HL Deb 22 June 1990 vol 520 cc1253-7

4.47 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations were considered in Committee in another place on Wednesday, 13th June 1990. They have also been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

The changes covered by the regulations were first proposed by the Police Complaints Authority in its triennial review for the years 1985–88. I am sure that I need not remind your Lordships that the PCA's functions, given to it under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, make it in effect a watchdog body, making sure that the investigation of any complaint by a member of the public against a police officer is properly conducted. Among the PCA's duties is a requirement to review the workings of Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act once every three years, and that review was the source of the recommendations which are embodied in the regulations.

Before coming to a decision on the PCA's proposals, the Government consulted widely among those bodies with a responsibility for policing and finally announced their acceptance of these proposals in a parliamentary Written Answer made by my right honourable friend in another place on Tuesday, 22nd June 1989. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides that, when a complaint is made against a police officer, it must be recorded and subsequently either informally resolved or formally investigated. A chief officer cannot choose simply not to investigate a complaint. Should he for any reason wish to do so, he must seek a dispensation from the requirement to investigate from the Police Complaints Authority, and it will at all times have in mind the interest of the general public.

The regulations that we are now amending—the Police (Anonymous, Repetitious Etc. Complaints) Regulations 1985—specify in some detail the circumstances in which the PCA can give a dispensation. Time has shown that there are some gaps in the powers provided, and it is to these that the PCA's recommendations and the present regulations are directed.

First, while the principal regulations provided that the police could seek a dispensation where an identical complaint had already been investigated, they made no provision for the situation where an identical complaint had already been informally resolved. These regulations would remedy that deficiency.

In the second place, the new regulations make provision for a dispensation if a complaint is vexatious, oppressive or an abuse of the system. I would not wish to define too closely what kind of abuses this measure might be used to curb, but I can offer your Lordships' House a few examples of the kind of difficulties which have been experienced in the past. For instance, two complainants are known to have mounted campaigns against their respective police forces resulting in the one case in over 90 complaints within one year and in the other in over 70. It is not going too far to say that this is an abuse of the complaints system. In other cases members of the public have been known to mount unwarranted vendettas against particular police officers by making large numbers of complaints against them. Some provision needs to be made to avoid the appalling waste of time and money which would result from those pointless investigations.

The third situation in which the PCA will be able to give a dispensation is where more than 12 months has passed since the incident in question, and the complainant has no good reason for not having lodged his complaint earlier. The reason for this is surely clear. A complainant who has a genuine matter for complaint will normally wish to make his complaint as soon as possible. A lapse of time will only make his memory, and that of everybody else, less clear and the value of the complaint less as each day passes. As a result any delay in making the complaint makes the possibility of a successful investigation increasingly remote. Moreover, even if the investigation does show the police officer to be at fault, any action in the courts which might derive from that investigation might well be time-barred.

Nothing in these regulations will enable chief officers to refuse to investigate complaints without good cause. They can only omit to investigate after receiving a dispensation from the Police Complaints Authority, and any such application for a dispensation will have to be fully justified.

The regulations will oil the wheels of the system without materially withdrawing the public's protection. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, we on this side of the House certainly have no objection to the order. We welcome it and understand the reasons for it. The Minister took a quick canter over the course and told us why this order is necessary now.

He will have read, as I have, what happened in Committee in another place when questions were raised about why the matter had not been brought forward earlier and why it had not been included in the original setting up of the PCA. The explanation given by the Minister's ministerial colleague certainly satisfied me. He said that it arose out of experience. The triennial review indicated that such situations were occurring and therefore the Government moved as fast as they could.

However, it should be understood that the public are very sensitive about complaints against the police. Sadly, there is perhaps more publicity given to them and there are more instances of complaints now. The public view very seriously complaints made against the police, even more so perhaps than complaints against any other section of the community. I stand second to none in my admiration for the police force. Nevertheless, when complaints are made the problem is how to distinguish between the genuine, vexatious and oppressive and those abusing the system. All complaints must be taken seriously and I am satisfied that they are.

The Minister and the Government have made it clear that this is not an opportunity for the police not to do that which the public expect. The police do not take the decision to grant dispensation from reviewing complaints; it is the decision of the Police Complaints Board. I was pleased that the Minister confirmed that the regulations will not enable police officers to refuse to investigate complaints without good cause. That good cause must be laid before the Police Complaints Board in order that it can grant dispensation.

The Minister did not say how wide the consultations were. He merely said that consultations had been undertaken widely. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, knows a great deal about the subject as a result of his background and current associations with the police and I am sure that he will help the House.

The police and the Police Complaints Board welcome the regulations. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could say who, in addition to the police and the board, was consulted so that we may know whose views were canvassed. We on these Benches warmly welcome the regulations.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, the noble Viscount put forward a powerful case for the regulations. They will relieve the police of the necessity to investigate vexatious or repetitious complaints. They will deal with tiresome people who pursue vendettas against a particular force or officer. Unhappily, a number of people spend a considerable part of their lives doing so. It is right that we should not passively accept the substantial expenditure of public money when complaints are investigated.

The House should recognise that the burden on the police in investigating complaints is considerable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that it is right that that burden should be accepted. However, it is also right that we should lessen it whenever possible. The regulations will enable the police to concentrate their resources on dealing with complaints which appear to be serious. In my view that is right and we on these Benches welcome the regulations.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to the regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, they are the result of a triennial review. I emphasise that at no time can any complaint be made without being recorded and subsequently informally resolved or formally investigated. There is no change in that requirement; it is merely that the loopholes that I stressed are being tightened up.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked what consultation had taken place. The first triennnial review, published on 12th May 1988, pointed to a number of improvements. The Home Office issued a consultation paper in November 1988 discussing the PCA's proposals and inviting comments. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a list to indicate the number of people who were consulted. They were, among others, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation, and the Superintendents' Association. None of the consultees saw disadvantages in what the PCA had proposed. The regulations now before the House substantially embody the PCA's proposals. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that consultation was wide and that the right people were consulted.

I also welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, agrees that these minor tidying up regulations are required and recognises with the Government the waste of money in the needless investigation of these repetitious or vexatious complaints. Having said that, I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.