HL Deb 17 January 1983 vol 437 cc1199-205

3.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.

"On the evening of Friday, 14th January, officers of the Metropolitan Police, charged with the pursuit and recapture of an escaped suspect, shot and seriously injured Mr. Stephen Waldorf. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has already made clear that this shooting arose from mistaken identity and has expressed his deep regret at what occurred. I am sure the House will agree with me that this was a most serious, grave and disturbing incident. Nothing like it must happen again. I am equally sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing our deep sympathy to Mr. Waldorf and his family and our hope for his rapid and complete recovery from his injuries.

"The House will expect a full investigation into what has occurred, and a full report on the outcome. Immediately after the incident the Commissioner set up such an inquiry. He has reported progress to me personally this morning. As the House knows three officers have been suspended from duty. A report will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the question of criminal liability. The Commissioner told me this morning that an initial report will go to the Director tomorrow. What I have said about the possibility of criminal proceedings limits at present what I can properly say about the details of the incident itself.

"The often dangerous duties of the police require them on specific occasions to carry firearms. The Metropolitan Police rules governing the issue and use of firearms are rightly stringent and explicit. I am placing the relevant extracts from the current rules in the Library of the House. The rules say, and I quote: 'Every officer to whom a weapon is issued must be strictly warned that it is to be used only in cases of absolute necessity, for example, if he, or the person he is protecting, is attacked by a person with a firearm or other deadly weapon and he cannot otherwise reasonably protect himself or give protection, he may resort to firearms as a means of defence'. "The rules also state that weapons are issued only to those who are authorised to have them, and under the direct and personal supervision of an officer not below the rank of inspector. The responsible chief superintendent has to be informed of their issue as soon as practicable. The rules emphasise that in planned operations where the issue of firearms is deemed necessary, the use of such weapons will be strictly controlled by the supervising officer in charge of the operation. There will, of course, be a thorough examination of these rules in order to take account of the lessons to be learned from Friday's incident.

"Firearms were issued to Metropolitan Police officers in operations against criminals known or believed to be armed on 4,346 occasions in the first nine months of 1982. The comparable figures for the whole of 1981 and 1980 respectively were 4.983 and 5,968. Firearms were drawn from holsters in those three years on 73, 106 and 118 occasions respectively. Twenty-eight shots were fired in six incidents in 1980; six shots in two incidents in 1981, and four in three incidents last year. The figures for persons injured were two, nought, and one respectively.

"That is all I can at present say to the House. The Commissioner has assured me that, whatever the outcome of any legal proceedings, he recognises that the House and the public are entitled to have available to them the full facts of this incident. I fully endorse that and will keep the House informed".

That concludes the Statement.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for this sombre Statement about the sombre event which has caused grave concern throughout the country. The Home Secretary has properly described it as a "serious, grave and disturbing incident". As, however, we are shortly to have a Statement on the outcome of the inquiry, which I hope will be before the public and the House in a matter more of days than of weeks, and as the matter has also been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, there are inhibitions upon us at this stage in putting questions about the actual incidents themselves. But certain questions of general principle do arise and, I think, can properly be raised.

The House will have noted the remarkable information that in the first nine months of 1982 firearms were issued to Metropolitan Police officers in operations against criminals known or believed to be armed on no less than 4,346 occasions. Therefore, the availability and potential use of firearms by the police has now become a significant element in the struggle against crime and in the facts of contemporary society. Therefore, the public will be anxious to know that the principles that are applied in the use of arms are clear and safe from the point of view, first of all, of the ordinary person like Mr. Waldorf, who was innocently on his passage, as we believe to be the case, and was grievously injured in this way. Having mentioned that. I join in the expression of sympathy to Mr. Waldorf and his family from all of us, not only on this side of the House but, I venture to think, from all parts of the House.

The Statement contains a valuable extract from the rules governing the use of weapons. They state: Every officer to whom a weapon is issued must be strictly warned that it is to be used only in cases of absolute necessity, for example, if he, or the person he is protecting, is attacked by a person with a firearm or other deadly weapon and he cannot otherwise reasonably protect himself or give protection, he may resort to firearms as a means of defence". Would there not seem to be justification, in the light of what happened two or three days ago, for that warning to be firmly restated to the whole of the police force?

The important provision follows in the Home Secretary's Statement that, weapons are issued only to those who are authorised to have them, and under the direct and personal supervision of an officer not below the rank of inspector. The public will, I think, be anxious to know the rank of the officer in charge of the unit concerned in this operation. Did he hold the rank of inspector? Is the rank of inspector high enough to authorise the use of arms in view of the prevalence of the availability of arms and, alas! the possible need for their use? It is important that we know the rank of the officer who authorised the use of arms on this occasion.

Perhaps the Minister will also say a little about the functions of the unit involved—it is described as C. 11—if he believes that that can properly be indicated to the House. It seems to be wrapped in something of a mystery and there ought not to be a mystery about these things—not more than is strictly necessary for security reasons.

Satisfying the public that the control of arms in the hands of the police is absolute and to be relied upon is important. There is a passage in The Times today which states: The police need the support, however, of the community they serve in the struggle against violent crime. They will not get that support if there is a widespread feeling that they are misusing their access to guns. That is an important message to be communicated to the police. Finally, I should like to ask whether a statement can now be made that full compensation will be paid in the circumstances of this case.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, those of us on this side of the House who are anxious indeed to support on every appropriate occasion the police force as they carry out their difficult and dangerous duties, are particularly perturbed by this incident. We are perturbed that there should be an instance of mistaken identity arising in a case where apparently full information was available to the police and there were opportunities for personal identification. It makes one realise, as all of us who have ever been involved in the criminal process do realise, the very real dangers, at all stages of a criminal investigation, of evidence of personal identification.

Pursuing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, I should like to ask about that part of the Statement which says: The rules also state that weapons are issued only to those who are authorised to have them". Can the noble Lord the Minister tell us who is empowered to do the authorisation, to whom, and in what circumstances? Is there any conceivable reason why information of this type should not be made available to the public as a result of this case, or indeed why it was not before this particular incident happened?

The other observation that I should like to make is the following. It so happens that the people against whom the complaint is made belong to a body which has set up an inquiry. That, so far as I understand it, in no way inhibits and cannot possibly inhibit any discussion in your Lordships' House or elsewhere as to what in fact happened on this occasion. It would be quite absurd if such discussion were to be stifled merely because the body that happened to employ the particular people involved has chosen to set up an inquiry.

In these circumstances I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he can answer one or two very simple questions. First, is it at this stage apparent that this incident was precipitated by the use of a firearm against a motor vehicle? Secondly, can he help as to whether the motor vehicle—on the information at present available to him—which was in a crowded London street in rush hour, was moving or stationary at the time? Thirdly, can he indicate whether, if in fact a firearm were to be used against a motor vehicle in those circumstances, it can in any conceivable way come within the province of the rule which is quoted in the Statement?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have rightly emphasised the gravity of the occurrence which has prompted this Statement. As to the clarity and safety of the principles laid down for the use of firearms. I would refer the noble and learned Lord to the rules themselves, which I understand will be in the Library later this afternoon, and also to the figures which I gave to indicate the large number of occasions on which weapons are issued; the fact that every time they are withdrawn from the holster a report is made: and the fact that shots have been fired so very rarely and with so little result of actual injury.

As to the rank of the officer in charge of the operation on Friday, he held the rank of detective superintendent. I am not in a position at present to describe the functions of C. 11, but if it is appropriate I will write to the noble and learned Lord to tell him of them. I entirely endorse what he has said about the police needing the support of the community: that is central to the whole of the Government's approach to policing the community and that is one of the reasons why this is such a grave event—it is not the only one.

The noble and learned Lord asked about compensation. I can say that the Metropolitan Police fully accept their responsibility to make amends so far as that is possible in financial terms. The House will appreciate that the amount will depend on considerations which cannot yet be clearly judged.

The issue of weapons is to police officers authorised to hold them and I understand that they carry an authorisation card with their warrant card. That is issued when those responsible for their training and supervision are satisfied that they have reached an adequate standard for the use of firearms. The initial course lasts for four days. There are quarterly refresher courses and if at any stage the performance of an authorised user falls below the requisite standard, authorisation is removed.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, we on this Bench would also like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We would particularly wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to Mr. Waldorf and to members of his family, and to express good wishes for his recovery. I think that from this Bench I can say that we are well aware of the very heavy responsibility borne by every police officer who is wearing a firearm and of the extreme difficulty that must arise many a time in making instantaneous decisions—decisions which are vital perhaps to the safety and life of police officers themselves—when it comes to the final moment when the decision is taken to fire. It is relevant in this connection to put one question to the Minister. We have heard from him about the rank, seniority and position of the officer authorising the use of the firearms and in charge of the party of police at the time of the incident. Can the Minister give us some information—and this needs to be remembered—about the age, experience and length of service of the officers who actually bear the firearms and on whom the ultimate and final responsibility lies at that moment or instant of firing the shot?

Finally, we are greatly relieved to know that the inquiry will be speedy as well as thorough, and we take some measure of comfort in noting from the figures in the Statement that the number of shots that have in fact been fired, apart from withdrawing pistols from holsters, and the injuries caused, have been very few and have not increased in the last three years.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his remarks. As to the age and experience of officers carrying firearms. I cannot give a specific answer, but the temperament and suitability of officers for this work is one of the considerations borne in mind in giving the authorisation. I think that this will become clear to the noble Lord when he looks at the rules which will be placed in your Lordships' Library.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to reply to what I believe is the most important question? This is not the occasion to condemn the police—we can only do that, if we have to do it, after a thorough investigation. That matter must be left aside. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, put the important question: there will be a complaint against the police—who is to conduct the inquiry? Is it to be the people against whom the complaint is made, or is there to be an inquiry conducted by those who may be regarded as independent? I am not suggesting any criticism at all of the police for their method of dealing with complaints against the police, but on this occasion surely we ought to understand that the inquiry will not be conducted by those against whom the complaint is made.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the initial results of the Commissioner's inquiry will be passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions tomorrow afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will know that it is then a question for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether this is an occasion for criminal prosecution or otherwise for pursuit of the complaint through the Police Complaints Board.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House has a sense of horror at what occurred on Friday and has caught the public apprehension of what the Home Secretary himself has described as an incident which must never happen again. May I put this in the form of a question, as I should do? Is not the House very conscious of figures which show, not just annual figures of authorisation of arms' possession—some 6,000 for this year, if one takes the figures for nine months and then converts them for 12 months—but the daily figure of authorisation in the Metropolitan area of 16 per day? Your Lordships may think it is right that there should be a thorough inquiry. Following upon what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said—and, if I may say so, he has anticipated a remark from this Front Bench—quite apart from the question of the Director of Prosecutions' investigation of the facts presented to him by the Commissioner's inquiry, would it not be more realistic, in view of public disquiet, to appoint some person of independent responsibility (be he a lawyer or be he whoever) in order that the public may know that the inquiry and the facts which go to the Director of Public Prosecutions have been completely independently examined?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the question of a public inquiry does not arise at this stage because of the possibility of legal proceedings, which could be prejudiced by the course of the inquiry itself.

Baroness Hornsby-Smith

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how many of those 4,300 issues were, in fact, for the purposes of defending our foreign visitors, such as His Holiness the Pope, President Reagan and the many distinguished people and Crown Heads who visited this country during the Wedding? To get this matter into perspective, we should realise that the figures for the issue of firearms involved in carrying out our duty to them and to many of the foreign embassies which ask for our protection would substantially reduce the figures in people's minds as to how many officers were issued with firearms for other purposes.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I shall have to give the noble Baroness this assurance, subject to correction, which I shall endeavour to obtain, if necessary, very quickly. My understanding is that these issues are additional to normal static and personal protection duties.