HC Deb 27 October 1981 vol 10 cc725-7

3.47 pm

Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the procedures for making complaints about the police; and for connected purposes.

The aim of the Bill is quite simply to establish an independent machinery for investigating complaints about the police. I am well aware that I am not the first hon. Member to raise this issue. Indeed, my research in Hansard shows that many hon. Members have raised the issue in the past. I pay tribute to their endeavours in publicising the need for a change in the present set-up.

In recent months, however, more attention has been drawn to the operations of the police. The general public have become more worried, and the way in which complaints about the police are handled has been the subject of much more attention in the media and elsewhere. In the last few weeks, indeed, three chief constables have come out in favour of independent machinery for investigating complaints against the police. The chief constable of the Lancashire force, Mr. Albert Laugharne, said: Investigations of complaints, whether they are of alleged crimes by policemen or serious disciplinary offences, I think, can only be done by an outside body responsible to a person independent of the police service. Mr. Peter Imbert, chief constable of Thames Valley force, spoke of the need for an independent complaints ombudsman. Mr. James Anderton, chief constable of Manchester, no less, said that the police had nothing to fear from an independent element in the system. It is also extremely probable that when Lord Scarman reports in a few weeks he, too, will come out in favour of independent machinery for investigating complaints against the police.

The Bill is therefore in no sense an anti-police measure. Indeed, I suggest that if the Bill became law it would lead to more public confidence in the police, because there would be more belief on the part of the public that legitimate complaints against the police would have a fair hearing and justice would be done and would be seen to be done.

The difficulty with the present method of investigating complaints is that it is seen and known by the public not to be independent, because the police themselves carry out the investigations. Accordingly, the public are reluctant to complain, partly because they feel that there is no purpose and partly because inevitably some of the complaints are of the way the police behave when the complainant may be under threat of prosecution.

A Home Office research unit report, unpublished but quoted extensively in The Times some months ago, drew attention to serious defects in the way that complaints of assault were handled in the Metropolitan Police area. Last year the Police Complaints Board completed investigations into about 15,000 complaints, Of course, the board does not have an "independent" element in the full sense of the word. The board considers reports of investigations and recommendations by the police. The effect of the board's work is to rubber-stamp the police reports. That is evidenced by the fact that in 1979 the board referred the report back to the police for more information in only 31 instances. The figure increased to 110 in 1980. That is still a drop in the ocean when one considers the volume of complaints made about the police every year. How would such an independent police investigating machinery operate? I shall call it the police ombudsman for short, because the public have come to accept that the other ombudsman machinery is truly independent of Whitehall, local government, or the service it may be investigating. I see the police ombudsman as having his own investigating staff. Some of them may be ex-police officers, but there would be no serving police officers in order to meet the need for a truly independent set-up in investigating complaints.

It is sometimes said that such an ombudsman may be bogged down by many trival or ill-founded complaints. Under the present set-up, when the police feel that complaints are trivial or ill-founded, they can refer them to the Police Complaints Board to save time. Last year 433 complaints were dealt with in that way. It is difficult to believe that, out of 15,000 complaints, only 433 were deemed to be ill-founded or trivial. The answer is that, because the police know that the way they handle complaints is scrutinised and criticised, they are understandably reluctant to say "These complaints are trivial and ill-founded so we will pass them to the Police Complaints Board." The result is that the police have to spend a great deal of time investigating trivial and ill-founded complaints. One of the benefits—although not the main one—of having an independent police ombudsman is that his staff could investigate complaints and report quickly without too full an investigation if there were prima facie evidence that the complaints were trivial, ill-founded or vexatious.

Furthermore, the police ombudsman could do something that is impossible under the present setup—that is, where appropriate, seek conciliation between the complainant and the police. That would be an enormous benefit and would lead to better relations between the police and local communities.

However, in some instances there would have to be a full and thorough investigation by the police ombudsman. That should not be confined only to instances of serious physical injury to a member of the public allegedly caused by the police, because there is a point of principle in some complaints against the police. Although they may seem to deal with a trivial event, there may be a major point of principle. The police ombudsman should have the power, when appropriate, to investigate fully the whole range of complaints.

The police ombudsman should have power to recommend, when appropriate, that the Director of Public Prosecutions institute proceedings against police officers or that the police disciplinary code be invoked. He would also have the duty to make a full report annually to Parliament. The Home Affairs Select Committee should have the power to deal in more detail with the reports and work of the police ombudsman. The police ombudsman should also have the power to make general recommendations to the police about overall policy and practice where that is appropriate in the light of one or more investigations.

The time has come to legislate. There is overwhelming support for this proposal and there is worry and disquiet about the way in which the system operates now. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill. We are nearing the end of the Session, but if I had the support of the House I should feel justified in reintroducing the Bill in the next Session. Then I should have the authority to ask for the support of the Home Office in putting forward such legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Christopher Price, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.