HC Deb 11 March 1976 vol 907 cc597-9
1. Mr. Aitken

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the internal disciplinary system of the Metropolitan Police.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

Yes, Sir, subject to the changes in the procedure for dealing with complaints that I have proposed in the Police Bill.

Mr. Aitken

What is the Home Secretary's reaction to the speech by Sir Robert Mark on 25th February when he voiced certain criticisms of the Police Bill on the grounds that it was likely to reduce the effectiveness of police internal disciplinary procedures to the inadequate level of criminal justice? As 59 per cent. of police officers tried on indictment last year were acquitted, compared with the national acquittal average of 17 per cent., do not those figures alone indicate how necessary it is for the police to be able to get rid of their own rotten apples by swift, internal, effective disciplinary procedures?

Mr. Jenkins

Yes, but I do not think that that would be impaired by the Bill. Sir Robert Mark, for whom, as hon. Members know, I have the highest respect as a Police Commissioner, has always believed in taking matters to the public and exercising a wide range of discretion when making controversial statements. I make no objection to that at all, provided that he does not expect me necessarily to endorse all of them in every circumstance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, during the Committee stage we have had an adjournment and a pause for reflection which I hope has been beneficial. It has emerged that there is a substantial difference of police opinion—for example, the Police Federation takes a very different view.

Mr. Christopher Price

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of all the admiration for Sir Robert Mark, there is still very great disquiet in the London Borough of Lewisham and other parts of South London about the protection afforded to individual citizens under police interrogation? When will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals so that proper protection can be given?

Mr. Jenkins

I am aware of the point which my hon. Friend has made. Indeed, he came to see me about this matter and we discussed it fully. One form of protection is the Police Bill, which I am anxious to see on the statute book as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Mr. Alison

The narrow point to which Sir Robert Mark is addressing his opinion is that the Police Bill as drafted will add yet further time and dimensions of inquiry under the tribunal procedure to the handling of internal disciplinary matters. Is it not a serious possibility that police officers will try to spin out their time in the service to allow the full scope of the Police Complaints Board inquiries to elapse before they can finally be got rid of? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a change from the present arrangements for the worse?

Mr. Jenkins

To be honest, I doubt whether it would be useful to try to encapsulate in an exchange at Question Time discussions which have already taken 15 Committee Sittings. My problem, and it is the problem of everyone, that, first, I believe that there is a general demand for a Police Bill. Certainly no hon. Members voted against it on Second Reading. Secondly, I believe that it is essential to preserve the effective discipline of chief officers over their forces, a matter about which the Commissioner has expressed great concern. Thirdly, it is essential not to have double jeopardy and certainly that is something to which the Police Federation attaches great importance.

This is a circle which requires some delicacy in squaring. I think that we are about as near to it as we are able to get in our Bill, but I would never take the view that every dot and comma of the Bill is right. Although I believe that the main framework is right, I am certainly willing to consider particular points, as we have before.