HC Deb 01 June 1998 vol 313 cc145-52

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

11.51 pm
Ms Sandra Osborne (Ayr)

I welcome the opportunity to represent my constituent, Mr. Lawrence Ramadas. I also believe that the issues that I am about to raise have wider significance in relation to the race relations policy of Strathclyde police and the message that the general public can take from the case.

Thirteen years ago, Lawrence Ramadas joined Strathclyde police and was proud to be a police officer. He believed that he had a great future with the police. His ambition was to join the traffic department, but, despite passing sergeant and inspector promotion exams within four years of becoming a police constable, producing consistently good results in his annual appraisals and continually applying for positions, the extremely promising young officer was never transferred off the beat despite applying six times to the traffic department.

Lawrence Ramadas is a personable, intelligent and articulate young man who would be a credit to any force, but instead, 13 years after joining the police, he is homeless, jobless, virtually broke and his health has suffered. At one point, Mr. Ramadas lost his self-respect, but he has certainly gained my respect and that of many others in his tireless quest for justice.

On 11 February 1997, an industrial tribunal found that Lawrence Ramadas had been subjected to one of the worst forms of discrimination. He was discriminated against by Strathclyde police—and by Superintendent Gordon Macpherson in particular—because of the colour of his skin.

Many people may believe that if Strathclyde police were serious about their much-vaunted race relations policy and determined not to tolerate racism in the ranks, they would have apologised to Mr. Ramadas immediately and compensated him for his trauma and for the destruction of every facet of his life. Instead, Strathclyde police appealed and lost. Their lawyers applied almost immediately to overturn the ruling on the technicality that the claim was brought after the legal deadline.

Racism cannot be confined to individual acts. It is a process whioh leaves victims disabled, disempowered and vulnerable. That is not well understood in the tribunal or police procedures. I ask the Minister to consider the time bar. It is not easy to determine when an episode of racism began or ended.

A few weeks ago, the tribunal ruled with a considerable amount of regret that the time bar ruling applied and that no compensation could be awarded to Lawrence Ramadas. It added that the treatment meted out to Lawrence Ramadas was extremely serious with devastating effects and "an abuse of power". It concluded: It is frustrating for the tribunal to be unable to compensate him adequately. Those on the tribunal could hardly have been more damning in their condemnation or have expressed their views more clearly. That there had been racism was established without doubt.

Alas, the almost gloating reaction of the chief constable of Strathclyde, as reported in The Scotsman on 10 April, was: By virtue of the tribunal's adjudication upholding the time bar argument, the force has averted any award of damages from the police budget impacting on front-line service to the public. That statement constitutes blatant and institutional racism. It is an insulting response which almost beggars belief. Strathclyde police remain guilty of racism, but managed to avoid recompensing a man whose life they have ruined because of a technicality—and they believe that they should be congratulated for so doing.

The chief constable pontificates that he will not tolerate racism, while in the same breath condoning proven racism, the tackling of which figures low in his priorities given his comments about saving public money. I wonder how much public money the police have spent to date on defending the indefensible.

After the findings of the first tribunal, the deputy chief constable, Mr. Richardson, announced that he had commissioned an independent inquiry into a breach of police discipline regulations. On Wednesday 26 February, Mr. Ramadas was interviewed by the investigating officer of the inquiry—Assistant Chief Constable MacKay—in the presence of his solicitor. At the outset, he was informed by Assistant Chief Constable MacKay that his sole remit was to investigate breaches of the police discipline regulations and that it had nothing to do with the industrial tribunal. I concur with that view.

However, Mr. Richardson deferred making a decision on possible disciplinary proceedings until the outcome of the employment tribunal was known, in spite of the police inquiry's recommendation that there was a case to answer. Mr. Richardson seems to want to have it both ways.

Surely the police discipline code and industrial tribunal legislation are quite separate entities under the law. The fact that Lawrence Ramadas has sought recourse to justice from an industrial tribunal surely does not absolve Strathclyde police of their responsibility as employers. In this case, however, Strathclyde police appear to have shirked their responsibility to make a decision on the independent report that they commissioned, and it appears that the decision whether to proceed with a discipline case is dependent on the outcome of an employment appeals tribunal.

Such a course of action cannot be correct or justified, and, in practice, means that the progress or otherwise of a discipline case is, de facto, being decided by an employment appeals tribunal. What if the employment appeals tribunal had decided that racist discrimination had not occurred? After some considerable time, would Strathclyde police have also decided that there was no case to answer? It is not surprising that Lawrence Ramadas believes that, by continually deferring a decision on the independent report, Strathclyde police were hoping that the whole sad episode would simply go away or be quietly forgotten, and that the perpetrator of the abuse would remain in a highly paid job and retire on a substantial pension, while the victim of his abuse is jobless, homeless and almost penniless, and cannot get another job the moment that he explains why he left the police service.

After various false starts, a date has been set for a disciplinary hearing. Apparently, the hearing was set for 4 February 1998, but was delayed until April at the request of the perpetrator's solicitor, who has sought a judicial review, challenging the competence of the chief constable to raise disciplinary proceedings. That has meant, of course, that the whole process has again ground to a halt, and it may be September before a disciplinary hearing is heard—depending on the result of the judicial review. The Tayside report recommending action was published in May 1997.

I have here a copy of Strathclyde police race relations policy. According to the chief constable, it is written with a view to dealing with racially motivated incidents that breach the criminal, not the civil, law. In other words, if the racially motivated incident is in-house, it will not be brought to public attention. If that is so, can any officer subject a colleague to racism with impunity because it is a civil and not a criminal offence?

The Lawrence Ramadas case is a clear example that the system is not working. It neither reflects an understanding of the structural causes of racism nor demonstrates a coherent practice based on sound equal opportunities policies for dealing with it. Nor is it equitable in giving access to witnesses and documentation—both of which were denied my constituent's solicitor. I therefore call on the Minister to initiate an investigation, outwith the police authorities, on the handling of the case, to consider where procedures can be improved and to ensure that justice prevails for Lawrence Ramadas. He seeks an acknowledgement of guilt, an apology and compensation for loss of earnings after 12 years' service in the police, damage to health, homelessness and the hurt, distress and trauma caused by the horrendous process.

I am not alone in my belief that the outcome to date has been unsatisfactory. I shall quote Mr. James Wylie, who was until recently office manager of the Scottish Police Federation in Glasgow and formerly a police officer for 30 years: I have worked for the Police for the last 39 years and generally thought highly of the service and the way in which it was run. This case has almost completely destroyed my faith in the service (at least at a senior level) and I would earnestly reiterate that some form of independent inquiry should be set up to examine the actions of Strathclyde Police senior management in this case. Surely someone, somewhere must be able to make Mr. Orr and his force accountable and responsible for the racism perpetrated against Lawrence Ramadas or does justice grind to a halt at the entry doors of Police Headquarters in Pitt Street? A petition is circulating in Scotland calling for compensation and a resolution to this case.

Lawrence Ramadas was a model police officer and an example to others. It may interest the House to know that there is still an appalling lack of representation from the ethnic minority community as far as police recruitment is concerned. In 1996, Scotland's eight forces had 40 ethnic minority recruits, only two of whom have been promoted to sergeant. Of 9,187 workers in the Strathclyde force, 33 officers and 17 support staff come from ethnic minority communities.

The race relations policy of the force states: Recruitment of police and force support personnel from black and ethnic minority communities will continue to be a priority of Strathclyde Police, which, as an employer, seeks to create a harmonious and productive working environment by adhering to a well-established and continuously reviewed equal opportunities policy. This did not work for Mr. Ramadas.

Mr. Ramadas was a model police officer and an example to others. On numerous occasions, he was paraded for the cameras and the press as an example of the positive measures Strathclyde police were taking to tackle racism and to recruit more officers from ethnic minority communities. However, Lawrence Ramadas now has no job. He had no equity and he had no justice. Strathclyde police have won an Investors in People award. Mr. Ramadas is not impressed by that award.

Strathclyde police, as a public service, represent the state and, in particular, the upholding of the law as part of the criminal justice process. They also have a duty to uphold a moral and civil message that racism is not acceptable. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's comments, and I urge him to look at the situation as a matter of urgency.

12.6 am

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on her success in securing this debate and on the manner in which she has outlined her case. The House will, I am sure, agree that racism should have no place in the Scotland of today, least of all in the police. We must value the unique contribution made to our society by each individual, regardless of background, race or creed. Any incident with a racist element—wherever or whenever it happens—is a matter for deep regret, and we must do everything in our power to prevent such incidents from occurring. When they do occur, any alleged wrong must be confronted and firm action taken.

The incident concerning my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Lawrence Ramadas, took place almost six years ago. The industrial tribunal that considered his case did not suggest that the force as a whole was racist; its conclusion related to the actions of one officer, Superintendent Gordon Macpherson, for whom the force was held responsible.

As soon as the tribunal announced its decision in February 1997, the deputy chief constable commissioned an independent inquiry by Mr. James MacKay, assistant chief constable of Tayside police. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that such prompt action does not suggest any complacency on behalf of the force.

Strathclyde police also decided to appeal against the tribunal's decision, on legal advice, on the basis that given the complexity and length of the evidence presented over 12 days, the industrial tribunal's reasoning did not, in the force's view, support its conclusions. Mr. MacKay's report was completed in May 1997, but no action was taken pending the appeal.

The appeal was rejected in December 1997. Following the outcome of the appeal—and in the light of the recommendations in Mr. MacKay's report—Strathclyde police initiated disciplinary proceedings against Superintendent Macpherson in December 1997, with a hearing being scheduled for February 1998. At that point, however, Superintendent Macpherson began legal proceedings in the Court of Session to prevent the hearing. A judicial review of the deputy chief constable's decision to pursue disciplinary proceedings against Superintendent Macpherson is to be heard in July.

Subject to the outcome of the judicial review, Strathclyde police have made a provisional arrangement for the disciplinary hearing to take place in September. The deputy chief constable of Strathclyde police has arranged for Queen's Counsel to present the case against Superintendent Macpherson, and the chairman of the disciplinary hearing will be the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police, Mr. Roy Cameron.

As the incident took place several years ago, the discipline case will be taken under the Police (Discipline) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, as amended—the procedure which was current at the time. It will be for the disciplinary hearing under Mr. Cameron to determine whether Superintendent Macpherson was guilty of an offence under the 1967 Regulations. A variety of punishments, ranging from caution to dismissal from the force, may be imposed. The procedure includes a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the finding and against any punishment imposed as a result of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. I regret that, in the circumstances, I cannot comment further on the case—to do so could prejudice the role of the Secretary of State in any appeal.

Although I understand my hon. Friend's frustration, I do not think that it would be fair to blame Strathclyde police for the fact that the case has been so protracted. It is important that the proper procedures are followed. I am satisfied that current police disciplinary and conduct arrangements in Scotland are working. A major review of the complaints and discipline system in Scotland was conducted in 1996, resulting in new conduct regulations. The new regulations provide more flexibility in the way in which misconduct by officers can be dealt with and increase the range of disposals available. I am, of course, aware of the recent Home Affairs Committee report on police disciplinary and complaints procedures in England and Wales. I shall consider, in consultation with the police, whether any of its recommendations that we have not already covered need to be introduced in Scotland. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in saying that we should carefully consider any ways in which we can improve procedures.

Having referred to the case of Mr. Ramadas and explained why I cannot comment more fully in the light of the proposed disciplinary hearing, I shall set out in more general terms the approach of the Scottish police service to ensure fair treatment and opportunities for all its officers. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend's satisfaction that significant strides have been taken in the past five years.

I assure my hon. Friend that the police in Scotland are very conscious of their responsibility to avoid racism within the service and to promote equal opportunities. In 1993, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary carried out an inspection of equal opportunities in the Scottish police. The report of the inspection concluded that all forces were taking the issue of equal opportunities very seriously. The inspectorate continues to examine equal opportunities during its regular inspections of police forces. The most recent report on Strathclyde police, which was published only last year, found that the force upheld its commitment to promote equal opportunities throughout its internal procedures.

In 1987, Strathclyde police launched their race relations policy, which was aimed at enhancing the already good relations between black and ethnic communities and the force. In July of last year, the chief constable of Strathclyde police published an updated race relations policy. Work on the revised policy took nearly a year to complete; it took account of a number of points of good practice that had been raised by local black and ethnic community representatives, and included consultation with police forces south of the border.

The policy mainly concerned the force's relations with the public. However, it also confirmed the force's commitment to equal opportunities for all its staff. That makes it clear that Strathclyde police are committed to equality in employment and service. Freedom from harassment or victimisation on racial grounds is an important part of the policy. All officers in Strathclyde police are expected to demonstrate their commitment to those equal opportunity principles in their relations with their colleagues at every level. In addition to that strengthened commitment, the force re-emphasised the importance of its programme of racial awareness training for its officers.

Strathclyde police's race relations policy states clearly that the force is opposed to racism. As my hon. Friend said, that is right, and I reinforce her comments. It goes on to say that the force will prepare its officers to provide a quality service to ethnic minority communities. The force records and monitors reports of racially motivated attacks to ensure that they are investigated thoroughly. Strathclyde police are committed to working with ethnic minorities to develop a mutual understanding of concerns. The force seeks to inform minority communities of its commitment to equality of service and encourages them to seek the assistance of the police with confidence. The police also undertake to enhance community safety. Progress in ensuring equality of service is monitored at the highest level in the force, and action will be taken to resolve any difficulties that emerge.

In 1996–97, 206 racial incidents were reported to Strathclyde police; in 1997–98, the number rose alarmingly to 481, an increase of 233 per cent. I believe that, in large part, that reflects the public's increased confidence in the reinforced procedures that the force has adopted.

I do not think that those figures reflect a force that is prepared to tolerate racism in its ranks. To do so would hardly be consistent with the force's overall aim of delivering the highest possible standards of service to the people of Strathclyde. More generally, the force places great emphasis on the quality of its personnel policies. As my hon. Friend said, Strathclyde police force received the prestigious Investors in People award, and was the first police force in Britain to do so.

Strathclyde, like all Scottish forces, is keen for its officers to be drawn from all sections of society and has taken steps to encourage applications to join the force from members of ethnic minorities. In 1994, it was one of the first forces in Britain to develop and implement a strategic framework for action aimed at increasing the number of black and ethnic minority recruits. Specifically, the framework for action provided a target to increase the number of officers from black and ethnic backgrounds from 0.2 to 0.5 per cent. of its strength over a five-year period. By the end of 1996–97, the number of ethnic minority officers in Strathclyde stood at just under 0.5 per cent., with another two years to achieve its five-year target.

All applicants from ethnic minorities are allowed to sit the entrance test for appointment to the force. Access courses are provided at further education colleges to help ethnic minority candidates to prepare for their application to sit the standard entrance test. The innovative policy implemented by Strathclyde police was recognised by the Commission for Racial Equality and was commented on in the 1996 report on race and equal opportunities in the police service.

Overall, the Scottish police service has a good record in policy and practice on equal opportunities, although, as my hon. Friend says, that is never a matter for complacency. If there can be an improvement in the quality of service given to the community—and, indeed, in internal procedures in the service—that must always be a high priority for the chief constable.

In the Scottish police service, training in racial awareness is provided for all new recruits at the Scottish police college at Tulliallan. It continues both at the college and in forces as officers progress to the senior ranks. Race relations policies are increasingly being developed in consultation with local racial equality councils. Forces also cover race relations policy in their community safety strategies, and throughout Scotland there are various examples of good practice.

I reiterate my and the Government's view that racism cannot be tolerated in the police or elsewhere in society. Strathclyde's chief constable and his seven colleagues in Scotland share that view. While it is impossible to be sure that isolated incidents will never take place, I believe that the Scottish police have made substantial efforts to develop a culture that minimises racial discrimination.

The Government believe that Scotland benefits from being a multicultural society and that we should cherish our ethnic diversity. The Government have a clear commitment to racial equality and to taking steps to ensure that it is at the heart of Government policy.

We do not underestimate for one minute the problems that racism poses for society, and we are taking steps to address it. One of those steps is the action that we are taking to combat racist crime. The Crime and Disorder Bill, which is in Committee in this House, will introduce a new offence of racially aggravated harassment. It will also require the courts, when sentencing an offender who has committed a racially aggravated crime, to treat that racial aggravation as an aggravating factor when deciding on sentence.

Those measures were decided on following consultation involving many organisations representing victims and possible victims of racist crimes. The measures will improve the protection of the public and reinforce the right of all people in Scotland to live a life free from crime. They will address all levels of racist crimes. In every case where a racist element is proved, the courts must take that into consideration when sentencing. It is important that everyone—victim, police, public and offender—is left in no doubt that racist crimes are wholly unacceptable in Scotland and that perpetrators will be dealt with accordingly.

The Government have given their finn commitment to a fair and just society in which all individuals, whatever their race or ethnic origin, have equal rights. Racial discrimination is manifestly harmful and unjust to its victims and to Britain as a whole. The Government are fully committed to eliminating racial discrimination, whether in the police service or anywhere else.

My hon. Friend will understand my inability to go into further detail about the personal case she has raised, but I wanted to extend my discourse to show that we deplore racism, which is an abhorrence in our society and I repeat that, whether it be in the police or in society, this Government want to stamp it out.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve midnight.