HC Deb 26 May 1999 vol 332 cc437-44

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

8.38 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)

I rise from a slightly unaccustomed position on the Back Benches to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Sutherland, who was at one time in the service of the police. I do so because I have had no success in having it properly examined by other means. In a sense, this is an action of last resort, so I make no apology for detaining the House. It may be useful to the Minister if I outline some of the main points of the case and then draw some conclusions.

In June 1988, Mr. Sutherland, who was then a police constable, attended a planning committee meeting regarding the application of a Mr. Sam Morris for a toy and leisure centre to be sited opposite Caledonian Road underground station in Islington. He attended as a private resident, as was made clear at the outset. However, the neighbourhood watch co-ordinator was unable to speak, so Mr. Sutherland was asked to comment. He gave the opinion of the local residents, with which he agreed, who were generally against the application. Summing up, the council highlighted the comments made by Mr. Sutherland and the application was refused. It was later reported, incorrectly, in the Islington Gazette that Mr. Sutherland had attended as the local policeman and had given the views of the police. That was not the case, as was made clear at the time. Chief Superintendent Alan Moss later wrote to the council's planning committee to explain that the police had no serious objections to the case.

On 2 August 1988, PC Sutherland, as he was then, was made aware that his actions at the planning committee had caused the wrath of his chief superintendent at Holloway, Archie Newlands. Chief Superintendent Newlands informed PC Sutherland that Chief Superintendent Moss was annoyed at his input at the planning meeting and that he should contact Chief Superintendent Moss. Chief Superintendent Newlands humiliated PC Sutherland and treated him in an unnecessarily callous manner, choosing deliberately to misunderstand his presence at that committee. So bad was his treatment of Mr. Sutherland that Superintendent Doug Hopkins, his deputy, subsequently apologised for his behaviour when he left the office.

Later in August, PC Sutherland was contacted by two of Chief Superintendent Newlands's secretaries regarding their concerns that they had received a call from Mr. Morris asking favours of Chief Superintendent Newlands. Mr. Morris wanted a letter sent to Islington borough council with Chief Superintendent Newlands's signature on it. The secretaries asked PC Sutherland to report the matter to the area senior management, which he subsequently did.

As the Minister will recall, or be reminded of in his briefing, that was not long after the Holloway Road incident, which had repercussions on the internal police investigation procedure, so everyone at Holloway was a little sensitive about these matters. PC Sutherland felt that, as a result of the Holloway Road incident, they would be more reactive and responsive to complaints. They were told by senior management that all officers must act with "openness and honesty" at all times if they suspected a fellow officer of wrongdoing. Quite rightly, people feared the repetition of such an incident.

In September 1988, PC Sutherland reported Chief Superintendent Newlands's behaviour and his relationship with Mr. Morris to Assistant Commissioner Geoffrey McLean at New Scotland Yard. He advised that PC Sutherland should not continue his service at Holloway and he was subsequently moved. Commander Ken Merton was put in charge of the inquiry. PC Sutherland was told that the inquiry would take six weeks, but eventually it took just over six months. Commander Merton retired after six weeks and the inquiry was taken over by John Gold Taylor. PC Sutherland was interviewed for three days.

In November 1988, it came to Mr. Sutherland's attention that Chief Superintendent Newlands was being transferred to Brixton in January 1989 with no explanation. On 8 February 1989, PC Sutherland was finally informed that his complaints were unfounded and no further explanation was given. Yet early on in the inquiry, PC Sutherland had been informed that Mr. Morris had denied making any phone calls, whereas it was subsequently found that he had. In addition, PC Sutherland had been told early on that the secretaries, both of whom he had known for a number of years, had substantiated his allegations at the time.

Mr. Sutherland, as he is now, agreed to go along with the investigation because he trusted the system. Now, after all these years and all his attempts to get some redress, he feels tricked and deeply disillusioned with the manner in which he was treated. He says that, with hindsight, he would have serious doubts about going through the same process again. When I discussed the matter with him, he said that although he still maintains that an extra wrong would not put the case right, he feels deeply unhappy that the blame seemed to have been placed on him rather than the person whom he alleged had committed a wrongdoing.

Mr. and Mrs. Sutherland had lived in the Holloway area for more than 20 years and Mr. Sutherland had spent some 25 years policing the area. He was highly respected in the area and in the police force and he had been awarded the British Empire Medal for his outstanding contribution of police service to the community. That is hardly the record of someone who was an internal troublemaker or a discredit to the police force. However, when he made the complaint against Chief Superintendent Newlands, he was taken away and sent to a crime prevention branch. In other words, he was treated like a leper.

In contrast, Chief Superintendent Newlands continued to work at Holloway during the first part of the investigation until he was moved. Later, it seems as though nothing was done about his behaviour—nor did he have to comment on it at any time. It is strange that Chief Superintendent Newlands was moved in the middle of the inquiry, despite the fact that apparently no wrongdoing was found to have occurred.

Mr. Sutherland says that, when such an experience happens, it seriously weakens the foundations upon which so much of life is built, particularly in a force as closely knit as the police. It also clearly affects one's self-esteem and self-respect, and he has been made to suffer. His health has deteriorated dramatically, and he suffers from a serious nervous complaint for which he has been receiving treatment for some time.

Mr. Sutherland said: People have always looked up to the Police as a benchmark of what is good and honourable, and rightly so. In my case, that has been destroyed and I, an ex-policeman, would never trust them in future. That reaction might be expected, but it is one that I would hope the Minister will address.

What is clear is that the internal investigations system did not work, and there are serious questions about whether it would work in future cases similar to that of Mr. Sutherland. Surely the case should not have taken so long and then been dismissed in such an arbitrary way. Mr. Sutherland believes that the manner in which the witnesses were interviewed was biased, and certainly was not open. All the witnesses were serving officers in the Holloway division and at no time was he allowed access to any of them. Mr. Sutherland made the complaint in good faith about the chief superintendent because of information that he was given by the chief superintendent's secretaries. Clearly, he had nothing to gain from such a complaint and, as we have seen, he had everything to lose. Yet he still made the complaint.

Mr. Sutherland believes that some form of independent ombudsman should handle internal complaints. He believes that the police have far too much power to be both judge and jury inside a closed system, without redress for those who have come forward with issues of conscience or with problems that they have seen in the system.

Mr. Sutherland recognises that the introduction of "Right Line"—which allows staff to pass any concerns about a colleague whom they believed might be acting improperly—while encouraging, does not go far enough. Some forces are setting up proactive squads which seek to identify corruption before it comes into the public arena. However, there is more to be done to encourage those who are decent, honourable and honest to come forward without fear of the repercussions that happened to my constituent.

During, and particularly after, the investigation, Mr. Sutherland was shunned by other policemen. It is difficult always to specify how the process works, but I am sure that the Minister would accept that that sort of thing happens in a tight-knit community—particularly if it is encouraged from the top by a nod or a wink, or if there is a general assessment that somebody is a troublemaker.

In the end, Mr. Sutherland was invalided out of the police force, directly as a result of an accident at an athletics track, which Mr. Sutherland believes—I do not intend to cast aspersions on any individual—was not an accident. He believed that it occurred as a result of those in his company at the time taking a view about his previous actions. I am not attempting to make further allegations about individuals.

I raise the matter because I was deeply concerned about this matter some years ago, and I have tried hard to seek redress for Mr. Sutherland. Not once have I had the whisper of an apology or an attempt to reopen the case, to look at it properly, or to ask the questions that should have been asked. Every time, I am told, "It is too long after the event. It is so stupid to open up cases again. We have other, more important, things to do than that."

In conclusion, Mr. Sutherland used to be a policeman, and he used to serve the force and the public with great honesty and decency. Every day, he set about doing what he believed to be right and proper, in line with his duties. In July 1988, he had, for the first and perhaps only time, cause to complain about someone in authority—in this case, his chief superintendent. He is now dead but, due to a variety of issues, Mr. Sutherland was concerned about his actions. Yet he was made to feel as though he should not have made the allegation.

Having raised the issue, far from being applauded for doing what he thought was right, Mr. Sutherland was shunned, ostracised, moved, humiliated and, eventually, forced to leave the police force. His crime was to raise a concern about a senior officer who, he thought, had got too close to somebody outside and was open to the wrong sort of influence in the pursuit of his duty.

When the case was finally examined, the individuals about whom Mr. Sutherland had raised concerns were utterly exonerated, and no comment was made to him about the reasons or about what happened in the inquiry. Perversely, after a series of problems, the man who had had the temerity to raise the matter was eventually invalided out of the police force. To this day, he continues to attempt to get the police to investigate the original charges reasonably and properly or at least to give him a full, open explanation of why his case was dismissed and he was treated as he was.

I hope that the police will have the decency to reopen the case and that the Minister will say that they should. Given all the circumstances surrounding the case, the police would do well to allow my constituent to get redress. On his behalf, I say that it is never any good to try to shoot the messenger. Surely an organisation such as the police force should learn to deal with the message.

My constituent has suffered; his life has changed and it will never be changed back. He has to live with that, and I see no reason why the police should avoid any further investigation. I ask the Minister to put pressure on them.

8.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

The hon. Gentleman has set out in some detail his concerns relating to the case of Bill Sutherland, a retired Metropolitan Police officer. As he will know, I am not the regular spokesperson on the Metropolitan police. That task is ably carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I regret to say that she is in Brussels, at a meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. However, I am very happy to respond.

The investigation of internal complaints is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has provided me with information about the background to the matter, about the initial inquiry and about the subsequent review in 1995 by Commander Quinn, director of the Metropolitan Police's complaints investigation bureau.

The Commissioner tells me that in July 1988 the then PC William Sutherland made a series of allegations about the management of the Holloway division where he was based, in particular in respect of a Chief Superintendent Newlands, now deceased, and his association with a local business man, Mr. Sam Morris, also now deceased. In all, allegations were made against three serving officers.

As those against whom the allegations were made were of a senior rank, in line with the regulations in force at the time, the then commander of the complaints investigation bureau led the inquiry. As a matter of record, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1988 the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 were in force; they have now been superseded by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, although those apply only to complaints made after 1 April 1999.

Because none of the allegations concerned criminal activity, the inquiry was internal and did not require the involvement of officers from an outside force. During the inquiry, which lasted from July 1988 to January 1989, I am told that Mr. Sutherland gave a detailed written statement, and the hon. Gentleman tells me that he was interviewed. A further 18 witnesses were seen, all of whom made written statements to the investigating officer.

The investigation also produced 112 pages of documentary evidence. The records of interview alone amounted to 54 typed pages. I am told that none of the witnesses cited by Mr. Sutherland was able to offer evidence substantiating his allegations. I am also told that the report recommended that no action should be taken against any of the officers named in the allegations.

PC Sutherland was personally advised of the conclusions of the report in February 1989. I know that Mr. Sutherland retired from the Metropolitan police service in 1992. Since his retirement, Mr. Sutherland has corresponded regularly with Members of Parliament and with senior officers in the Metropolitan police about his concerns and allegations and about what he considers to be the unsatisfactory internal investigations procedures within the Metropolitan police.

I am aware of the on-going correspondence on this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman has received replies from both Commander Quinn and, in 1996, from the then Deputy Commissioner stating that a further review had been carried out and they were both satisfied that the correct procedures had been followed.

I understand that Mr. Sutherland also made further allegations—although not directly related to the original inquiry—about what he believed amounted to malicious acts against him. The Commissioner has advised me that a full explanation was offered to Mr. Sutherland rejecting each of the allegations as unsubstantiated. I have raised the inquiry again with the Metropolitan police, who have confirmed that they are content that the procedures followed in the initial inquiry complied fully with the regulations in force at the time, and that they have no reason to doubt the conclusions that were reached. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman or Mr. Sutherland have any material that they believe is new and of a significant nature and they wish to give it to me, I will be happy to pass it to the Commissioner for his consideration.

It is not for me to comment on the allegations themselves. Those matters are properly for the investigating officer to consider. However, we must recognise the importance of ensuring that all police forces—including the Metropolitan police, for which the Home Secretary is the police authorityare properly equipped to deal with allegations of impropriety, as well as —other general complaints.

It is, of course, important for the Metropolitan police to satisfy themselves today—in a new climate, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—about how Mr. Sutherland's claims were investigated. They have reported to me that they are confident that the conclusions of the inquiry report are both fair and accurate. I know, too, that the Metropolitan police take very seriously any allegations of wrongdoing by any of their officers, whether they are made by the general public, fellow officers or by civilians.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in his annual policing report for 1999—2000, the Commissioner is uncompromising when it comes to integrity: Integrity lies at the very heart of policing and it is essential to build and maintain trust within the MPS and with Londoners. I agree with that, but it is a matter of ensuring that that promise is delivered.

The Commissioner has publicly expressed his determination to tackle corruption in the Metropolitan police. In recent years, the Metropolitan police have deployed sophisticated methods to investigate corruption and the Metropolitan police's complaints investigation bureau—CIB—created a new branch, CIB3, whose purpose is to investigate allegations of serious corruption.

In December 1998, the Commissioner launched the Met's corruption and dishonesty prevention strategy, which aims to ensure that there is no hiding place for those who are dishonest or unethical. One aspect of this is the "Right Line", a confidential telephone line for any members of staff who wish to report concerns about corrupt, dishonest or unethical behaviour in a confidential and secure way. This is administered by CIB's intelligence cell. It is publicised by a poster campaign and an advertisement in the internal police newspaper The Job. I welcome the Commissioner's commitment to ridding the Metropolitan police of corruption. I fully support him in those efforts, as I support every other force that is actively seeking to tackle corruption.

I would also like to say a few words about the conduct of internal investigations. It is the Government's policy that internal investigations should be conducted fairly, impartially and thoroughly. Today, detailed procedures exist for internal police investigations that provide safeguards for the thoroughness of the investigation and for officers under investigation.

The procedures are set out in the "Guidance to Chief Officers on Complaints and Discipline" and, from April 1999, in the detailed "Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures". The procedures are designed to accord with the principles of natural justice and the basic principles of fairness. In particular, the guidance on internal investigations is designed to ensure proper investigation of the matter in question, as well as to be fair to officers under investigation.

Mr. Duncan Smith

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree—this point was made by Mr. Sutherland—that unless officers believe that their complaint will be not only treated in confidence but investigated by somebody who is beyond reproach and utterly impartial, they will feel that they dare not make a complaint for fear of the consequences that Mr. Sutherland and others reaped in similar cases? Is not that assurance still missing from the procedures?

Mr. O'Brien

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to ensure confidence in the conduct of investigations. I shall certainly pass on to the Commissioner the points that he has made about independence, but the Commissioner and the Home Secretary are satisfied that the conduct of investigations, certainly under the new procedures that have just been introduced, will be satisfactory and will win confidence.

In addition to those principles, investigations should be completed as soon as practicable and the investigating officer should ensure that the officer under investigation—and the complainant, if applicable—is kept informed of the progress of the investigation, particularly if there is delay. We certainly want to ensure that where there are long delays and those involved are concerned about the reasons for those delays, an explanation is given.

Mr. Duncan Smith

I realise that this is not the hon. Gentleman's brief, but will he do one more thing for me and ask the Metropolitan Commissioner and anybody else who is involved whether, given the new attitude that exists, they would be prepared to reconsider the case once more in a positive light?

Mr. O'Brien

I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Commissioner. I must, however, remind him that a succession of senior officers in the Met have, over a period of 11 years, considered the allegations made by Mr. Sutherland. In no instance has any of those allegations been found to be substantiated. The senior officers have repeatedly examined the papers and they have not concluded that they could take any further action on that matter.

It is important that the investigating officer who is responsible for the inquiry ensures that it is carried out as impartially, confidentially and properly as possible. The investigation of all internal allegations is rightly a management responsibility for the chief officer of the force concerned. Chief officers share the concern to identify and deal with officers who have been accused of abusing their positions, particularly if there is evidence that they have done so.

I am sorry to hear of Mr. Sutherland's disillusionment and his significant health problems and worries, which have arisen partly from his deep concern about these matters. The hon. Gentleman has said that the debate was in many ways a last resort. Bearing in mind what I have said about passing on some of his comments to the Commissioner, the hon. Gentleman can tell his constituent that by raising this matter, he has done all that can be done. I regret that I am not in a position—nor is the Home Office and, I am told, nor is the Commissioner—to help his constituent any further. It is time to say that very clearly to the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

The hon. Gentleman, as any hon. Member should, has raised the matter properly and argued his case. The debate was, as he said, an action of last resort; the response is the one that I have given. I am told by the Commissioner that he cannot take this matter further. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman requests, I shall pass his comments on to the Commissioner.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o'clock.