HC Deb 15 May 1984 vol 60 cc210-38

  1. '(1) Where the Authority receives a complaint against a member of a police force either from a member of the public or from a chief officer of police in accordance with section 75 above it shall (unless the complaint alleges that the person complained against has committed a criminal offence with which that person has at the time the complaint is received been charged) forthwith record the complaint.
  2. (2) The Authority shall determine whether the complaint is suitable for informal resolution or whether it should be formally investigated.
  3. (3) A complaint is not suitable for informal resolution unless—
    1. (a) the member of the public and the police officer concerned each gives his consent; and
    2. (b) the Authority is satisfied that the conduct complained of, even if proved, would not justify a criminal charge.
  4. (4) The Authority may require a member of its investigative staff to make inquiries to assist it in determining whether informal resolution would be appropriate and desirable in the interests of promoting public confidence in the police force.
  5. (5) Where it appears to the Authority that informal resolution of a complaint is suitable and desirable then the Authority shall 211 attempt to achieve such informal resolution and, if succesful, the Authority shall not exercise its powers to recommend disciplinary proceedings.
  6. (6) Save where a complaint is resolved informally the Authority shall cause all complaints to be investigated by a member of its investigative staff.
  7. (7) A member of the Authority's investigative staff who is required under subsection (6) above to investigate a complant shall on the completion of his investigations or otherwise at the direction of the Authority furnish to the Authority a written report of the conclusion of the investigation.
  8. (8) Notwithstanding that no complaint has been made by a member of the public under section 75 above, the Authority may undertake an invetigation of any matter coming to its attention in relation to the conduct of any police officer or the death or injury to any person whilst that person was in police custody and which, by reason of its gravity or other exceptional circumstances, appears to require independent investigation, and shall make a report of such investigation to the Secretary of State.
  9. (9) The Authority shall send a copy of any report under subsection (8) above to the police authority and the chief officer of police of any police force which appears to the Authority to be concerned or involved in the matter investigated.
  10. (10) Officers and servants of the Authority who are not constables may by authority in writing given by the Chairman of the Authority be given the powers and privileges of constables either generally for the purposes of their duties as officers or servants of the Authority or for such particular purposes as the written authority may specify.
  11. (11) The Authority shall issue adequate means of identification to any person authorised in accordance with subsection (10) above, which shall be produced on demand to any person in respect of whom or whose property that authorised person is permitted to act by virtue of the said authorisation.'.—[Mr. Dubs.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dubs

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 322, in clause 74, page 64, leave out line 4 and insert 'Authority for Police Complaints'.

No. 323, in page 64, line 5, leave out 'Police Complaints Authority' and insert 'Authority for Police Complaints'.

No. 187, in page 64, line 8, leave out 'supervision of investigations' and insert 'investigation'.

No. 188, in clause 75, page 64, line 16, leave out from 'take' to 'evidence' in line 17 and insert 'only such steps as appear to him essential to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of. No. 189, in page 64, line 19, leave out 'record the making of the complaint and its nature' and insert 'forward the complaint forthwith to the Authority'. No. 190, in page 64, line 22, after 'submitted', insert 'either to the chief officer of police or directly to the Authority—'. No. 193, in page 64, line 28, leave out clauses 76 to 80.

No. 247, in schedule 4, page 99, line 28, at end insert— '6A. In exercising its powers under this Schedule the Authority shall ensure that sufficient staff are appointed to carry out the Authority's investigative duties under section 74 and section (Powers and Duties of Authority in Investigation of Complaints etc.) of this Act. 6B. In appointing staff to carry out the Authority's investigative duties, the Authority may appoint serving members of police forces within the United Kingdom, provided that no serving member of a force is appointed for a period of more than three years, and provided also that the number of investigative staff appointed from amongst serving members of police forces does not exceed one third of the total number of investigative staff. 6C. The powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 33(1) of the Police Act 1964 shall be deemed to include power to make, and the Secretary of State shall accordingly make, regulations to provide that any serving member of a police force, who is appointed to the staff of the Authority, shall continue to hold office as a constable, and shall retain his continuity of employment with the force of which he was a member immediately prior to his appointment by the Authority.'.

Mr. Dubs

In an average year—1983 was typical—about 16,000 different complaints against the police are considered by the Police Complaints Board. In addition, it is clear that many people with a grievance against the police do not bother to complain. I know that from the conversations that I have had with constituents and from the people whom I have advised to complain who have said, "It is not worth doing," because they have no confidence in the present system for investigating complaints against the police.

A substantial number of complaints are put to the police but are withdrawn at an early stage and therefore do not feature in the statistics produced by the Police Complaints Board. An estimated 15,000 such complaints are not proceeded with, sometimes because the individual is persuaded that it is not worth going ahead and sometimes because gentle pressure is applied to the complainant, along the lines that a complaint would be a lot of bother, or a police officer's career would be at stake. Whatever the truth and the precise number of complaints, we know that a significant number of complaints are not proceeded with. That adds up to a series of serious criticisms by the public of the present system of investigating complaints against the police.

The purpose of the new clause is to establish an alternative and better system for investigating such complaints. It is right for me to deal briefly with what the present system consists of and the criticisms of it and to relate those details to the system suggested by the Government in the Bill. The present system consists basically of the police investigating any complaints raised against them. Although, occasionally, outside police officers are brought in to a police force to investigate, in the main, the complaints are investigated by the police officers from the force against which the criticisms were made. The result of that investigation, together with a recommendation which is usually made by the deputy chief constable, go before the Police Complaints Board. Where a criminal charge is a possibility, it is considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Although I welcome many aspects of the report of the Police Complaints Board, I am worried that the statistics, although clear in themselves, do not present the picture in a form as easily assimilated as it might be because they do not distinguish as clearly as they could between cases before the Director of Public Prosecutions and those dealt with merely by the board.

In 1983 the board dealt with 16,231 complaints of all types. Normally, the board rubber-stamps the recommendations of the deputy chief constable, but in a small number of instances the board has decided that it wants more information or that it will recommend disciplinary charges. In 1983, the board recommended disciplinary charges in 34 instances. In 69 instances it requested further information from the police force before it felt that it could come to a decision. About 234 complaints resulted in a charge being preferred. Advice was given in 1,346 complaints. Advice is really a form of discipline, less than the normal disciplinary procedures.

8.15 pm

The Government have acknowledged that there is serious criticism of the way in which the present system operates, at least to the extent of coming forward with alternative proposals. The proposals involve establishing a Police Complaints Authority which will, for the more serious categories of complaint, not merely receive the reports of the police but oversee the way in which the complaints are investigated by the police. No longer will the chief constable or the deputy chief constable of the police force be responsible for overseeing the investigation of the complaint. That responsibility will now lie with the new Police Complaints Authority.

There is now the possibility of a conciliation procedure. For the lesser categories of complaints — we must recognise that what seems to be a lesser category of complaint may often be a serious matter to the complainant—there will be a conciliation procedure. I welcome that procedure, and it is carried forward in new clause 19.

It is difficult, in terms of the Government's scheme of things, to understand how the police can be effective at conciliating between themselves and a complainant, because it departs from the concept that a third party independent of the issue at stake would be best placed to achieve such conciliation. The Government go some way towards acknowledging that difficulty in talking about having lay people in the police stations to reconcile the different interests of the police and the complainants. Nevertheless, that does not add up to a convincing approach. I should have thought that the object of conciliation could best be achieved by an independent body. That is part of the proposal recommended in new clause 19.

The main difference between new clause 19 and the Government's proposals is that the police will no longer investigate complaints against themselves. That responsibility will rest upon investigators who are the servants or employees of the new Police Complaints Authority rather than upon serving police officers. The new clause represents a major and significant change from present practice, which will go a long way towards lessening the suspicions of the public that police complaints are not worth pursuing because of the way in which they are handled—a feeling that will not be diminished by the Government's proposed new system. The question is not so much who overseas the investigation of the complaint but who carries out the investigation. The public's concern will not be stilled by the Government's proposals, but will be met fairly and squarely by the scheme suggested in new clause 19.

The following questions will be raised. From where are these investigators to come? How can we find people qualified and capable of doing the job? I readily concede that one cannot find them instantly and that there should be an interim period during which there must be a compromise between the present system and the new one until it is possible for the police complaints authority to find and train sufficient investigators to carry out the tasks suggested. In the meantime, there would have to be an interim arrangement, and serving or possibly retired police officers would have to fill the gap. That interim period would have to last for some time to allow for training. Nevertheless, other than in the short term, the difficulty of finding inspectors is not a substantial point. Given the will and desire to train people, it is surely possible to set up a force of investigators who could do the job now done by the police force. I can see no serious difficulty in that course of action.

I should like to make three points about the suggestion of using independent investigators. First, it has the merit of being supported by the Police Federation, although regrettably not by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who normally speaks up very loyally for that body's wishes and policies. However, in this case he is not in agreement with it, so I fully understand his absence from the Chamber. Secondly, the new scheme would have the confidence of the public, and would meet a great deal of the public's criticism of the present arrangements. Thirdly, it would save police time.

At present, if a burglary is to be investigated, it will be investigated by a fairly junior police officer, normally a police constable. However, if the person who has been burgled complains to the police about the way in which the burglary has been investigated, his complaint will be investigated at a much more senior level, possibly even by a police inspector. The police know that they are under pressure from the public, who are sceptical of the objectivity with which their complaints are investigated. I am sure, that in the main, such complaints are investigated fairly, but the public do not see it like that, and that is one reason for the change.

The public therefore are critical of the investigations made by the police and of the time that they take. However, the police are nevertheless under pressure to go into the details of many of the complaints—although I readily concede that some of them may be frivolous, vexatious, or ill founded—and cannot readily dismiss them by saying that there are no prima facie grounds for looking into them.

An independent body would not be so inhibited. It could say very quickly that a complaint was rubbish, that there was nothing in it and that no more time should be wasted on it. Thus, valuable police time would not be spent on such complaints and the total time spent might also be reduced. That would allow investigators to concentrate on the serious complaints against the police, about which there are many misgivings. Of course, the independent investigators would also be able to help in achieving conciliation over the lesser complaints, and that would also be an advantage.

I just do not believe that this issue will go away. We have to arrive at a scheme along the lines envisaged in the new clause. The Government will say that they have responded to criticism and have made changes and that everything is all right. However, that is not how the public see it. I accept that the publicity given to the change in the system may persuade the public to give it a fair go, but I am strongly of the view that it will not be long before public unease will again loom, and we shall all be aware of it. The issue will not go away, and public criticism will continue as a result of the Government's approach, that the police should continue to investigate complaints against themselves. That public feeling will not be stilled and we shall all be made aware of it. It would be far better if the Government recognised public feeling and concern, and agreed to meet the public's criticisms and to have an independent police complaints system. That is why I hope that the House will accept the new clause.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

While the police are involved in the investigation of complaints against the police, the public will never have the confidence that those complaints are being investigated properly. That proposition is supported not only by me, my party and those with whom we are allied, but, I would suggest, by the public at large, and in particular by police officers.

Although the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was not prepared to espouse that view in Committee, it was put forward by the Police Federation in the helpful briefings and arguments that were presented in great detail to members of the Committee. From a speech that the Minister made in Committee, I gained the impression that the Government recognised that the public would not have confidence in the investigation of complaints by the police, even with Police Complaints Authority supervision; but that they took the view that there was no feasible way of creating a sufficiently experienced and adequate independent investigating group. Thus, I gained the impression that it was a practical consideration which led the Government to reject amendments similar to the new clause.

There are several reasons why it is essential that totally independent investigative procedures should be introduced at some point. Many cases have been documented in which complaints against the police have been rejected for reasons varying from the banal to the casuistic, but which have led to great dissatisfaction among those who have complained. Many of the rejected complaints have not found their way into publications or newspaper articles dealing with the problems and inadequacies of the complaints procedure. Members of the public are afraid enough to complain, let alone to pursue a rejection via Members of Parliament or other channels.

It is also essential to have an independent investigative procedure at some point, because of things which have happened during the course of what is broadly called plea bargaining in the magistrates and Crown courts. At present, plea bargaining in the crude sense is not permitted. The practice is frowned upon severely by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, and by the Divisional court. However, the practice of plea bargaining is being followed to great advantage in some other jurisdictions, and the feeling is developing that the use here of controlled plea bargaining could serve a very useful purpose in shortening the length of criminal trials and speeding up the administration of justice.

A practising lawyer knows that in the informal plea bargaining that takes place from time to time, one of the matters sometimes raised is whether a complaint against the police will be pursued. Quite unfair pressure is occasionally put on the accused to agree to abandon a complaint against the police, effectively in return for the prosecution accepting a plea of guilty to a lesser offence than that charged on the indictment, or a plea of guilty to the least offence on the indictment. That form of unfair pressure would be avoided if the police complaints procedure was removed from investigation by the police service.

A third reason why it is essential that there should be an independent investigative body is for the protection of police officers. Hon. Members who have prosecuted and defended police officers charged in the criminal courts—often charged with extremely serious offences; any officer charged in the Crown court faces not only financial and social ruin but, almost inevitably, an immediate prison sentence — have found that considerable pressure is sometimes put on police officers by police officers.

8.30 pm

I speak not of the investigation of disciplinary complaints but of alleged criminal offences. However, the same, according to the Police Federation, applies to the investigation of disciplinary complaints. Indeed, police officers are sometimes subjected to the most unreasonable pressure when investigations are carried out by police officers. That can often lead to injustice. There is, therefore, an overwhelming case for an independent investigative body from that viewpoint too.

What practical objections lead the Government to shrug off the proposals in the new clause? Is it really correct to say that such a body could not be created or that, over a transitional period, it could not become effective and efficient? Neither point is an effective argument against the new clause. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) referred to ex-police officers. Many of them—former senior police officers in large numbers — are working for firms of solicitors throughout the country conducting investigations into defence cases and briefing their principals in the magistrates courts, and counsel for the defence in the Crown court.

Those former police officers — they may be gamekeepers turned poachers—are, as a body, the most effective group in looking after defendants' interests. Ex-senior officers with years of experience could be the backbone of an independent investigative body, at least during the transitional period.

There are many investigating services with enormous experience of carrying out inquiries of the utmost complexity. For example, the investigating officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have immense experience of, and skill in, carrying out difficult investigations, often in complex and hard circumstances requiring a great deal of subtlety. The Post Office investigation department has people of similar experience. The investigators of the DHSS—although they have come in for much criticism — have considerable experience of difficult investigations. Above all, the Inland Revenue's investigating officers have enormous skills in carrying out difficult inquiries.

Those are some examples of bodies from which the expertise required for the initial setting up of such a service could be drawn. I do not for a moment accept that it would be impossible to set up such a service. It is plainly in the public interest to create one, and the fact that there would be a difficult transitional period should never be a reason for not taking a necessary step such as this.

The new clause also provides that the new Police Complaints Authority would not only investigate complaints made about police officers' behaviour, but would also be able to institute inquiries, of its own volition, into circumstances brought to its attention concerning the police service.

Disquiet is sometimes caused by police activity, and one can think of many examples of that; for example, the death of a prisoner in custody. Such a prisoner may have no one, no friends or relatives, to make a complaint on his behalf. He may have been on the loose in London. There are examples of people on the loose in big cities who have died in police custody.

I make no comment on the merits of it for the purposes of arguing for the new clause, but another obvious example would be the stopping of alleged pickets—say, in the Dartford tunnel on their way to wherever.

Those are two examples of circumstances in which the authority might wish to instigate an investigation, not so much to decide whether particular officers have misbehaved; more to allay public anxiety which has arisen as the result of events which have come to public attention. There is, therefore, merit in the new clause, which I hope will be supported in the Lobby.

Mr. Martin Stevens (Fulham)

This is a difficult issue to resolve. Naturally, everyone who hears the superficial, in my view, criticism that a man should not be judge in his own cause will feel an instinctive sympathy with the new clause. In practice, however, the question that must be resolved is not one of abstract justice but of practical and difficult administration.

As a magistrate, I have tried dozens of cases in which complaints have been brought by members of the public against police officers and in which the police complaints procedure has led to the judgment that there was a case to answer. Not that one person's experience proves anything, but I have never presided over a case in which the bench felt that the criticism of the police was justified.

It is a fact—perhaps alone among all the legislative processes that take place in courts and elsewhere in Britain—that people blame, criticise and harass the police as a means of evading the consequences of their actions. If we were to set up the kind of mechanism advocated in the new clause the result would be an immense consumption of police time.

Such an investigation would have to be carried out in more formal circumstances than the police complaints procedure at present follows. It would be immensely expensive and the sole benefit that we should gain would be that some members of the public who interest themselves in these matters might feel that there was a greater play of abstract justice.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Knowsley, North)

Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that an independent system for investigating complaints against the police need not necessarily be any more formal or extensive than the system currently obtaining? The most important consideration is not, as he suggests, administrative inconvenience, but the system that reaches the right decisions and, more important in many ways, one that has the confidence of the public. If there were an independent system for investigating complaints against the police, that would be more likely to elicit the confidence of the public, which would be to the advantage of the police as well as of the individual complainant.

Mr. Stevens

I began by saying that this was a difficult point to judge. Of course I accept the force of what the hon. Gentleman says, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend does. However, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that an independent complaints procedure could be carried out in the relatively informal, well-informed way in which the present system works. It would be slower, more expensive and time-consuming. I do not think that it would produce findings that were immeasurably fairer or more just than the findings that are produced now. I am not sure that the level of public mistrust and concern is as high as Opposition Members suggest. There are many criminologists and specialists, and people who may have been the victims of hard cases—

Mr. Alex Carlile

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the present system is expensive and wasteful of police time? Wherever a complaint has been made against the police, if the person making the complaint is prosecuted, even for the most trivial complaint, an officer of at least the rank of superintendent has to sit in court at the trial. He is employed full time on discipline, so he is taken out of active police service, and he is usually an experienced operational senior officer who should be catching criminals. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree also that the fact that his court, the decisions of which I respect, has never convicted a policeman as the result of a disciplinary investigation shows that the present procedure results in a large number of unjust prosecutions being brought against police officers? The present investigative procedure is unfair to police officers, because it tends to be so hard-hearted.

Mr. Stevens

The hon. and learned Gentleman raises an interesting point. When I said that the independent procedure would consume more police time, I did not have in mind the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised about the time spent in court by officers in such cases. I was thinking of the time taken by the investigation, since, however well-informed an outside person may be, the police still have to conduct their investigation with more formality and better records than is the case at present.

It is not that the Government are doing nothing about the matter. My right hon. Friend—and it is not for me to make his case for him—has introduced into the Bill a number of guidelines and a number of new protections for the citizen which I support, and which I believe will work.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

It has been suggested that an independent board or investigation procedure would reduce the amount of police time spent on complaints. Does my hon. Friend not think that it is likely that, even with an independent board, the senior officer will still attend the court and independent boards, and rightly so, to look after the interests of his officers? In my view, there would be no saving in time or in money.

Mr. Stevens

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. However, I do not want to seem to be arguing that there is no merit in what Oppposition Members are saying, or that their proposals are foolish—far from it. I am saying that it is the matter of the nicest judgment which way one jumps on this argument, and that I for one am prepared to support my right hon. Friend, and the provisions in the Bill, which go considerably further than the present system. I believe that there is a good chance of their working, and I shall vote to give the new proposals a chance.

8.45 pm
Mr. Bell

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) in his attempt to grasp the points that are being made and to attribute to our proposals the sincerity that they merit. Hon. Members who have sat through the Committee proceedings and who have listened to the various statements of the Minister are familiar with them.

From personal experience, we believe that an independent Police Complaints Board or Authority is the appropriate course of action. I base that judgment on the various proceedings that have taken place in the county of Cleveland. Like other authorities, we have had a series of complaints against the police which were investigated by the police. The reports of the police on the police were not acceptable to the wider public in Cleveland, and certainly not to the police committee in Cleveland. These affairs rumbled on to a greater extent than they should have done. There was dissatisfaction among members of the police committee in Cleveland, and among the public who, on reading the newspaper reports, fell back upon the old saying that there is no smoke without fire and that there must be something more to this than met the eye.

The police investigating themselves was not a happy formula in the view of the police, the public or the police committee, which has the duty to oversee police operations. This matter caused much dissension in Cleveland, a great deal of dissatisfaction in the police force and much public discontent. Even Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, on its regular overseeing visits to Cleveland, refers to these matters, and to the fact that they are not resolved. The Police Complaints Board will be abolished under the Bill. We are not satisfied that the body that will replace it will be satisfactory from the point of view of the public or of the police.

In its triennial review in 1983, the Police Complaints Board, in response to the Government's proposals in the previous Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, said: Overall, the ultimate test of new arrangements must be whether they reassure the public of the integrity of these investigations, and remove the sense of unfairness which has been claimed. In a sense, that is the Police Complaints Board passing judgment upon itself, and it could well be described as a fitting epitaph on the board.

In 1982, the Home Department in its evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs acknowledged public dissatisfaction with the present police complaints system and set out three objectives for a changed system. The first objective was to seek an increase in public confidence, while retaining genuine police service co-operation. The second objective was to contain or reduce costs and if possible increase effectiveness. The third objective was to give as much importance to satisfying the complainant as to determining whether the officer had offended, by retaining fairness for the police officers. That was the balance which the Select Committee sought to achieve in the setting up of a new procedure. In using those three objectives as guidelines we should examine the proposed scheme in the Bill, which had its origins in the White Paper of 1983 entitled "Police Complaints and Discipline Procedures".

The purpose of the new clause is to impress upon the House the official Opposition's view, which in this instance is supported by the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, as so ably put by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), that there should be a fully independent system for the investigation of complaints against the police. We believe that an independent body would meet the guidelines set down by the Select Committee in 1982. We believe also that the scheme for investigating complaints that is proposed by the Government continues to be centred on the police. We contend that it is in the public interest, and in the interests of complainants, that that should cease. Justice should be done and be seen to be done, and we cannot accept the concept that the police investigating the police is appropriate and meets the satisfaction of the public.

Complaints are to be made to the chief officer of police, or are to be directed to him, and he will determine whether informal resolution or conciliation is appropriate. He will appoint an investigating officer, who will be a police officer, to investigate the complaint. There will be a requirement that certain complaints should be notified to the new Police Complaints Authority. Certain other complaints may also be referred to that authority. The authority will have to supervise the investigation by the police of certain complaints, and it may supervise other investigations. At the conclusion of the investigation a report will be sent to the authority, and the authority will issue a certificate to the complainant that will show whether the investigation was carried out satisfactorily. The report will then be referred to the chief officer of police, who will determine how the matter should be dealt with.

The Opposition do not believe that that is an appropriate method of handling the serious nature of complaints against the police. It must be accepted that some complaints are of a serious nature. In Cleveland there have been some complaints alleging violence by the police, which have had to be investigated. One complaint was supported by a decision of a High Court judge in a court of law. These matters are of the utmost importance to the complainant and we do not believe that the Government's proposals will meet the criterion of satisfying the complainant, let alone the public.

We must ask ourselves whether the present system is wasteful of financial and human resources. The Government's scheme includes the supervision of an unspecified number of complaints. There will be those which are considered to be serious because they involve death or serious injury, the public image or the reputation of the police. We believe that those matters should be heard by an independent Police Complaints Authority.

Are there hidden costs in the present proposals? We believe that the Government have failed generally to quantify the costs of the present system, which the Bill will abolish, in which thousands of police hours are spent working on complaints against the police. We believe that those costs will not be ameliorated by the Government's proposals. If the police involvement in the investigation of complaints were removed by the creation of a fully independent system, there would be significant benefits for the community, in that many officers would be returned to their normal policing duties, for which they were employed. In the debate on alternative systems for investigations, the true costs in money and human resources of the present structure must be put into the equation.

The new clause and the Opposition's proposals generally turn on the issue of effectiveness. It is the experience of the National Council for Civil Liberties that so long as the investigation is carried out by the police, complainants and their witnesses, if any, will often be deterred from pursuing a complaint because they do not want any further involvement with the police. The council has given me an example, which might be described as an extreme one, of a woman whose complaint concerned the unpleasant sexual behaviour of a police constable. It is not surprising that she withdrew her complaint when she was informed that it would be investigated by another constable visiting her home to take a statement. That is the sort of case which the council has referred to me and it represents a point of view which I wish to bring to the attention of the House.

The Opposition's proposals are fully set out in the new clause. They are meant to allay some of the fears of those who do not believe that an independent complaints board would be appropriate. We have gone to some lengths in our proposals to assist both the police officer, who may be the subject of a complaint, and members of the public. According to our proposal, a complaint is not suitable for informal resolution unless the member of the public and the police officer concerned each gives his consent. The authority may require a member of its investigative staff to make inquiries to assist in determining whether an informal resolution would be appropriate and desirable in the interests of promoting public confidence in the police.

Our proposals take on board the concept of public confidence. We wish to support public confidence in the police and it is no part of the official Opposition's argument — I surmise that this can be said of the arguments of the Liberal party and Social Democratic party—to seek to undermine it. That was made clear in Committee, which consisted of 59 sittings, and it has been made clear on Report as well as on Second Reading. I have no doubt that it will be made clear on Third Reading tomorrow. We shall say again and again that we are not here to weaken or erode the authority of the police. We are here to support and promote public confidence in the police. The new clause has been proposed because, as I pointed out in regard to our experience in Cleveland, public confidence in the police was eroded because complaints against certain officers were not properly resolved.

In the new clause we seek to promote public confidence in the police. We want the informal resolution of complaints, which would be in the interests of the claimant and of the police officer. We would also give the authority the right not to exercise its powers to recommend disciplinary proceedings. In subsection (8) we try to cover the situation which could arise, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, through the death or injury of a person while in police custody.

During the past few years the public have been gravely concerned about the number of persons who have died in police custody. Some years ago I was involved in the investigations which centred on Liddle Towers, a man from Chester-le-Street who died while in police custody in Gateshead. That led to two inquests and to a great deal of concern in the north-east of England; there was a series of investigations of one form and another. It was many years before public fears were allayed. That cannot be in the interests of the police.

9 pm

Mr. Greg Knight

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he thinks there should be an investigation when there has been no complaint? Surely if there is public disquiet over an issue there is likely to be a complaint.

Mr. Bell

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to those who died or suffered grevious injury while in police custody and who did not have relatives to bring attention to the matter. Such is the value we place on human life that we say that any death or serious injury to a person while in police custody should be the matter of an automatic investigation. I cannot, in equity or justice, see that that would be wrong. Often cases would go by the board if the press did not draw them to the attention of the wider public, and this has led to their investigation.

Mr. Knight

Surely if someone died while in police custody the coroner would seek to pursue an investigation. If any irregularities came to light as a result, action would be taken in any event.

Mr. Bell

The question then arises as to who would initiate the investigation once the coroner had found that there was an unnatural cause of death. Subsection (8) of the new clause says: Notwithstanding that no complaint has been made by a member of the public under section 75 above, the Authority may undertake an investigation of any matter coming to its attention in relation to the conduct of any police officer or the death or injury to any person whilst that person was in police custody Therefore we answer the question by saying that there should be an automatic independent investigation.

We are not seeking to create another empire within the bureaucracy. We are not trying to create an authority which would of its own accord go all over the place to investigate a series of matters which are beyond its purview and its powers of investigation. We feel that an indpendent authority should have the right to investigate cases of death or injury. This is based on my personal knowledge of what happened in county Durham.

As it stands, the Government's scheme involves the division of complaints into a large number of categories—the category that is suitable for informal resolution, the category that must be referred and supervised by the authority, the category that must be notified to the authority, the category that includes allegations of possible criminal offences and the category to be investigated but not supervised. A whole host of agencies or departments may be involved in the processing of the complaint—the chief officer of police, the preliminary investigating officer, the Police Complaints Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police authority itself, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, even the Home Secretary, the deputy chief constable and the appeal-stribunal. It would be almost impossible to advise a prospective complainant what would be done, and by whom, after a complaint had been submitted.

We must also take into account the need for simplicity. We have the ombudsman to help people who wish to complain about maladministration in government. Someone who wishes to complain about the police and has a grievance should be able to complain. That right is covered by new clause 19. The new clause covers the policeman or someone else in the police service who has committed a criminal offence and against whom a complaint is made. If someone is in prison, such a case might go as far as the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Bill is not perfect and does not meet the criteria which we believe can be met only by an independent body. I do not see why we cannot move towards such independence as a matter of principle. We seek wider public confidence in the police and a proper complaints procedure. Such a procedure should not be hampered by police bureaucracy. It should be handled by an independent body.

Later in the year we shall perhaps discuss the possibility of setting up an indpendent service for the prosecution of crimes in the Crown and magistrates courts. If such an independent prosecution service is to be written into statute, we should also have an independent police complaints service.

Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North)

We are seeing the House of Commons at its best. We are striving for a solution to a vexed problem. Getting the police complaints procedure right is important to our society. Up to now we have considered it in a civilised and intelligent way. The arguments by Opposition Members have substance, but I work on the basis that I give my Government the benefit of the doubt. I doubt whether what the Opposition propose in their interesting new clause is much preferable to that which is set out in the Bill.

The arguments are fairly evenly balanced. It is right to concede that. I do not believe in yabooism in politics. The Opposition should not condemn our Bill just because we proposed it, and I certainly do not condemn their interesting new clause just because they propose it. The argument for the independent element created by new clause 19 has substance.

I hope that the Minister will compare the new clause witt the contents of schedule 4 so that we can consider the merits and demerits of the two schemes. It is very important that we should get the complaints procedure right. We are lucky in this country to have a high standard of policing and a police force of high quality. Public confidence, and the efficacy and credibility of the police, can be ruined by the existence of what the police themselves call a bad copper. There can be no greater canker than that. The vast majority of members of the police force are more keen than anyone else that someone who has let down the standards of the police force should be rooted out and dealt with.

Some years ago I had the privilege of spending a week with the police. I went on patrol in the police car all night, and saw the scenes of crime. After that time my admiration for the police was even greater than it had been. They have a difficult, arduous and nasty task, especially in the case of road traffic cases and other incidents involving numbers of dead. However, we must not forget that the vast majority of policemen—the good coppers—are very keen to see that police officers who let the side down are dealt with fairly but strenuously.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will compare the contents of schedule 4 with the contents of new clause 19. Certain aspects of clause 19 are worrying. It seems to me that the authority would be too autonomous. The members of the authority created by new clause 19 would be given almost untrammelled powers to investigate any sphere. That would not be healthy from the point of view of the creation of a sensible authority, and it would not be good for the morale of the police if they suddenly found that the new authority had the power to investigate any aspect of police affairs. No doubt the members of the authority would not act on a whim, but the police might feel that they were in some jeopardy.

Mr. Barry Porter

Is not new clause 19 based on the supposition that there is a lack of public confidence in the present procedures of the police force? There seems to be no evidence for that assertion. Has my hon. and learned Friend's experience within the legal profession suggested to him that there is a lack of public confidence in the ability of the police to judge themselves when complaints are made?

Sir Anthony Buck

I do not think that there is much evidence of that, but I believe that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. I therefore consider that the present system is not totally satisfactory. It is perhaps somewhat too incestuous.

Under schedule 4 a new authority would be set up and the police would no longer be investigating the police. I am afraid that I have not studied in depth the deliberations of the Committee on this matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us what sort of person would be appointed as chairman of the authority, and how the authority would be composed. I apologise for not reading the Committee proceedings, which would probably have made that plain. My hon. Friends may feel incline to say, "Tut, tut." I challenge them to look me squarely in the face and say that they have read the many volumes of the deliberations of the Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will treat new clause 19 with the seriousness it demands and compare its provisions with what he recommends.

Mr. Greg Knight

Can I take my hon. and learned Friend back to his point about incest? Is it not better than an investigation be carried out fairly by those who know what they are looking into, even if they are not completely independent, rather than by an independent body that renders the investigation something of a sham because of lack of experience?

9.15 pm
Sir Anthony Buck

As one expects from my hon. Friend, that is a cogent point. Ideally, we want a mixture of an independent element and the services of the police force. No doubt my right hon. Friend will deal with the composition of the Police Complaints Authority. It is the police who really know about investigation. If there is an independent element perhaps, for once, we shall be able to have our cake and eat it.

My final point concerns what might appear to be a minutiae but we who are devoted to efficiency in government and clarity in drafting should pay attention to it. The Police Complaints Authority will, as is always the case in Whitehall—it is a habit that we have learnt from Washington—be abbreviated to PCA. The ombudsman is known as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or the PCA. We should concern ourselves with broad issues and administrative minutiae so that we do not create confusion when it is unnecessary. I have tabled amendments Nos. 322 and 323 so that the body shall be called the Authority for Police Complaints to avoid such confusion. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not reject the amendments out of hand because they are constructive, have an impeccable pedigree and have been discussed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Government must be flexible and we should get concessions from our Front Bench on small but important matters.

The Opposition's proposal is interesting and has considerable merit. On balance, however, what is proposed in the Bill is just preferable, but the matter is nicely balanced. The House is at is best when avoiding yah-booism and discussing matters sensibly so that we do what is best for those whom we have the privilege to represent and the police force. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's winding-up speech in which he might finally convince us that the Government's proposals are marginally preferable to those advanced by the Opposition.

Mr. Corbett

We should do our best to get the matter right, because it is probably our only opportunity for the next decade. We have had one stab at it and it is generally believed in the House and outside that the first attempt at establishing a police complaints board was not a success.

In a sense, one complaint against the police is one complaint too many. That is not to say that I expect the police force to discharge perfectly the duties that have been laid upon them, but to put into perspective the fact that we must take very seriously any complaint made against police officers when carrying out their duties.

Complaints will arise, so we need to be sure that the arrangements proposed in the Bill are the most sensible and sensitive way to deal with them properly. We know from the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure that the police rely overwhelmingly on the cooperation of the public when they solve crimes. We know, regretfully, that in the Metropolitan police area the clear-up rate of crimes has fallen, although there are more police on the streets to deal with burgeoning crime under this Government.

It is important in the detection and cleaning-up of crime for the public to have confidence in the police force. Hand in hand with that, the public should have confidence in the system that we devise to deal with complaints made against the police.

I regret very much that, during our discussions before the general election, more attention was not paid to procedures enabling conciliation to be used when complaints are made against the police. It is a grave mistake that the police committees are not, as I understand it, informed of complaints against the police. Neither are they invited, whether or not by their own choice, to attempt conciliation. The last thing that we need is a public who are increasingly hostile to the police, which should be part of the community that it is there to serve.

There is scope for conciliation in many complaints that are levelled against the police, but the opportunity has been missed.

A complaint about the existing Police Complaints Board—I lay it at the door of the system of which the board is the apex, rather than of the board itself—is that many complaints received by the board are subsequently withdrawn. That must be of great concern. The Under-Secretary will remember from our discussions in Committee that the Police Complaints Board reminded Committee Members in its letter that it had taken note of the many withdrawn complaints. It asked the Home Office to undertake research to discover why complaints were not proceeded with.

It is too easy to say, in our system, that someone who is knocked off, whether or not he is charged, will lash back at the police. I remember that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) used the phrase in Committee, "If you do me, I shall do you," or words to that effect. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is marking his 20th anniversary in this place tonight. I hope that he has done that in the best way possible, in the time available, although the night is still young. With respect to him, and I am sure that he did not mean it in this way, it is too flippant and easy to say that the major reason why complaints are withdrawn is that the complaints are put in an "I'll do you, you'll do me" manner in the heat of the moment. There is evidence that that is not so.

Sir Antony Buck

Might not an informal conciliation have caused the complaints to be withdrawn? I have known that to happen. Peace has been made on an informal basis in the way that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

Mr. Corbett

Yes, but regrettably no one knows why. That is why the Police Complaints Board asked the Home Office to carry out some research. A constituent of mine properly put in a complaint because of the way in which he was treated by the police. After the initial interview with the policemen who came to his home by arrangement—there is no complaint about that—my constituent said that he would withdraw the complaint because he had the strong impression that if he proceeded with it, every time he got into his motor car, someone would be waiting at the end of the road to knock him off. I do not know how well founded that belief was. I am just relating what my constituent said to me.

The House will remember that in his report on the Brixton disorders, Lord Scarman touched on this matter. Having received evidence recommending various reforms for the complaints procedure, he concluded at paragraph 7.21: My own view is that if public confidence in the police complaints procedure is to be achieved any solution falling short of a system of independent investigation available for all complaints — other than the frivolous — which are not withdrawn is unlikely to be successful. Any such system should include a 'conciliation process'. Parallel to that, research was carried out into the use of stop-and-search powers in the Notting Hill area in London. It showed a high rate of dissatisfaction—76 per cent. in the All Saints road area and 65 per cent. in the Holmefield estate area. There was almost total rejection of the police complaints procedure. Less than 6 per cent. of those who were dissatisfied made a complaint. As the Criminal Law Review 1983 recorded on page 612: The most common reason given for not complaining about being stop-searched was, in both areas, a lack of faith in the police complaints system". I am sure that no one in the House wants in any sense to lend credence or support to a system of dealing with complaints against the police that does not stand a fair chance of winning, and deserving to win, the confidence of the public. That is the nub of the matter. In an ideal world, we would have tried to develop a system that was truly and wholly independent. I am talking about straight complaints, not complaints touching upon disciplinary matters. There is an important distinction to be made. One of the welcome changes in the Bill is that when disciplinary complaints are made, the police officer concerned will be able to have legal representation. Leaving that aside, we are now talking about more general complaints.

Another of my constituents reported to me—I shall not go into detail, as it would be wrong to do so—that he felt that he had cause to lay a complaint against an officer of the West Midlands police force. The complaint was filed, and an officer was appointed to deal with it. He was instructed to telephone my constituent's solicitor. I am told that the police officer opened the conversation—the solicitor was known to him—with the words, "You are surely not going to pursue this complaint, are you?" Alleged remarks of that sort do not help relations between the police and the public, nor do they encourage a belief in the independence of the system that analyses complaints about the police.

9.30 pm

The Government have no confidence in the Police Complaints Board. When the Minister replies he may say that that is not the case, and that, having listened to what was said about it, they propose this new authority. Since the Police Complaints Board has been in operation, the Government have presided over a worsening position. The report of the Police Complaints Board 1983 states: The average time taken by the Board to complete action on a case was 46 days in 1983"— —that may not sound too long, but compared with 34 days in 1982". The board is taking longer to deal with complaints. That is not satisfactory, and the Government are responsible for it. The report continues: In … our last annual report we referred to the steps we had taken to increase the productivity of our small staff, steps which resulted in an increase in output of almost 9 per cent. for each caseworker, an improvement with which we were well pleased". So they should be. It continues: It became clear, however, that we had insufficient staff to do the work". My complaint against the Government is that it took until 30 June for the Home Office to approve a temporary increase in the board's complement of three executive officers, and until 1 December for the new staff to be in post. The report continues: By this date the backlog of cases not touched by the Board's staff had increased to almost 900. We plan to clear this backlog by the Autumn of 1984". We cannot have it both ways. We are all worried that the Police Complaints Board system does not work. We know from the Scarman report and the Policy Studies Institute report what the public's attitude to the Police Complaints Board is, yet it has taken us until now to respond. In that time there has been an increase in crime and an increased need to improve police-public relations. A more sensitive and thorough system of complaints about the police, whether or not they were frivolously lodged, was necessary.

The West Midlands constabulary sets an example to most police forces. In 1982 it came ninth for the time its board took to deal with non-sub judice cases. In 1983 it climbed to fourth position. I hope that they will reach first position. They have had a smaller number of cases with which to deal. That may have contributed to the way in which the police carry out their duties in a disparate area, which includes the major city of Birmingham. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Home Office to consider the figures and what lies behind them, as the way in which the West Midlands police have managed to improve the position may provide useful lessons for other forces.

I hope that we have got the provisions for the new complaints authority right, although I very much doubt it. Certainly, the Opposition in no way wish to impede the authority's work. I hope, therefore, that the Government will come forward with a chairman and members with a real will to make the new body far more responsive and sensitive to those whom it is being set up to serve.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

I welcome clause 75 and the establishment of the Police Complaints Authority, and I am surprised that we should have to debate new clause 19 at all. The Bill makes it clear that appointments to the authority will be for a maximum of three years, so there will be an independent element in the senior officials serving on the authority.

I cannot understand why Opposition Members consider that complaints will not be properly investigated by the authority. I am sure that the chief officer instructed by the authority to carry out an investigation will institute the correct facilities and call in a senior officer to handle the complaint. It seems something of a slur to imply that there might be difficulties there. I assure Opposition Members that they should not worry. The officer will certainly take down all the details and keep and protect all the evidence, because that is his duty under the Bill.

We want professionals to investigate any complaint against the police, and that is what the Bill provides. We should leave it to the experts rather than bringing in outside people. The public need have no fear of making formal complaints, because I believe that the investigations will be properly carried out. Therefore, I cannot see any need for the new clause. The Opposition should appreciate that the senior officer handling the investigation will be brought in from outside the area to carry out the investigation. We must not cast doubt on the professional integrity of that officer, who will be instructed by the authority to carry out the investigation.

The Police Complaints Authority will monitor all complaints at all times. How will monitoring be carried out under the system envisaged in the new clause? We all agree that we need to increase public confidence in the way in which investigations are carried out, and I understand—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will confirm this — that the police themselves support the new authority. I support the police and I believe that we should have confidence in them.

Mr. Alex Carlile

The hon. Gentleman says that the police support the authority. I do not think that he was present earlier when the House was reminded that the Police Federation favours an independent investigative body. Had the hon. Gentleman overlooked that? If so, what has he to say about it now?

Mr. Bruinvels

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for that information. However, the Police Federation has accepted that only up to a point. What concerns me more is who will be on the board that the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, and what kind of experience such people will have. It seems to be the case that new clause 19(10) will create too many tiers of bureaucracy. I want to see experts not talkers, workers not stirrers, and that will not be the result if the new clause is passed.

We want to enable the authority to carry on supervising the investigations. We want an independent element in the enquiry and that will be done by bringing in senior officers from outside the area. The chairman of the authority will be able to select a member of the authority to supervise the investigation and it will go on from there. The Secretary of State will have the power to impose requirements on the investigation and a report will be properly submitted. What is wrong with that? I cannot understand what hon. Members are worrying about.

After all this, we will know whether the investigation has been properly carried out. The report will be sent to the DPP if any extra action has to be taken. For that reason, I urge the House to throw out this new clause and support clause 75.

Mr. John Fraser

One does not represent an area such as Brixton for many years without having to deal with many complaints about the police. I have come to three conclusions. The first is that there are many so-called complaints that should not be dealt with under the police complaints procedure. They are complaints about attitude and are grudges rather than formal complaints. They are best solved informally and when that happens, more often than not they are dealt with to everybody's satisfaction and result in an apology and the resumption of a good relationship between the person making the complaint and the police officer.

My second conclusion is that the police complaints procedure centres far too much on whether the policeman has committed a criminal offence. When I have to make a complaint, I find that one of the most effective ways to start is by saying that I am not complaining of any criminal conduct on the part of the police officer. In that way, the police cannot evade the central thrust of the complaint by referring the complaint to the DPP and then getting a report back from the DPP saying that no criminal offence has been committed. If there is any advice that I can offer to fellow Members of Parliament, is to start one's letter, or get the constituent to start his letter, by saying that there is no complaint of criminal conduct and that it is simply a matter of attitude. This is a very effective way to deal with the problem and I am sure that the police are more receptive to it than to some other procedures.

My third conclusion is that, apart from those cases involving informal resolution of these matters, it is most effective in the interests of the police as well as in the interests of the public to have a completely independent element. It does not cut any ice with members of the public to be told that the independent element in a complaints case is an officer from another police force, or in London a senior officer from another division.

A recent case, which I mentioned last Friday, has given rise to much discussion in the black press and to some extent on television and radio programmes. It concerns a man called Junior Service who alleges that he was brutalised by the police. I wish to say nothing about the merits of the matter, but only that, in my view, the interests of the police in my division and the interests of both the black community and the entire community in such a case are best served by having a completely independent and rapid investigation. That is the most recent case that has come to my attention and it led to a huge rumpus in the local consultative police group, which I have been lucky enough to go to see since the beginning of the debate. It also supports the idea of a completely independent investigation.

I do not wish to detain the House for long, but merely to speak with experience of an area where there has been great tension and to point out that I firmly believe that the interests of everybody are best served by an independent element in the complaints procedure and by excluding the police. That will save police manpower, especially in places such as London. Rather than having a senior officer from another division dealing with these matters, there should be somebody from outside, who will probably be a lawyer, who will quickly build up experience in dealing with these matters and will be trusted by both sides.

There will be another spin-off. I cannot recall a complaint by a professional criminal. The theory used to be that most complaints came from professional criminals who wanted to snarl up the investigation against them. I have never come across such cases, although I do not doubt that they exist somewhere. A totally independent element would mean that the ability to reject frivolous complaints early would be received with much greater confidence than if the complaints were treated as frivolous by investigating officers.

It is believed—I hope that the Minister of State can tell us whether it is true — that the records of the Metropolitan police and, perhaps, of other authorities, eventually record whether a person has made a complaint against the police. It is a matter for alarm if that is correct, and the fact that someone has made a complaint is recorded in a secret way to which they have no access. I hope that the Minister of State will put that myth, if it is one, to rest.

9.45 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths

It is a pleasure, as I have said before, to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).

Mr. John Fraser

Do not keep congratulating me.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman speaks with much knowledge and always in a reasonable fashion, and I share many of his views. I hope that I do not embarrass him.

I welcome in general terms the reform that the Bill brings in. I do not believe that the Opposition's proposals are necessary. We went into these matters fairly fully in Committee. My difficulty — I believe that I candidly, admitted this to the Committee — is that the Police Federation has publicly said that it wishes to go all the way towards the independent investigation of complaints, but I believe that is not entirely the right way in which to go.

My difficulty is practical. If the principle of going outside the police service for investigation were accepted, we would be faced with three new propositions. The first is that there are certain crimes which the police cannot be trusted to investigate. It is unpalatable to be asked to accept that the police can investigate the treason of a Minister, the activities of any hon. Member and any form of the most serious state crime, yet they are not to be trusted to investigate another serious crime—the failure of a police officer to do his duty properly. That suggestion is almost an insult to the police service.

Secondly, we would have great difficulty in rapidly recruiting a core of competent independent investigators. They do not grow on trees. It may be that, if we follow the FBI fashion in the United States, sooner or later we could bring in lawyers, accountants or other professional people, but the House would be stretched to find the necessary core of competent investigators. Investigations of alleged crimes, complaints or other malpractices by the police are exceedingly difficult areas. Nothing proved that as conclusively as the Countryman affair. That matter was not to the credit of the police service. It demonstrated the need for a sophisticated group of people to do the job. They are certainly not available.

Thirdly, Britain is uniquely fortunate that the police service is broadly consistent across the country. I shall never favour a national police force. The police force should be locked into the territorial identity of our people. I believe that that creates a better sense of consent and of community. The British police are unique in wearing virtually the same uniform, being paid in the same way, being subject to the same laws and recognisable across the entire kingdom.

If we created a separate body, we would for the first time be providing for a two-tier police service. There would be one group of policemen who could do most jobs, and another small group who could do only one job. Yet often both police officers and civilians will be involved in a complaint againt the police. For example, in a fraud case a policeman may have connived with outsiders in some improper way at breaking the law. It is an extraordinary proposition that the police should investigate the civilian aspects of that crime, but an entirely different body of people should be brought in to investigate the matter in so far as it affects the police, despite the fact that they are all involved in the same conspiracy. That would not work. It is impractical.

The Government have achieved roughly the right balance. However, like many other hon. Members, I have some reservations, and I should like to ask just one question. My right hon. Friend will know that recently, in a Queen's Bench case, Mr. Justice Hirst ruled that a police officer was entitled to see a copy of the complaint made against him. Previously, there had been a question whether he was so entitled. I am sure that the judge arrived at the right conclusion, but I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend the Minister feels it necessary to embody the conclusions of that case in the Bill. I know that he cannot answer that question now, but perhaps he will consider it before the Bill goes to the other place.

Mr. Hurd

I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that I should like to consider that point.

A procedure for handling complaints against the police is obviously crucial, and that is why it plays a large part in the Bill. That is not because there is a lot of suspicion about the police, or because they are markedly unpopular. All the evidence available suggests that neither of those things is true. However, it is important that there should be a procedure for handling individual complaints against the police which not only works well but which, as many hon. Members have said, is seen to work well. Within that procedure for handling complaints, an independent element is crucial.

We have an independent element in the present Police Complaints Board. No hon. Member, either in this debate or in Committee, has questioned the integrity or independence of the Police Complaints Board. Indeed, I believe the House is indebted to the board for its painstaking and successful work, but the board was among the first to suggest that further change was necessary. The change that we propose in the Bill is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) pointed out, radical and substantial. We are setting up a new body called the Police Complaints Authority.

I am sorry that the name distresses my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). However the change is not just a change of name, but symbolises a change, or addition of function. For the first time, the investigation of complaints will be supervised by members of the authority. In the process we have advanced the role of the independent element. The importance of that has not yet been fully understood. So far, it is a matter of a White Paper and clauses in a Bill, but when it comes into effect, it will increasingly be seen by those who follow such matters and by the public that the change is more weighty than has so far been acknowledged.

My hon. and learned. Friend the Member for Colchester, North has quite understandably tabled an amendment and spoken about the title of the new authority. I think he will allow me to say that he raised the issue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary earlier in the year, and that my right hon. and learned Friend looked at the suggestion. After considering it he held to the conclusion, of which I told my hon. and learned Friend at the time, that it would be more sensible to stick to the description that we had devised. It is more straightforward to use the name in the Bill than the name which my hon. and learned Friend suggested.

There is the duplication—the doubling, as it were—to which my hon. and learned Friend understandably and correctly referred. Probably he will accept that most people think of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration as the ombudsman, and that those who do not — those who, like my hon. and learned Friend, describe him correctly as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—will not have much difficulty with the fact that there is another body, the Police Complaints Authority, set up by this House for a different purpose. Among the public at large, therefore, there will not be confusion; they will think of this important gentleman as the ombudsman, and those who know the correct title will not be confused by the fact that there is another body called the Police Complaints Authority.

The idea in new clause 19 was rehearsed in Committee and has been rehearsed outside the House on many occasions. The idea of a separate corps of investigators is one with which we are all familiar. It is a beguiling idea at first sight, and achieves many adherents, because many people are interested in appearances at first sight. While, therefore, it is an idea which has an immediate impact, its merits deserve examination, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North said, and those merits begin to disintegrate as they are exposed to examination.

It is not just a matter of practicalities, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) supposed I believed. There is a philosophical point here, which some of my hon. Friends mentioned. The police are a disciplined force. That discipline is the responsibility essentially of the chief officer. It is essentially a self-disciplined force. That is the foundation of British policing and of public confidence in the police.

If things go wrong in a police force they may be discovered from within, and that is clearly a matter for internal investigation and, if necessary, discipline. Or they may be discovered from without as the result of a complaint, and that needs a special procedure with a strong independent element.

If the investigation of a complaint were taken away from the police, that would be a bodyblow to the idea of a self-disciplined force. The bonds of discipline in a police force could begin to relax in those circumstances and they would spend more time protecting themselves against what they saw as an outsider.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery spent some time on the question of who would comprise the new corps. The corps would obviously have to contain a wide range of experience and skills. It would have to be a big and expensive force, and many of those skills are peculiar to the police. Without those skills, the new force of investigators would be ineffective.

It has been suggested that it could start off with seconded or ex-police officers. If that were to happen, the connection with the police would be clear enough. It would not take long for people to see through that, and the advantage allegedly to be gained from an independent corps would be dissipated straight away. Experience overseas, particularly in the United States, on which the Home Office has published a research paper, is not particularly hopeful in that regard.

The basic problem of complaints would still remain. The problem which gives rise to difficulties and occasional frustrations is not connected with the uniform worn by, or the name of, the people who investigate. There is the basic difficulty of the conflict of evidence—of two witnesses who do not agree, with nobody to corroborate or deny —and that is the essential cause of dissatisfaction and why the problems will not go away, even with an independent corps of investigators.

It is a safe bet, as I said in Committee, that if there were a new corps—if the new clause were passed and a new corps of independent investigators with their own uniform, structure and expense were brought in — they would soon be subject to probing and dissatisfaction because it was thought that they were too much under the influence of the police, or because there was constant friction and rowing between them.

I hope that I have said enough to show the House that the proposals in the new clause would be less effective in practice than those contained in part IX. I think that in the longer term they would also cause harm to police accountability, morale and effectiveness, and to public confidence in the complaints system and in the police as a whole.

I therefore ask the House to reject the clause and its associated amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 245.

Division No. 299] [10.00 pm
AYES
Alton, David Harman, Ms Harriet
Anderson, Donald Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Ashdown, Paddy Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Ashton, Joe Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Home Robertson, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Barnett, Guy Howells, Geraint
Barron, Kevin Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Beith, A. J. Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Bell, Stuart Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Benn, Tony Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Janner, Hon Greville
Bermingham, Gerald John, Brynmor
Blair, Anthony Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Boyes, Roland Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Bray, Dr Jeremy Kennedy, Charles
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Kirkwood, Archibald
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Lambie, David
Bruce, Malcolm Lamond, James
Buchan, Norman Leadbitter, Ted
Caborn, Richard Leighton, Ronald
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Campbell, Ian Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Litherland, Robert
Canavan, Dennis Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Carter-Jones, Lewis Loyden, Edward
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) McCartney, Hugh
Clarke, Thomas McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Clay, Robert McGuire, Michael
Clwyd, Ms Ann McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Maclennan, Robert
Cohen, Harry McNamara, Kevin
Coleman, Donald Madden, Max
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Marek, Dr John
Conlan, Bernard Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Martin, Michael
Corbett, Robin Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Craigen, J. M. Maxton, John
Crowther, Stan Maynard, Miss Joan
Cunliffe, Lawrence Meacher, Michael
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Michie, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Mikardo, Ian
Deakins, Eric Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dewar, Donald Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dobson, Frank Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Dormand, Jack O'Brien, William
Douglas, Dick O'Neill, Martin
Dubs, Alfred Park, George
Duffy, A. E. P. Parry, Robert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Patchett, Terry
Eadie, Alex Pendry, Tom
Eastham, Ken Penhaligon, David
Ellis, Raymond Pike, Peter
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Fatchett, Derek Prescott, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Radice, Giles
Fisher, Mark Randall, Stuart
Flannery, Martin Redmond, M.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Forrester, John Richardson, Ms Jo
Foster, Derek Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Foulkes, George Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Rogers, Allan
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Rooker, J. W.
George, Bruce Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Gould, Bryan Sedgemore, Brian
Gourlay, Harry Sheerman, Barry
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Skinner, Dennis Wareing, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & Fbury) Weetch, Ken
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Welsh, Michael
Snape, Peter White, James
Soley, Clive Wigley, Dafydd
Spearing, Nigel Williams, Rt Hon A.
Steel, Rt Hon David Winnick, David
Stott, Roger Woodall, Alec
Straw, Jack Young, David (Bolton SE)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) Tellers for the Ayes:
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) Mr. Don Dixon and
Wainwright, R. Mr. Frank Haynes.
Wallace, James
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan Currie, Mrs Edwina
Alexander, Richard Dicks, Terry
Amess, David Dorrell, Stephen
Ancram, Michael du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Arnold, Tom Dunn, Robert
Ashby, David Eggar, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack Emery, Sir Peter
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.- Evennett, David
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Eyre, Sir Reginald
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Fairbairn, Nicholas
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Fallon, Michael
Baldry, Anthony Farr, John
Batiste, Spencer Favell, Anthony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Beilingham, Henry Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Bendall, Vivian Fletcher, Alexander
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) Fookes, Miss Janet
Benyon, William Forman, Nigel
Berry, Sir Anthony Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Best, Keith Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Fox, Marcus
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Franks, Cecil
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Gale, Roger
Bottomley, Peter Galley, Roy
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Goodhart, Sir Philip
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Gorst, John
Braine, Sir Bernard Gower, Sir Raymond
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Grant, Sir Anthony
Brinton, Tim Greenway, Harry
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Gregory, Conal
Brooke, Hon Peter Griffiths, E. (B'ySt Edm'ds)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Browne, John Grist, Ian
Bruinvels, Peter Ground, Patrick
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Grylls, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Budgen, Nick Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bulmer, Esmond Hanley, Jeremy
Burt, Alistair Hannam, John
Butler, Hon Adam Hargreaves, Kenneth
Carlisle, John (N Luton) Harvey, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Haselhurst, Alan
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) Hawksley, Warren
Carttiss, Michael Hayhoe, Barney
Cash, William Hayward, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Heathcoat-Amory, David
Chapman, Sydney Henderson, Barry
Chope, Christopher Hickmet, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hicks, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Hind, Kenneth
Cockeram, Eric Hirst, Michael
Colvin, Michael Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Conway, Derek Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Coombs, Simon Holt, Richard
Cope, John Hooson, Tom
Cormack, Patrick Hordern, Peter
Corrie, John Howard, Michael
Couchman, James Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Cranborne, Viscount Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Mellor, David
Hunt, David (Wirral) Merchant, Piers
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Hunter, Andrew Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Monro, Sir Hector
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Moore, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Moynihan, Hon C.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Nicholls, Patrick
Key, Robert Ottaway, Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom Pattie, Geoffrey
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Pawsey, James
Knox, David Porter, Barry
Lamont, Norman Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Lang, Ian Powell, William (Corby)
Latham, Michael Powley, John
Lawler, Geoffrey Raffan, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Rost, Peter
Lester, Jim Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lilley, Peter Ryder, Richard
McCurley, Mrs Anna Sackville, Hon Thomas
Maclean, David John Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Maginnis, Ken Sayeed, Jonathan
Malins, Humfrey Scott, Nicholas
Mates, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mather, Carol Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Shersby, Michael
Sims, Roger Trippier, David
Skeet, T. H. H. van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S) Viggers, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith Waldegrave, Hon William
Speller, Tony Walden, George
Spencer, Derek Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Waller, Gary
Squire, Robin Ward, John
Stanbrook, Ivor Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Stanley, John Watson, John
Steen, Anthony Watts, John
Stern, Michael Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) Wheeler, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) Whitfield, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) Winterton, Mrs Ann
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) Winterton, Nicholas
Sumberg, David Wolfson, Mark
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) Wood, Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter Woodcock, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Younger, Rt Hon George
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) Tellers for the Noes:
Thornton, Malcolm Mr. Michael Neubert and
Townend, John (Bridlington) Mr. John Major.
Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived