HL Deb 11 May 1987 vol 487 cc511-22

9.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December 1986 be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to introduce new procedures for dealing with complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The Government recognise the need to establish a system by which legitimate complaints against the police may be effectively investigated, both to command the confidence of the police and to provide substantial reassurance to the public. The order contains all the elements of the system currently operating in England and Wales, but with some important additional features designed to take account of the particular sensitivities of policing in Northern Ireland.

As with England and Wales, the responsibilty for carrying out investigations will remain with the police, whose training and expertise best fit them for that task. The Government remain convinced that it would be neither practicable nor advisable to place this responsibility in the hands of an independent investigative body. The police have a duty to investigate crime of whatever nature, and we see no reason to remove from the police the duty to investigate offences which may involve breaches of the criminal law simply because they might happen to be committed by police officers. Your Lordships will note that the order covers only these complaints relating to the conduct of police officers. The police authority can already use its powers under the Police Act to call for a report from the chief constable where complaints are raised against the general operational policy of the RUC.

The principal feature of the order is contained in Article 3. This establishes an Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland to replace the present Police Complaints Board. The independent public body will be charged with ensuring that the investigation of complaints is carried out in a thorough and impartial manner. It will be required to supervise the investigation of all complaints involving death or serious injury, and in addition will have the power to supervise at its discretion the formal investigation of any other complaint.

Unlike the position in England and Wales, all complaints requiring formal investigation will be sent to the commission at the outset, so it will be immediately aware of the nature of the complaint and will be in a timely position to exercise its obligatory or discretionary powers of supervision. Indeed, it will also receive copies of all minor complaints which have been dealt with informally, and will take over the Police Complaints Board's function in relation to disciplinary matters arising from complaints. If your Lordships glance at Article 20 you will see that this will bring all members of the RUC within the scope of the complaints and disciplinary procedures, including the full-time and part-time RUC Reserve. The commission will therefore have a complete picture of the entire complaints process.

In line with the procedures adopted here both the chief constable and the police authority have been given powers under Article 8(1) to refer a non-complaint matter to the commission, which can then decide whether it is a case in which it should take an interest. In addition, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the police authority are given reserve powers under Article 8(2) formally to require the commission to supervise the investigation in cases where there has been no formal complaint but it appears that a policeman may have committed a criminal or disciplinary offence and in the public interest the commission's involvement is warranted. These procedures taken together will ensure that investigations into police conduct are open to independent scrutiny by the commission.

Under Article 9(5)(a) the commission will be able to approve or veto the choice of the investigating officer in any case which it supervises, and can supervise the investigation throughout its course. It will wish to know how the investigating officer intends to conduct the investigation and what has been achieved at each stage; and it will also be able to order a change of direction or a more thorough examination of points already considered. At the end of the process the commission will state to the complainant whether or not the investigation has been carried out to its satisfaction.

I shall, with your Lordships' leave, just go through the relevant points and also some of the new procedures outlined in the order. I think that your Lordships would wish that I should do this. First of all, complaints about the conduct of police officers may be made directly to the commission through a citizens advice bureau or indeed by a third party on behalf of the complainant. The chief constable, on receipt of the complaint, must then take steps under Article 4(1) to obtain and preserve evidence in relation to it before seeking to resolve it either through informal means or by instituting a formal investigation. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland will do likewise in respect of all cases where a complaint has been made against a senior officer.

If the complaint can be dealt with informally the chief constable will send a copy of the complaint and relevant papers to the commission after it has been resolved. But if it requires formal investigation the chief constable, under Article 5(5), must appoint an investigating officer and refer the complaint to the commission so that it—that is, the commission—can exercise its obligatory or indeed its discretionary powers to supervise. In cases supervised by the commission, the investigating officer will submit his report to the commission, which will then issue a statement under Article 9(8) indicating whether or not the conduct of the investigation was satisfactory and, if appropriate, specifying any respects in which it was dissatisfied with the investigation.

Its supervisory role will end when the statement has been issued. However, the police authority, in respect of senior officers, and the chief constable, in respect of all other officers, then have a duty to examine the report and refer it to the DPP if it indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed. But where the chief constable is satisfied, in a case relating to an officer other than a senior officer, that the criminal offence is only of a minor nature, then it need not be referred to the DPP.

Subsequent disciplinary matters in respect of senior officers will remain the responsibility of the police authority although the commission's approval must be sought before a senior officer can be suspended from duty. But the commission, like the Police Complaints Board before it, will have specific functions with regard to discipline for other ranks.

When the chief constable has considered the disciplinary aspects of any complaints investigation, he must notify the commission if he intends to proceed with disciplinary charges or, if not, give his reasons for not doing so.

The commission may, in its turn, either approve the chief constable's decision to discipline any officer or, under Article 13, it may recommend or direct that disciplinary charges be brought in cases where the chief constable has decided not to do so. These charges will be heard by a disciplinary tribunal comprising the chief constable as chairman, in most cases, and two members of the commission not previously involved with the case. In cases where the commission disagrees with the chief constable's decision not to refer to the DPP allegations that an officer has committed a criminal offence, it can direct the chief constable to submit the case to the DPP.

Finally, the commission will be required to report annually on its work to the Secretary of State and to make a report to him at least once every three years on the working of the complaints arrangements. These reports will be laid before Parliament and published.

The order will also bring into effect a number of measures which will protect the rights of individual RUC officers in the complaints procedure. Under Article 21, police representative bodies, which includes the Police Federation, are given the specific right of representation in disciplinary and appeal proceedings. Article 22 provides that where an officer has been convicted or possibly acquitted of a criminal offence, he will not be charged with a disciplinary offence which is in substance the same as that of which he had been convicted or indeed acquitted. That is a legal point known as "double jeopardy". I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will appreciate that. I am advised that this is the double jeopardy article under this procedure. Article 23 provides that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the chief constable concerning the discharge of his functions under the order and a failure to adhere to that guidance shall be admissible in an appeal regarding the officer's guilt or punishment.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland already has the power to amend or modify disciplinary regulations under the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The regulations will be amended to provide that punishment by dismissal, requirement to resign, or reduction in rank will not be imposed upon an officer of the rank of chief superintendent or below unless he had been afforded the opportunity to be legally represented at the disciplinary hearing. And in any other case, an officer may be represented by any other member of a UK police force. Regulations will also provide for arrangements governing the composition, scope and functions of appeal tribunals and will make discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religious belief, political opinion, or racial origin a specific disciplinary offence. The final wording of the specific offence will be given careful consideration when the revision of the regulations is undertaken.

It is the Government's view that the complaints and discipline procedures outlined in this order will have a significant impact upon the relationship between the police and the public in Northern Ireland. The commission will, I believe, come to be regarded by both the public and the police as a fair and impartial body and its statements on the investigation of complaints will carry authority throughout the community.

The RUC already carry out their duties with commendable spirit and dedication in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. Despite their resolute commitment towards impartially upholding the rule of law in very difficult circumstances, officers have been subjected to intimidation and hostility from misguided elements within the community who constantly attempt to undermine the credibility of the force. I am sure your Lordships will join me in recognising and, above all, commending, the impartial and dedicated manner in which the RUC continue to carry out their often very dangerous duties in the Province.

However, in those circumstances where there is legitimate cause for complaint about police conduct, it is vital that complaints are thoroughly investigated. Where the public can be confident that complaints are so investigated, suspicion towards the police is likely to be replaced by encouragement and support, which in turn will assist the police in the maintenance of law and order. The measures contained in this order will ensure that complaints are thoroughly investigated, while also increasing safeguards for individual officers.

My Lords, with that explanation, I commend this order to your Lordships' House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December 1986 be approved.—(Lord Lyell)

9.30 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, the order which is before the House is an important one for Northern Ireland but it is a complicated order. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining its complicated provisions, and I am sure it will pay us to read and reread his speech.

I should like to acknowledge from these Benches our appreciation of the considerable contribution made by the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Minister is right when he emphasises that they often operate in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We are reminded by the 1986 annual report of the chief constable that in that year 12 members of the force died as a result of activities on the part of paramilitary organisations, and we would take this opportunity to pay tribute to their bravery and to the bravery of their colleagues and families.

The police are human, and because they are human they make mistakes from time to time. And if they make mistakes it is right that they should answer for them and that the mistakes should be put right promptly. In every sphere of life we are moving to a situation where the professionals in medicine, law and the social services are answerable outside the strict limits of the law of negligence for their professional conduct. We are moving to the situation where complaints against the conduct of the professionals must be adequately examined and not stifled.

The chief constable in his 1986 annual report devoted a small section to the complaints which had been recorded and investigated in the course of the year. The fault is no doubt mine; but I must confess that I found it difficult, on reading the section, to form an assessment of the effectiveness of the current complaints procedure in Northern Ireland. Sometimes in the section the reference is to "a case" and elsewhere it is to "a complaint". It is clear that "a case" can include one or more complaints made at the same time, or in relation to the same incident, by one or more persons. It is therefore very difficult to form a clear assessment of the position.

The chief constable tells us in the report that of the 2,785 cases of complaint received in 1986, investigation was completed on 785 of them. How does that compare with the experience on the mainland? The investigation of a substantial number of complaints—I should find it difficult to put a figure on it—was not completed because the complainant withdrew the complaint or indicated that he did not wish to pursue it. How does that compare with the British experience? Can the Minister offer us an assurance that the examination of complaints was not stifled for any reason?

Both the Baker report which dominated the debate in your Lordships' House last Friday and the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland have called for a new complaints machinery. As I understand it this order has been introduced partly in response to that demand. However, it would have been helpful if the department had identified the main weaknesses or inadequacies in the recent procedures so that we do not merely have to assume that this order properly addresses itself to the inadequacies.

I suggest that it should be a principle of the complaints procedure against the police in the United Kingdom that it should be of universal application throughout the four countries in order to ensure that complaints are treated in similar fashion in whatever part of the United Kingdom from which they emanate. If that is a sound principle, then should the Government propose a departure from the procedure in any part of the United Kingdom, the onus of justifying the departure rests with them.

Considering that Northern Ireland has a profound tradition of its own in many spheres of life, I should not be surprised if the Northern Ireland Office seeks to take an independent line on some aspects of the disciplinary procedure. Indeed, we are sometimes critical of the department for following too slavishly the lead given by the relevant Whitehall department. The House will recall that that was the basis of our criticism of the important Industrial Relations Order which is before the other place tonight.

As the Minister has explained, this complicated order establishes an independent commission for police complaints for Northern Ireland and introduces new procedures for dealing with complaints made against members of the RUC. As the Minister has said, it is broadly in line with the procedures that will apply in England and Wales but it differs in two or three major respects. I propose to say a few words about two of the main differences, which are among a number of matters to which our attention has been drawn by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland.

One of the major differences is that the order allows a complaint to be made by a third party on behalf of a member of the public without his or her written consent. The Police Federation complains bitterly about this difference. In our view, prima facie at least there is a great deal of force in their objection. To give written consent indicates that a complaint has a degree of seriousness or permanence which justifies it being taken up by a third party. One never rushes into committing oneself' in writing. Therefore, the giving of written consent would indicate that the aggrieved party has taken a conscious decision that a third party should pursue his complaint. Can the Minister explain satisfactorily to the House why the Government consider it necessary to give this right to a third party in Northern Ireland?

Will the Minister also say whether the complaint will still be investigated even if the aggrieved party informs the police that he or she no longer wishes to have it investigated? Finally on this issue, will the Minister confirm whether or not a police officer will be suspended from duty automatically when there is a complaint against his conduct? If he is suspended automatically, that would reinforce our unease about this departure from the England and Wales principle.

I shall now pass to another difference which the Secretary of State proposes to embody in the new disciplinary regulations. As I understand it, it is proposed to establish a new disciplinary offence based on discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. This has caused a great deal of offence to the Police Federation. But I must say to the Police Federation that I can see the department's side of the question on this particular issue. By virtue of the distinct characteristics of Northern Ireland—namely, the existence within the community of a minority group and a majority group based on the consciousness of religious and political differences—there is always the potential threat of a citizen being discriminated against, treated less favourably, on religious or political grounds. Therefore it should be possible for there to be found a disciplinary offence on the grounds of such discrimination. We suggest that the existence of such an offence should not necessarily cause offence to the Police Federation.

There are also a few public anxieties about some aspects of the order to which I want to refer briefly. The public are concerned that the investigation by the new body should be seen to be impartial and be impartial. There are reservations on this point because the independent commission will not itself undertake the investigation of a complaint but will rely on the investigation being carried out by the police, although supervised by the commission. It is feared that this could significantly weaken the role of the commission. I have listened very carefully to the Minister. He has sought to explain how the commission will supervise the investigtion. Time will tell whether those powers will prove effective.

There is also some anxiety that the powers given to the chief constable by Section 13 of the Police Act 1972 to refer a complaint to an independent tribunal is now being repealed. Therefore we have to ask ourselves whether the new powers contained in this order will compensate for the loss of the power in Section 13. I am partly satisfied by the point made by the department that henceforth there should only be one source of authority for the independent investigation of complaints against the police in Northern Ireland.

Finally, can the Minister tell us what steps will be taken to educate the public in simple language about this new complaints machinery and procedure, the procedure not being all that easy to understand? How is it proposed to draw their attention to the new procedure? How will the department explain how a complaint is to be made, and to whom a complaint is to be made?

I have assumed, as I mentioned, that publicity in clear, unambiguous and uncomplicated language will be given to the new order and its procedures. One would have thought that a prime place to exhibit notice of the new procedures in uncomplicated language would be at the grass roots in the police station itself. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of how the department proposes to give publicity to the terms of the new order. We welcome the order. It recognises the need by the public for complaints about the police to be adequately and promptly investigated. We hope that the order will satisfy that public need.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing the order. Before going any further, I should also like to pay tribute from these Benches to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Events over the last weekend have emphasised dramatically, if any emphasis was needed, that all members of the RUC, in however peaceful a neighbourhood they live, are at times in danger of their lives. I should like to put on record our very great admiration of the courage and dedication to duty that they so regularly display.

There have been widely varying reactions to this order. On the one hand, it has been held by some honourable Members in the other place to be a kick in the teeth for the ordinary men and women of the Northern Ireland police service. We are told that they deeply resent it. On the other hand, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights based in Belfast says: One of the main aims of the new scheme must be to reassure the public that there exists a fair, impartial and effective system for the investigation of complaints against the police. That, I think, we all agree. But the statement goes on: Given the dangerous and difficult circumstances in which the police operate, it is vital to encourage the total support of the public. The system envisaged by this Order does not, in the Commission's view, go far enough to maximise that support. I repeat that it does not, go far enough to maximise that support. The Minister of State in the other place, Mr. Nicholas Scott, introducing the order, said: The Government remain convinced that the best way to deal with complaints against the police is through a procedure that can command support from the public and in which the police can have confidence."—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/87; col. 814.] In the attempt to keep the balance between unfair attacks on the police, and, alternatively, the suppression of genuine grounds for complaint, we believe that this order stands fair to succeed. We support it and hope that its aim will be fairly achieved.

I have just two questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. They have been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. First, how does a person with a grievance make his or her complaint known? I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned citizens advice bureaux. I shall come back to this. Secondly, how is the ordinary citizen to be informed of his or her rights in this matter? The average person may well not know how to proceed. And if a complaint has to be lodged with the very people against whom it is being made, it could be a very frightening process which might well deter the less courageous. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could clarify my mind as to whether it is possible to do all this through a citizens advice bureau. With those two questions and few comments, I repeat that we support the order.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, once again, I am very grateful for the close study that has been given by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, to this rather complicated legislation. I apologise for taking so long in presenting so many points, but it probably was worthwhile and indeed I think your Lordships would not have expected me to do any less.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me a number of questions which I hope I shall be able to answer, but I shall have to write to him concerning the statistics that he raised with me. I am afraid that we are not able to compare the Northern Ireland statistics with those of England and Wales as we have been receiving statistics for two years in England and Wales but we have not received similar statistics for Northern Ireland. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on that as briefly and as swiftly as possible.

I can stress to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that no complaints are overlooked or stifled in any way. The Police Complaints Board, which has been the relevant board for dealing with complaints up to now, has confirmed the correct handling by the Royal Ulster Constabulary of cases which the Police Complaints Board witnessed, and it stressed the use of its relationship with the RUC. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will accept that neither we nor the public believe that complaints are being stifled by the Police Complaints Board.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked how the public could be made aware of their rights. That touched upon the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. The Government are certainly fully aware of the need to publish a leaflet which could explain the new procedure. It is intended to have one published and for it to be made available to the public before the commission comes into operation. I should just add that we are giving careful consideration to the content of that leaflet and we shall certainly take into account the views of everyone who has given us notice on that point, and not least those of your Lordships.

I am advised that explanatory documents will be available in police stations and in citizens' advice bureaux. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Prys-Davies, do not think that it is necessarily intimidating or gives rise to apprehension for citizens to go into police stations. I noticed a comment made in another place to the effect that they appeared like fortresses. That may be so, but any noble Lords who have been to Northern Ireland will appreciate the necessity for that. However, leaflets and explanatory memoranda will be made available at citizens' advice bureaux if a complainant or any individual does not wish to go to a police station. We shall consider whether there are any further steps that we can take in that line.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, touched upon the novelty of the order and some of the points that went a little beyond the procedures in England and Wales. That was the gist of some of his comments about the Police Federation. As regards Northern Ireland, the improvements are, first, that the individual citizen is able to raise his point with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. That body will have effective powers to supervise the investigation of complaints.

Secondly, we think that the introduction of a flexible system for handling the less serious complaints will be more effective. The first difference as regards England and Wales is that there are no corresponding powers whereby both the Secretary of State and the police authority could refer in the public interest a case which we call in the order "a non-complaint case" to the commission for its supervision of the investigation. We think that this is, even in police terms, a valuable step forward.

In Northern Ireland the Chief Constable will be required to refer all complaints which require formal investigation to the commission so that the commission can exercise its investigatory functions. In England and Wales the Police Complaints Authority only has the more serious complaints referred to it.

Thirdly, the commission will have the oversight of the informal resolution process and it will receive a copy of every complaint dealt with in this particular matter. This is not the case in England and Wales.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked me about complaints raised by third parties without written consent. That was a grievance which was raised by the Police Federation in Northern Ireland. There are three points to which I should like to reply. In England and Wales, there is a statutory requirement for persons making a complaint on another's behalf to obtain his written consent. That protects the interest of the third party. However, police forces have been given discretion to set aside the requirement in certain circumstances. For instance, they can act upon a complaint without checking whether written consent has been obtained. However, the existing provisions in Northern Ireland do not require third parties to have written consent from the complainant. The RUC have confirmed to the Government and to me personally recently that they have no difficulty in accepting and investigating complaints made in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also stressed that he felt that there was some reason for fearing that the independence of the new commission might be ineffective. We believe that we have taken reasonable steps to see that the commission can exercise its supervisory functions in the cases which matter. I have already spelled out how we think we have improved on the procedures in England and Wales. We think that the measures in this order present a reasonable framework for investigating and monitoring the procedures where cases might arouse some interest.

The noble Lord also raised a query about Section 13 of the 1970 Act. We understand that permission to hold tribunals under that particular section of the Act has proved to be inadequate. In the first place, the tribunal had no powers to subpoena witnesses to attend. Nor was it able to require documentary evidence to be submitted or to take evidence on oath.

We do not see that that has been satisfactory. We think that the procedures contained in the order will do the job which we believe that the commission should do. We believe that the procedures will provide greater safeguards for the public and for every individual member of the RUC.

I hope that I have covered the questions that have been raised by the two noble Lords who have spoken. I promise to write to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with the statistics. We are very grateful for the attention that has been shown and not least for the tributes paid to the individual members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to their fine organisation. I am sure that they will be pleased to read what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Prys-Davies, this evening. I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.