Police Searches in Brixton (Hansard, 29 October 1981)

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I wonder whether it would be convenient to the House if I were now to repeat a Statement being made in another place. If that is your Lordships' wish, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to report to the House on the inquiry ordered by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis into the conduct of the police operation which took place on 15th July in Railton Road, Brixton.
"The House will recall that the raid took place at a time of serious public disorders in which petrol bombs had been used. Acting on information that petrol bombs had been stored somewhere on the premises, police officers entered a number of houses to execute search warrants. Offences under the Licensing Act were also suspected. Allegations were subsequently made that the police caused unnecessary damage to property and personal effects. The commissioner immediately ordered a full inquiry.
"The inquiry was carried out on the commissioner's behalf by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dear. I have now received a copy of his report which is both detailed and frank. I have placed in the Library a memorandum summarising his description of what took place and his main conclusions.
"He says that the information about petrol bombs came from a proven source and he concludes that the decision to mount a search operation was justified. He considers it significant that although no petrol bombs were found in the houses, a crate of bottles, with evidence of preparation for use as bombs, was subsequently found on waste ground beside one of the houses.
"Mr. Dear criticises some aspects of the execution of the raid, including the choice of a rendezvous point too close to Railton Road and the slowness of the 1128 build-up of the large force of officers involved, which undermined the secrecy of the operation. He also criticises some of the detailed arrangements for briefing the officers who took part.
"Damage was shown to have been caused by the police in gaining entry to and searching the premises. Mr. Dear found that for the most part this damage was unavoidable. In relation to two properties, complaints were made which have been investigated under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. Reports of these investigations have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
"During the course of the inquiry there were a number of claims for compensation. A good many of these have already been settled. Some, however, were in Mr. Dear's view grossly exaggerated, and in two cases prosecutions for criminal deception have been started.
"It is important to appreciate the difficulties which the police had to face in Brixton, particularly at the time of this operation. During a period when riots were taking place it would have been wrong not to follow up information about petrol bombs; and we must recognise that if bombs had been found at the time reaction to the raid would have been different. In these circumstances I do not question the judgment of the police that a search should be made. Nevertheless, important lessons have been learned from the execution of the operation and the commissioner has assured me that these will be taken fully into account in the future."
That, my Lords, is the end of the Statement.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, this House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. The Statement relates to a very grave matter and it will not be possible at this stage to pass definitive opinions on the commissioner's report, until we have actually read through the document. My instructions are that up to 15 minutes ago, at any rate, the report was still not available, and so we shall have to examine it when it is.
We on this side of the House fully appreciate the difficulties which the police had to face in Brixton. I believe we are on common ground on all sides of the House, that far and away the greater part of the police force carry out their very difficult duties with complete legality and well within those rules and customs which prevail in the police forces throughout the United Kingdom.
This Statement, which reflects and is meant to reflect the attitude of the Government towards the report they have received, is, I find, a little alarming. The real allegation was originally that police caused unnecessary damage to property and personal effects. On listening to the Statement, we find that Mr. Dear criticised some aspects of the execution of the raid, including the choice of a rendevous point. He also criticised the detailed arrangements for briefing. But when it comes to the damage, the Government's Statement—and I will put it no higher—is a little odd. Instead of saying that part of the damage was in fact avoidable, the Statement shelters behind the claim that, for the most part, the damage was unavoidable; 1129 a rather quaint way of actually failing to be quite straightforward about the fact that some avoidable damage was in fact incurred. Nor does the Government Statement give any indication of the extent to which avoidable damage was incurred. The Statement says that "a good many" of the claims already made have been settled. How many does "a good many" mean? And what amounts in compensation have in fact been paid, that will enable this House to arrive at some conclusion as to the extent of the damage—and in particular, of the avoidable damage?
The Statement continued that, in Mr. Dear's view, some of the claims were "grossly exaggerated". How many claims were "grossly exaggerated", and how many claims were found to be supported by the facts? It is this kind of attitude towards the incident that fills us with a certain amount of unease. The Statement concluded by saying that "important lessons have been learned". My Lords, they can say that again! Would it not have been better, since this Statement reflects the Government's attitude, for some expression of regret to have come from the Government; that avoidable damage was caused, that in some cases (we do not know how many) there was a completely unjustifiable and violent intrusion into the private lives of individuals and families? And would it not have been better to have expressed some regret for that? There is nothing in the Government's Statement which expresses the Government's attitude, which contains any expression of regret.
I believe two lessons are important, aside from the lessons to which I have referred indirectly. The first is, that there is a need for the establishment of an independent complaints procedure. The second lesson to be learned is, that urgent attention ought to be paid by the Government to Part I of the Royal Commission's Report on Criminal Procedures. The whole House will expect that. I suspect that when the full import of the report is taken into account, and when the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is published so that all can see it, public interest will have to be allayed, because public interest will be intense.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can answer three questions arising from this report? First, as it is impossible to ask meaningful questions on the conclusions reached by Mr Dear without reading his report, could not the noble Lord arrange for a copy of the full report, rather than a summary, to be placed in the Library? Secondly, can he assure the House that all the evidence considered by Mr Dear was made available to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, when he conducted his inquiry in a wider context? Thirdly, was Mr Dear's report made available to Lord Scarman before he completed his report? Does the noble Lord not appreciate that it is important that this report is available when the Scarman Report is published (and no doubt this House will wish to debate the matter) and that Mr Dear's report should also be available?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, may I first reply to the two noble Lords who have responded to the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, expressed 1130 concern about the matter of damage and asked a series of questions which, I quite openly admit to the noble Lord, are not to be read in the Statement. This is because I think the answers to the noble Lord will be found in the memorandum which is being placed in the Library. Indeed, I think the noble Lord and all your Lordships will there find all the details which one would expect to find about the question of damage, because, firstly, in the memorandum the operation is itemised property by property. All the 11 properties which were searched are itemised in the memorandum, and there is a report there of the damage to each of those properties.
The noble Lord asked me how much damage there was, what was the position about compensation and for more information about the statement that many claims were grossly exaggerated. Contrary to reports that much more extensive damage was done by the police, Mr Dear's inquiry has revealed that the amount claimed for structural damage at all 11 houses was under £8,500, and most of these claims have already been settled for about half the amount claimed. In other cases the police are still trying to reach agreement, and where agreement is not possible claimants have been advised of their right to pursue their claims in court.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked me questions about the publication of Mr. Dear's report and about its relevance to the forthcoming report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. The report from Mr. Dear will not be published in full. It is well established that such reports, containing information that might be prejudicial to individuals, should remain confidential; and I know my right honourable friend hopes that both Houses will take the view that not only the Statement but the very full memorandum being placed in both Libraries will provide a great deal of information to Members of both Houses. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, visited Railton Road in July of this year. However, the operation as such was not within his terms of reference. As to what evidence he has taken regarding this particular matter, that is for the noble and learned Lord and his own discretion.

Lord Inglewood
My Lords, may I revert to the question of damage and ask the noble Lord whether the full report contains any pictures of this damage about which so much criticism has been made, or, if there are no pictures in the report, whether his right honourable friend has seen any pictures? Will he not agree with me that while some damage is unavoidable when breaking into premises, when speed is the essence of the question and there are cupboards and doors to be broken down in quick time, it is extremely easy for young men with the adrenalin running, and realising that somebody may get hurt in the short time that they have to do the job, to do excessive damage? This, surely, could much best be now judged if photographs had been taken immediately. Perhaps this is one of the lessons that he says the police learned from the operation. Some effort might well be made to have a photographic unit included in a sensitive major operation of this kind in future.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think the simple factual answer to my noble friend is that I am not aware that 1131 photographs were included in Mr. Dear's report, but I certainly take on board the importance of what my noble friend says.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us recognise that, with the suggestion that petrol bombs were being manufactured at a time such as that which existed a few months ago in Brixton, it was perfectly understandable that immediate action was called for from the police? But is he also aware that a number of us would prefer to reserve comment on this whole range of issues until the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, which will, I think, give us a much better opportunity to pronounce on this whole question? Lastly, we are of course in the difficulty of not having had the opportunity of looking at this memorandum, and we will presumably have that opportunity later this afternoon.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his understanding of the need for the raid which, as the Statement of my right honourable friend says, was in Mr. Dear's view justified, and in my right honourable friend's view justified. So far as concerns the forthcoming report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, of course this still has to be completed and the time for comment will be when the report is published.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any indication has been given anywhere as to the nature of the lessons that have been learned? Further, can he say whether any disciplinary action has followed from the report?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, there was a slow build-up of a very large number of men close to Railton Road. The slowness was largely the result of other police commitments at this very difficult time from a public order point of view; but it may well have given warning to the occupants of the premises and thus reduced the chances of finding evidence. The size of the task-force also accentuated the public impact when in the event no petrol bombs were found. Mr. Dear also refers to "confusion" over the briefing of officers. The commissioner accepts that there are lessons to be drawn from all these matters, and he has already taken action on them.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, could the noble Lord please tell the House what was the basis or the origins of the authority that allowed or permitted the police to act in the way they did?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, as the Statement of my right honourable friend says, the information came from what Mr. Dear considers was a proven source.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood what I meant. Under what authority did they act? For example, were there magistrates' warrants issued which permitted the police to break in; or on what other authority did they act in this way?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, on the authority of warrants, and the position about warrants is fully described in the memorandum which is in the Library.

§ Lord Pitt of Hampstead
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will beg his right honourable friend at least to express some regret that people's homes were vandalised in the way we saw in the pictures that appeared in the press? I am amazed, sitting here, that we have had a Statement about this matter but at no stage have we had an apology to the people who had their homes vandalised in this way. Because, my Lords, even if it was in the case of only one property that it was done in that way, unlawfully, that is still something about which the Home Secretary should apologise.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, both my right honourable friend and I, and indeed the police, of course, would very much regret any unnecessary damage, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, would like perhaps to read again the Statement, and certainly to read the memorandum, before jumping to conclusions.