the problem and I therefore wish to mention a few of the details of that inquiry. The man concerned began his dismal career in Yorkshire, where he killed. That involved one force. He went to Lancashire, where he again killed. That involved another force. He went to Staffordshire, where he killed again. That involved yet another force. He then, within the borders of the West Mercia Constabulary, engaged in a kidnapping. That involved another force. There are in addition regional crime squad responsibilities and the added dimension of calling in New Scotland Yard. We know that it is that, together with cross-border co-operation, that resulted in an inordinate amount of publicity and recrimination between individual police officers and police forces.

The problem is one of command, pure and simple. There is no command in cross-border inquiries which is satisfactory to meet the seriousness of the occasion. I am not criticising the necessity for local control. My central argument is about the lack of command in inquiries of this sort rather than whether there should be national or local control. Local command is adequate to deal with most cases. In a cross-border inquiry there should be control, from wherever it comes.

The lack of control has an effect upon the reputation and morale of the forces from both inside and outside. I do not seek in any way to knock the police force in raising these matters. On the contrary, I speak from my knowledge and that of other hon. Members that those opinions are shared by those within police forces, including senior members, and by many people outside.

To illustrate what I am saying about reputation and morale, in the Black Panther case a distinguished detective officer, Bob Booth, of the West Mercia Constabulary, received a large amount of publicity and had to carry the can for many of his fellow officers purely because of problems of command. In the full glare of publicity he suffered a demotion, although that was not admitted within the force. He was an experienced detective officer of 30 years' standing and he had the same number of commendations. He now heads the uniformed branch in Malvern.

Unless something is done, in this age when people are becoming more and more "public" and where it is impossible, even within the Government, let alone within the police force, to keep things completely within the family, the trend in the future will be even worse for morale.

Without going into details, I will give the background. As a result of regional amalgamations, the local forces are between the devil and the deep blue sea —neither one thing nor the other. For good and proper reasons, we have lost our small local forces and we have virtually regional forces. The West Mercia Constabulary is a vast conglomeration, as remote as any national police force could be. It is subject to regional control yet at the same time it is autonomous. At the head of these forces, apart from the Metropolitan Police force, there are chief constables. Chief constables have considerable power and status in their communities and their forces, but they are not effectively answerable to the Home Office.

I appreciate that in recent years there have been innovations which, at least on paper, mean that a case can be made for the Home Secretary having greater control of the police force. I know that the Minister will not take this personally, but her Department is peculiarly reluctant to intervene, interfere or even direct the activities of the police. Her Department does not in the true sense of the word control the police force. It trips around on the brink of the pool without ever diving in. That is not a good background for co-operation in command in dealing with serious crimes.

The tone of the Minister's answer to a Question I posed on the Black Panther case is a good illustration of the Home Office's attitude to the police force. The hon. Lady said: We are confident that chief officers are fully aware of the lessons to be drawn from this investigation."—[Official Report, 30th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 438.] In other words, the people who have fallen out on this and other occasions have been allowed to talk about it and it is not believed that a formal inquiry would serve a useful purpose. There is no mention of anyone being in charge of the discussion, not even an acknowledgment that the Home Office participated in it, let alone played a forceful rôle.

There are two aspects which could have a role to play in answering the case I am putting forward. The first concerns regional crime squads and the record of the "Yard" and the improved disposal of specialist bodies for the use of the constabulary throughout the country. Are regional crime squads the answer? I think not. They are welded on to the present system. Crime can be as cross-regional as it is cross-force, and once again the same problem arises.

The regional crime squads have a coordinator, but he mirrors the total inadequacy of the present system, distinguished officer as he is. I think I am right in saying that he has no formal rank at all. On ceremonial occasion he does not even wear a uniform. He sits in an office in London and has to deal with chief constables of vast police forces all over the country. In co-ordinating, he comes nowhere near to commanding anyone. He is rather like a Minister without Portfolio or a Minister without a Department. Who is he to challenge a chief constable when he is sitting in an office in London and has behind him only the Home Office, which is reluctant to interfere?

Welded on to the system as they are, the regional crime squads are principally involved in what the police call target work. They deal with people they know to be criminals or who might become criminals, making sure that the next time those people commit a crime they will be caught. They are not specifically directed towards the kidnapper, who may well be a first-time criminal, or the dedicated terrorist. In so far as they have information—and that is principally what they are getting—about those people, they will be augmenting the local forces who will have command—the Black Panther case is an illustration of this—in their different areas and over all aspects of any investigation.

It is unsatisfactory that from the centre someone in the Metropolitan Police must almost go down on bended knee and ask to be called in. All too often he is called in too late or in circumstances which lead to ill feeling among those who have called him in. If he goes in, he must be completely free to act. If a specialist squad is called in, it is difficult for the local police, who will not outrank the Metropolitan Police officer, to say "boo" to any goose. The net result is that no one is in command. This was all too clearly illustrated in the Midlands and by aspects of the inquiry to which I have referred.

One aspect which is at the root of the whole matter is the petty jealousy which arises from calling in the man from London. The whole ethos of the Metropolitan Police, providing a national police force in so far as we have it, leads to much ill feeling among regional officers, who rightly consider that they can do the job as well as the Metropolitan Police.

This matter was last examined by the Royal Commission on the Police, which reported in 1962. I must declare an interest here in that my father was a member of that Royal Commission, which makes me happy to be addressing the Minister on this subject. Much evidence was given before it—and 14 years later it is interesting to read it—on two aspects: a national CID and a national police force. The Royal Commission, having heard all the arguments, declined to recommend the establishment of a national CID but said that the matter should be kept constantly under review and that the Government should not hesitate to establish, if necessary, a national criminal investigation department.

The Royal Commission acknowledged the substantial case which was made out to it for a national police force or a unified police force by way of a chain of command. I quote paragraph (8) of the summary of conclusions and recommendations, which deals with paragraph 128 of the report and which acknowledges what I am saying: There is a substantial case for creating a national police service. Its organisation would be more logical, and a number of us think that it would prove to be a more effective instrument for fighting crime and handling road traffic than the present large number of partially autonomous local forces". It is unusual for people who have signed a main report declining to introduce a national police force at the same time to acknowledge that an adequate case has been made for it. That was underlined by the dissenting report of Professor Goodhart. The core of what he said was very much the argument which I am putting now—namely, that, without a unified and clear command structure, in any police operation, as with any military operation, the same problems are bound to arise again.

As to the future, we need a command structure. I should have thought that the Minister and her Department would agree with that proposition. We know that crimes of the Blank Panther type, even in a different, perhaps terrorist, guise, or kidnapping—which will probably increase in this country as it has increased in other countries—may well happen again. In those circumstances, what do we do about the matter? Can we tighten the present system; or, put another way, is the present system all right save perhaps for a few nominal amendments? The answer is "No", because any system in which no one is in clear control, either generally by way of the Home Department or specifically in any inquiry, will remain inadequate.

If that be accepted, should we have a separate criminal investigation department or a separate national apparatus to deal with serious crime? The answer to that unequivocally is "No". It is against the modern trend in the police force of trying to move the uniformed branch into closer proximity with the detective branch. We cannot have two police forces, one nationally controlled and one locally controlled in some ununified way, running alongside each other. Therefore that is out, and I am surprised that that was not said more clearly by the Royal Commission.

Either we must leave the system alone and pretend that all is well, or we must move towards a national or unified command structure in the police force. Whatever the Minister may say, that is coming as night follows day, and I hope that both of us will be Members, on whatever side of the House we may then sit, when it does. Now we are stuck in the middle. The trend is towards greater national control. At the moment, as a result of various movements in the direction that I am advocating but in a typically British way—never going far enough soon enough—we are stuck with various independent forces which are virtually regional but without any of the assets of national control.

At the same time, and even more confusingly, we are going national in all our specialist services. The pay structure is already national, and so are the police unions and the inspectorate. Yet in the most serious aspect—the investigation of crime—there is no clear command. If we go national, we shall be equipped for proper national investigation. There will be greater fluidity in manpower and specialist services. We shall at least end the feeling caused by calling in the man from London, because London will be one division or region. People will be brought in on a national basis, outranking, if necessary, those with whom they work or, if they do not, taking orders from people in the same force.

There will be other benefits along the way, such as standardising policy and the conduct of police prosecution, which is not an unimportant matter. I have an interest here and point out to the Minister that the difference between the efficiency of the legal advisers of a first-class force such as the Metropolitan Police and that of those in certain county forces is almost too staggering to menion.

Last but not least, if there were a clear national command structure there would be clear ministerial responsibility for answering Questions. At the moment, because of the responsibility of the Home Office, it is difficult to ask Questions about police forces throughout the country. This tendency is creeping in throughout the political spectrum. As more matters leave Government control and come under separate agencies, it is more difficult to ask Questions about anything substantial.

I acknowledge that in the main what I have said concerns a specific inquiry, but the system ecnerally is inadequate and it mirrors the somewhat complacent attitude of the Home Department. I am deeply concerned that there should not be a recurrence of the situation. It may well heppen again, but if it does it will be the duty of all of us to ensure that those responsible are caught without disharmony arising in the police force. That will never happen unless we have a proper and orderly system of command.

11.29 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)

I welcome this opportunity to discuss general issues of the kind raised by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). These are important matters and it is right that they should be publicly discussed. I should make it clear from the outset that I do not propose to discuss in detail the police investigation concerning the kidnapping and subsequent death of Miss Lesley Whittle. This is not because I wish to stifle discussion of that case or of the way in which it was investigated but because the Home Secretary has no responsibility in the day-to-day conduct of a particular police investigation.

I will say this of that case: that it has been discussed by chief officers of police collectively and I am quite sure that they are fully aware of the need to learn any lessons which may be learned from such an investigation. However, as a result of reports and advice that he has received, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not think that any purpose would be served by setting up a formal inquiry into that police investigation.

The fact that a particular investigation is a matter for discussion by chief officers of police is a reflection of our system of policing in this country. The local control of police forces is an essential element of that system. Chief constables in this country, unlike some continental countries, do not come under the direction of a Minister of the Interior in the enforcement of the law. The responsibility of deciding how an offence should be investigated is for them and them alone.

The Home Secretary has no power to tell chief constables how to conduct an investigation. Not is it desirable that he should have such a power, although on that point I feel that the hon. Gentleman did not seem to share that view. The Home Secretary's powers in respect of the police are limited and defined. Home Office Ministers wish that this were more widely known and that its importance was more generally appreciated.

What is the Home Secretary's rôle? The powers of the Secretary of State are set out in the Police Act 1964, particularly in Part II of the Act. He has certain powers in relation to the appointment and removal of chief officers. That is most important. He has the power to call for reports from chief officers. He is responsible for providing much of the money required for the police. He may set up inquiries into any matter connected with the policing of an area and he has certain general responsibilities in connection with complaints against the police. He is responsible for making regulations about the government, administration and condition of service of police forces. He receives and decides police disciplinary appeals. He appoints members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and receives their reports. These are all important powers.

Section 28 of the Police Act 1964 requires the Home Secretary to use his powers under the Act so as to promote the efficiency of the police". He is particularly concerned with the provision of central services—the police college, district police training centres, forensic science laboratories, wireless depots and other organisations—which can more appropriately be run on a centralised basis.

Within the Home Office there are branches concerned with the development of police techniques and equipment. These services augment locally available resources, but they do not—and there is no intention that they should—take away a chief constable's responsibility for the operational direction of his officers. And there is a balance to be drawn between maintaining a chief constable's operational responsibilities on the one hand and on the other ensuring that he receives all the help he needs in the investigation of offences.

How does this work out in practice? Of course, the vast majority of offences are local and their investigation does not require the involvement of a second force. There is, however, a significant number of cases which concern more than one force, because of the mobility and pattern of activities of the criminal concerned. Although this is not a new development, it must be recognised that some criminals are becoming increasingly mobile and are committing offences over a wider area. On the other hand, the effect of amalgamations in recent years has been to enlarge force areas and to enable forces to develop a wider range of skills and equipment to deal with crime.

Aids to detection have also improved. Detective officers are able to call on the records at the Central Criminal Record Office at New Scotland Yard and at the regional criminal record offices throughout the country. If the resources of a particular force are not sufficient, the chief constable may ask the regional crime squad for assistance or he may bring in an officer from New Scotland Yard. In complicated fraud cases, the expertise of the Metropolitan and City Police Company Fraud Branch may be drawn upon.

I ought perhaps to mention one other aspect of police matters organised on a national basis. That is the Central Drugs and Illegal Immigration Intelligence Unit, which receives, processes and disseminates information about the misuse of drugs and illegal immigration.

Nor should we forget that the changes in policing in recent years have not been merely administrative. Technology has moved on too. Something which the police now take for granted—the personal radio—was in its infancy 15 years ago, yet in that time it has produced a revolution in techniques of operational policing. Communications have improved out of all recognition; research has opened up whole new areas of knowledge; and there are the police national computer as well as other common police services such as forensic science laboratories, which are partly financed by central Government. Our technical support services are probably the best in the world.

One of the features of almost all major incidents is the collection of vast quantities of information. The Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office is studying the feasibility of using a computer to assist police in the organisation of such information to facilitate identification of significant elements.

In listing these services, the point I wish to make is that no chief officer is in an isolated position whatever the situation he has to deal with. Chief officers of police are well aware of the need for cooperation between forces in dealing with the investigation of major crimes and the Home Secretary continues, through Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, to encourage the further development of cooperation. There is a wide range of services and assistance ready to hand and efforts are certainly being made to improve those services and to draw lessons from past incidents—for example, in discussions among chief constables and, at lower levels, in the detective training schools. But the overall command of the investigation rests—and in our system must rest—with the officer appointed by the chief constable and, ultimately, with the chief constable himself. It is for him to decide when to call for assistance and help and what to call for.

Of all the forms of assistance I have mentioned, the one upon which I wish in particular to say a few words is the regional crime squads. I single them out because their purpose is to give assistance in the investigation of just that type of offence which the hon. Gentleman has in mind—the offence which is one of a pattern which crosses force boundaries. Regional crime squads were introduced in 1965. They are organised in the form of regionally-based highly mobile detectives, and their particular concern—for which they have been freed from routine day-to-day inquiries—is with those who are responsible for serious organised crime. The regional co-ordinator works in close collaboration with the chief constables of the regions concerned, and each chief constable is in a position to ask for regional crime squad assistance in the investigation of a particular major crime.

I do not think that the public are sufficiently aware of the major constribution which the 850 or so regional crime squad officers make in dealing with organised crime. In 1975 the squads were responsible for, the arrest of no fewer than 7,671 prisoners. Assistance was given in 87 murder investigations and three attempted murders. There can be no doubt that their work is invaluable and I believe that it is recognised as such by chief constables.

For some time now the argument has been advanced in some quarters and by the hon. Gentleman that we ought to have a national police force and that investigation of the kidnap and murder of Lesley Whittle has given renewed currency to this idea. But my right hon. Friend remains of the opinion, which I share, that a national police force—or even a national CID, which is another suggestion that comes up from time to time—is not the answer.

The advocates of a national force claim that it would lead to a more efficient use of manpower, to a better career structure, and to greater uniformity in the enforcement of the law. They argue that such a force would be better able to cope with criminals whose activities extend—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes to Twelve noon.