HC Deb 27 January 2000 vol 343 cc677-84

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

6.56 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

As the House knows, there are two separate systems for the investigation of complaints against the police by members of the public. If the complaint is against a uniformed police officer, the statutory police complaints procedure comes into operation with independent supervision provided by the Police Complaints Authority. However, if the complaint involves a civilian employee of a police force—though the complaint will be investigated through the internal procedures of the police force in question—there is no statutory procedure and no statutory independent supervision. The fact that two separate systems run together can lead to serious shortcomings for members of the public. Such serious shortcomings have been graphically revealed in the tragic circumstances of my constituent, Mrs. Alexander.

On 20 July 1998, Mrs. Alexander's husband was a passenger in a car that went off the road, smashed through railings and ended up in a field. Mr. Alexander tragically died from the injuries that he sustained in the accident. Thames Valley police, in whose area the accident occurred, carried out its usual full investigation and submitted its report to the Crown Prosecution Service in November of that year. There was no other vehicle involved in the accident, and because of the death of Mr. Alexander and the absence of any other independent witness, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that the only charge that it could make against the driver of the car in which Mr. Alexander had been a passenger was that of driving without due care and attention. That was the only charge that it judged to have a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

Under current legislation, a summons for driving without due care and attention must be served within six months of the date of the offence. As the then Attorney-General, Sir John Morris, confirmed to me, there is no provision in current legislation for extending the six-month deadline in any circumstances, however extenuating. That is a matter that the Government should reconsider in the light of Mrs. Alexander's case and perhaps of others.

With the accident occurring on 20 July 1998, the Thames Valley police had until 20 January 1999 to serve the summons. As the then Attorney-General informed me, the Crown Prosecution Service notified Thames Valley police of its decision to prosecute the driver for driving without due care and attention on 10 December 1998. That decision was further confirmed orally by the CPS to the Thames Valley police on 18 December of that year. However, by the time the file returned—

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Sir John Stanley

By the time the file returned to the CPS, on 27 January 1999, the statutory deadline of 20 January had passed and Thames Valley police had failed to issue the relevant summons. As a result of that failure, the intended prosecution of the driver of the car in which Mr. Alexander had been killed could no longer take place.

With every possible justification, Mrs. Alexander made a formal complaint against Thames Valley police. She also came to see me, and I took up her case with all the parties involved. Finally, in a letter dated 12 July 1999, the chairman of the Thames Valley police authority, Mr. Glenn Maybury, confirmed to me the source of the mistake that had occurred within the police force: You are indeed correct in stating that 'the mistakes' were committed by a civilian member of staff and that the statutory police complaints procedure does not apply to complaints against civilians. A terrible sequence of events means that Mrs. Alexander and her 15-year-old daughter have suffered three successive losses. First, and most tragic of all, is that Mrs. Alexander has lost her husband and her daughter has lost her father.

Secondly, because of "serious mistakes" made within the Thames Valley police force, acknowledged in writing by the chairman of the police authority, Mrs. Alexander has lost the due process of criminal proceedings taking place against the driver of the car in which her husband was killed.

Thirdly, because the mistakes were committed by a civilian employee of the police force, Mrs. Alexander has lost access to the statutory police complaints procedure, with its statutory independent supervision. That is a truly appalling catalogue of events. I know that the Minister will join me in expressing heartfelt and deepest sympathy with Mrs. Alexander and her daughter for all that they have had to bear since the death of Mr. Alexander.

There is nothing new about the unsatisfactory outcome that can arise, owing to the statutory police complaints procedure not currently extending to the civilian staff of police forces. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs conducted an inquiry, "Police Disciplinary and Complaints Procedures", in the 1997–98 Session, the Police Complaints Authority, in its memorandum to the Committee, called for an extension of its remit to cover civilians. Paragraph 85 of its memorandum states: Since the policy of civilianisation is unlikely to be reversed, the Authority believes that there should be some independent oversight of complaints against civilians carrying out tasks previously performed by police officers. We have therefore suggested that where the complaint, if substantiated, would involve a breach of the police discipline code or the PACE codes of practice, the Authority should review the matter and satisfy itself that the action proposed by the force was appropriate. This would provide an element of reassurance without unduly interfering in civilian personnel management. Like the Police Complaints Authority, I, too, believe that there is a compelling case for extending the PCA's statutory remit to the civilian staff of police forces in the way in which the authority has proposed. I take that view for the following reasons. First, I am in no doubt that the public have much greater confidence in an investigation into a complaint against a police force if an independent element in that investigation is ensured by law, as would most certainly be the case if the PCA's proposal was implemented. I am glad that in its memorandum to the Select Committee on Home Affairs the Home Office acknowledged the importance of the public confidence factor. At paragraph 45 the Home Office stated: Although the police take any complaint seriously, the internal investigation process for a civilian employee may not command the same public confidence as the statutory police complaints procedure involving the PCA. Interestingly, the Home Office stated in the same paragraph: The PCA's remit may need to be reviewed if there is a continuing shift of police duties to civilian employees and contracted out staff and if police services operated by local authorities become more prevalent. The second reason for extending the PCA's remit to cover civilian staff is to ensure consistency for the public when making complaints between one police force and another. In Mrs. Alexander's case, if the accident had happened in a different location and the investigation was therefore carried out by another police force, the failure to issue the summons could well have been the responsibility of a police officer rather than a civilian. In that case, Mrs. Alexander would have been able to have an independent statutory investigation of her complaint. That inconsistency was indeed acknowledged by the Home Office in its memorandum to the Select Committee. At paragraph 44 it stated: Indeed, members of the public in the same situation may be dealt with by police civilian employees in one force when, were they in another force area, they would be dealt with by police officers. Only in the latter case, if they are unhappy with their treatment, would they have recourse to the statutory police complaints system. I put it to the Minister that it surely cannot be right in a matter as important as the public's right to have complaints against the police investigated that it is now becoming almost a complete lottery, in the non-operational areas of police activity, as to whether the individual making a complaint gets an independent and statutory investigation. It depends solely on whether the particular post which has been the subject of the complaint happens to be filled by a police officer in uniform or by a civilian employee.

My final reason for wanting to see the PCA's remit extended to civilians is that the problem is bound to get worse if action is not taken. The civilianisation of non-operational posts is certain to continue for financial reasons alone. The Minister of State, Home Office the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) told me as much in a written answer: It is my policy to encourage authorities and chief officers to make efficient and effective use of staff resources. Police authorities have been required to plan and deliver efficiency gains of 2 per cent. year on year between 1999–2002. Efficiency gains totalling £440 million will be redeployed to support front-line policing. Civilianisation of non-operational posts can play a key role in releasing resources for operational work."—[Official Report, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c.375W.] There is no doubt in my mind that the civilianisation process will be extended. That is clearly the Government's policy. The serious difficulties that I am highlighting in the debate will, therefore, increase if action is not taken.

As the Minister knows, I pursued with the Home Secretary last year the issues raised for police complaints procedures by Mrs. Alexander's case. The Minister of State, Home Office, replied to me on 5 August, as follows: Although there are no plans at present to extend the scope of the procedures to include civilians, the Government has accepted the Police Complaints Authority's view, expressed to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that its remit should be reviewed if there is a continuing shift of police duties to civilian employees. That reply was somewhat disappointing, because the Government should move on from taking no action and simply making an undertaking to review the position. The Government should change their position and accept the PCA's proposal to extend its remit to the civilian staff of police forces.

Mrs. Alexander's tragic and deeply disturbing case could not provide a more compelling justification for the change that I seek.

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

I join the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in extending my condolences and those of the Government to Mrs. Alexander and her 15-year-old daughter for the tragic circumstances that have obtained in the case that we are discussing. It is regrettable that, through a series of administrative bungles, those circumstances have developed to the point where the right hon. Gentleman feels obliged to bring the case to the attention of the House. He is right to do that because the case raises some worrying points.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have examined the case only recently. It appears that one person was not exclusively at fault and that a series of apparently minor administrative errors, taken together, led to an outcome that simply was not good enough. Mrs. Alexander, and all members of the public, have a right to expect better. I express my regrets, and the deep regrets of Thames Valley police, for the errors that were committed. It is unfortunate that those errors were associated with such a serious and tragic incident. I can understand Helen Alexander's frustrations, anger and great distress, which are best expressed in her letter of 21 May. In her circumstances, I would feel exactly the same.

The right hon. Gentleman raised several issues, and I shall try to deal with some of them. The six-month deadline and whether it should be extended is a difficult consideration, especially with regard to the sort of offences that we are considering. It is wrong to allow something to hang over people for a long time, but a time limit-is quickly eaten up by prolonged investigation and examination of papers. Perhaps I should discuss that with the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is responsible for the issues relating to the time limit, and ask him to write to the right hon. Gentleman, who may pass on to Mrs. Alexander his views on the prospects for looking at the matter.

The force investigated the concerns and I understand that steps have been taken in respect of the staff involved. I am informed that it acknowledged the issue from the outset and has taken steps to prevent any recurrence. Even if a more formalised procedure had been enshrined in legislation, it is unlikely that the outcome would have been different from that which resulted from the force's application of its own procedures. The mistakes were minor and administrative, but their conjunction produced an unacceptable outcome.

I understand that there has been a protracted correspondence, but am not sure whether that has not added to the frustration. I am asked to convey the fact that the force, having acknowledged its faults, has tried to explain itself as best it can. Nothing, however, will ever be sufficient to make Mrs. Alexander feel that she has been treated fairly, because obviously the outcome means that her grievance is in many ways justifiable.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the broader policy issue of the complaints procedure in respect of civilian employees of police forces. Let me deal with that. The accountability and integrity of the police are paramount and we have a valuable opportunity to consider them. When mistakes are made—whether by police or by civilian support staff—it is essential that the service acknowledges them and ensures, so far as it is able, that appropriate action is taken to make sure that they are not repeated. That action must be taken not only in respect of those deemed to be responsible, but to ensure that outside parties are contacted so that they do not repeat their mistakes. There was some discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service. All this has taken some time. Although no one seeks to shift blame, we need to ensure that all the angles are considered. Where there was any slowness, it must be addressed.

Confidence in the police and their handling of complaints is essential and depends on their willingness to respond positively to mistakes and address any issues identified. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the proportion of civilians employed by the police has gradually increased since the late 1980s. As forces have driven towards greater efficiency, they have created civilian police posts by recognising that roles can be undertaken by civilians, thereby releasing trained and skilled police officers for operational duties. Like the previous Government, we take the view that there is a proper role for civilians in the police. Generally, roles undertaken by civilians are non-operational. Civilians are not in direct contact with the public and certainly do not exercise the statutory powers of a police officer.

The complaints procedure for the police is special. It has a broader application, but essentially the Police Complaints Authority becomes involved when the police may have gone beyond the expectations of ordinary individuals when exercising their powers. People need a particular assurance that no breach or abuse has occurred. That is the PCA's key role, or certainly was before all the civilian posts were created.

The move towards civilianisation has been encouraged and as a result civilian support staff within the police service represent on average 30 per cent. of force establishments. Clearly, with that number of civilian members of staff within the police service there will be occasions when complaints may be made in respect of them. If such complaints allege criminal conduct, they can be dealt with no differently from those of police colleagues in that a criminal investigation will be undertaken. However, where the complaint is of a non-criminal nature—an administrative error—unlike for their police colleagues, there are no procedures covered by legislation.

The Police Act 1996 covers complaints against the police, and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 cover discipline procedures. Although procedures for complaints against civilian employees of police forces are neither covered by, nor required by, legislation, forces have developed their own codes of conduct and procedures for handling such complaints. Although they are not identical to those affecting police colleagues, they are similar in many respects. Force codes of conduct, for example, would embrace the principles contained within legislation covering employment law, equality of opportunity, discrimination, harassment and similar matters, as forces develop their own policies and procedures for the handling of complaints.

When forces receive complaints in respect of the conduct of civilian staff members they would normally be investigated. Depending upon the severity of the allegation and force policy, the investigator would be either a police officer or a civilian manager of a higher grade than the person about whom the complaint was made. The force complaints and discipline department which ordinarily undertakes the role of investigating complaints in respect of police officers also takes on the role of investigating complaints in respect of civilian staff members, particularly where the allegations are serious or the complaint also involves a police officer.

Where an investigation establishes that there is a case to answer, the severity of the complaint also determines how it is dealt with. Minor complaints are likely to be dealt with at a local level by line managers, perhaps by verbal advice or warnings, whereas more serious issues, perhaps amounting to gross misconduct, may lead to formal hearings with appropriate representation for the individuals complained about who may face sanctions which would include dismissal.

Unfortunately, complaints by definition mean that an individual or individuals are often, but not always, dissatisfied with the course of action taken. Regardless of how fair, impartial or open the process may be, there can never be any guarantees of satisfaction with the outcome of an investigation.

Expectations of complainants will invariably be linked to their perceptions of severity, often linked to the particular circumstances of their case. In this case the circumstances were obviously tragic. Errors and mistakes made by staff, even minor ones, are often not confined to one particular individual. Yet the expectation of complainants can be to see severe punishment imposed on individuals. That is more likely where errors, albeit minor ones, are associated with serious cases. Where someone is rightfully angry and upset they may well feel that the errors committed should be recognised much more forcefully. That is understandable. Clearly, in those cases where serious misconduct is established, one would expect appropriate levels of punishment to reflect the case.

That is not always the situation. The errors are not always great, even though the consequences of them may be serious. In such circumstances it becomes difficult for individuals to feel that they have been dealt with fairly. Someone may have received a reprimand or been disciplined according to internal discipline procedures for what on the face of it—the way in which they conducted their job—has been an administrative error but which may have been much more serious for the person who had to bear the consequences of it. There may well be a feeling that what ought to have been done has not been done. It is particularly galling where an individual has had to face those consequences and perhaps does not feel entirely happy that all the circumstances have been revealed. In such circumstances, again, it is understandable that people still feel angry and expect better.

Sir John Stanley

I am sure that, in the closing minutes of the debate, the Minister will wish to deal with the central issue: whether the Government will now accept the proposal for the extension of the PCA's remit to civilians in the way that the PCA has proposed.

Mr. O'Brien

We will look at the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but we have examined the matter and, so far, very few requests have been made for that extension. The view expressed to us is that there is insufficient cause to consider legislation to bring civilians within the independent police complaints procedure.

I would be happy to look at the issues that have been raised and discuss them with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, who is directly responsible for those issues, but the independent complaints procedure was set up to deal with the application of the police's extra powers. Therefore, there should be an independent mechanism to ensure that there is no abuse in their application. A civilian who may be acting as part of a police authority and performing a role on behalf of the police normally does not exercise those powers. Civilians are not expected to do so. Therefore, the procedures to deal with them as employees rather than as police officers are probably appropriate.

On a wider issue, there is a case for saying that there should be more standard procedures in different police forces to deal with civilians, particularly where those civilians have been engaged in administrative tasks that have affected the outcome of a legal procedure. Whether that needs to involve the independent police complaints process is a separate issue.

I do not want to say a complete no and to stonewall, particularly in a case such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I will draw the issues to the attention of the Minister and, indeed, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but the way in which the issue has developed so far has not produced great demand for civilians to be brought within the police complaints authority procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt regret that, but that appears to be the state of play.

Sir John Stanley

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider the matter further. Given the ambit of the local government ombudsman, health service ombudsman and so on, is it not true that the civilian employees of police authorities are almost the only people at local level with regard to whom there is no independent and properly accountable recourse if members of the public have complaints of maladministration?

Mr. O'Brien

We will need to consider that point. When bringing the right hon. Gentleman's views and those of his constituents to the Home Secretary's attention, I will ensure that that issue is raised. All I can say is that, at this juncture, it has not produced the need for change. However, the arguments that he has put are worthy of full and proper consideration by Ministers and by the Government. I am anxious, and he will understand the reasons—

The motion having been made at Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.