HC Deb 13 June 2000 vol 351 cc187-95WH 11.57 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)

Some seven months ago, I spoke in a similar debate on Operation Lancet—a Police Complaints Authority probe into alleged corruption in Cleveland police. I need to update the House on the progress, or lack of it, on that matter. which is vital to the policing of Teesside. Since that debate, many people in my constituency and throughout Teesside have been in touch with me asking for the matter to be kept under the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny. That debate touched the pulse of the people, which is why I raise the matter once again.

Operation Lancet is the probe under which Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon, famed for his pioneering work of zero tolerance policing in Britain, has been suspended for more than two and a half years. His suspension was accompanied by the suspension of another seven Cleveland officers. It is with regret that I have to tell the House that the questionable activities of that inquiry have continued for seven months. More serious, I must inform the House that it seems that we and the Teesside public have been misled about the true cost of the operation. Those costs are paid by the public purse, which causes me great concern.

The Government are rightly committed to modernisation and to justice and opportunity for all, rather than to allowing the old boy network to rule public services. It is time for a complete overhaul of the way in which the police are policed. It is time to bring in checks and balances to ensure that police officers act in the best interest of the taxpayers who fund them rather than in their interest and that of their friends.

The handling of Operation Lancet has raised such serious questions about the misuse of public funds and the perversion of justice that it is time for a public inquiry to ensure that the truth comes out. Operation Lancet has been flawed from the start. The crucial flaw came when Cleveland's chief constable and the Police Complaints Authority placed in charge of the inquiry a Cleveland officer who had, at best, limited experience of leading major crime investigations. That has contributed to the rambling, unfocused way in which the operation has stumbled on. The officer leading the investigation had recently been in charge of the CID at Middlesborough police station. Many of the 40 officers allocated to his investigation team had also served there. They were effectively investigating themselves—a clear conflict of interest.

Sadly, senior officers involved with Operation Lancet have repeatedly failed the public. Detective Superintendent Mallon was suspended on 1 December 1997 by Cleveland's acting deputy chief constable Robert Turnbull. Most people would make such a decision knowing that they should take—and could be expected to take—responsibility for the consequences. Not in this case, however. Mr. Turnbull left in controversial circumstances, pocketed a large pension and commutation courtesy of the Teesside taxpayer and took up a senior position in the sun-kissed Turks and Caicos Islands.

Mr. David Earnshaw, who became acting assistant chief constable, took over Mr. Turnbull's mantle. He insisted that Ray Mallon and his colleagues remained suspended. He also did not feel that the issue merited being seen through to the end. He has now quit the Cleveland police, pocketing a vastly enhanced pension and commutation in excess of £150,000, thanks to his activities on Lancet. However, his presence is still felt in the corridors of the Cleveland police headquarters because he has returned to take up a newly created senior civilian post. He is not the only officer who has left the Cleveland police who has been offered immediately a civilian post that had not been advertised openly. That smacks of a jobs-for-the-boys attitude. Such an attitude is clearly contrary to the equal opportunities policy that the Government and, presumably, Cleveland police have signed up to.

A litany of senior police officers has fallen by the wayside while Operation Lancet was in their control. Mr. Richard Brunstrom, Cleveland's other assistant chief constable and another person with oversight for Operation Lancet, slipped away quietly for the possibly quieter life of the North Wales police.

Mr. Andrew Timpson, the outside Warwickshire chief constable appointed to oversee Operation Lancet, was also replaced in controversial circumstances following complaints about his conduct. The man who replaced Mr. Timpson, and who so far seems to have survived the curse of Lancet—Assistant Chief Constable Lloyd Clarke of West Yorkshire police—clearly had severe reservations about the way in which the operation was evolving. Those reservations have taken root and Mr. Clarke has removed several of the officers who were helping to conduct the inquiry. I am told that he has completed his investigation and returned to West Yorkshire. I suspect that he is writing the report. The public surely have a right to expect senior police officers who launch costly inquiries to stay in post until the inquiries are complete. It is wrong that such officers can dodge possible disciplinary repercussions simply by retiring or otherwise leaving the force. A basic tenet of English law is that justice delayed is justice denied. The delays that beset Operation Lancet despite Mr. Clarke's latest efforts are still intolerable.

Ray Mallon was suspended from duty on 1 December 1997 for alleged activity—which he vehemently denies—that could be construed as criminal. In January 1999 he submitted to the Lancet inquiry a lengthy statement dealing with every allegation against him. The file on Mr. Mallon has been passed from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service, then to Treasury Counsel and finally to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, where it has remained since December. In January, Mr. Mallon was informed that the criminal investigation into him was complete. Will my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General explain why, if the investigation was complete and the Treasury Counsel recommendation was passed on seven months ago, Mr. Mallon still has not been told whether he faces prosecution? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions is not letting political interest overtake justice.

The costs of Operation Lancet are a very serious matter. They are expressed in two forms—the direct cost to the taxpayer and the cost of the loss of public confidence in the police force. That loss of confidence is based on the perception that a police force that appears to be totally introverted and obsessed with internal inquiries does not have its heart in fighting crime. I received a letter last week from June Goodchild, a well-respected member of the community who is vice-chairman of Easterside community council, who wrote: In the summer of 1997— that is, before Lancet— we had a brilliant relationship with both the Community Team and also the Police Chiefs. However, she states: Since the Lancet investigation began we have been very lucky to even see a Policeman. She adds: I would like to know why members of the Public of all ages…feel they have no quality of life and also feel very unsafe, surely this should be the opposite, when we pay so much for the Police we have a right to feel safe but after so many complaints not everyone can be wrong. The Cleveland police force recently announced its latest crime figures. A well-spun press release trumpeted the falling number of crimes such as burglaries, drug offences and car crime, but also showed, in an almost hidden paragraph, that the detection rate had dropped. Simple arithmetic should show that there should be a rough correlation between a drop in recorded crime and clear-ups. Such a correlation does not exist in Cleveland. Why? Perhaps the press release gives a clue to that, too. It states that the drop in the detection rate is thought to have been affected by a number of long running, serious and complicated inquiries which have tied up officers. Many of those inquiries are, of course, operational, designed to investigate and solve serious crimes, but hidden behind that innocuous phrase is the truth that Lancet and the ever-increasing number of subsidiary inquiries are tying the force in knots. That means a serious cost to the public. Many of my constituents tell me their fears and their stories of stolen property that is not recovered, stolen cars that are never seen again, personal injury from assaults and, above all, the loss of confidence that police response will be speedy and criminals will be apprehended. That loss of confidence will take a long time to be repaired.

The direct costs of Operation Lancet can and should be quantified. Last month I tabled a written question about how much it had cost and was told by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that the cost at that time was —2.6 million. It has been brought to my attention that the police authority papers over the three financial years show the cost to be far in excess of that. In addition, the continuing salary costs of eight suspended officers bring the real costs, I suspect, to double the figure that the House was given. I must ask for an explanation of the House being misled in that way, and whether there are other costs of which the House has not been informed.

It is imperative that those costs are given open and honestly. After all, they are coming out of the pockets of Teesside taxpayers who are picking up the bill and have a right to know what it has cost them. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that an independent auditor should be brought in to begin an assessment of the true cost of Operation Lancet and associated inquiries. Only then will the public be able to judge whether they have had best value. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering reforms to both the mechanism and methodology of the Police Complaints Authority, which I applaud.

I suggest that the lessons learned from an inquiry into how Operation Lancet was handled will prove invaluable to such a shake-up. That will show how not to do it. It is not only the eight suspended officers who have suffered in Cleveland; the consequences of their suspensions have brought pain and suffering to their families as well as to the suspended officers themselves. The rumours and stories that abound do nothing for the morale of decent rank and file policemen and women. At the start of the inquiry, the Police Complaints Authority suggested that wholesale corruption, widespread brutalism and drug abuse were rife in the Middlesbrough police district. That has so far proved to be utterly unfounded and is a gross slur on the hardworking officers of Cleveland police—men and women who are a credit to their force and to their service. The least that those people deserve is an apology from the Police Complaints Authority.

I shall end by reiterating the basic facts of the matter. Eight Cleveland police officers have now been suspended for more than two and a half years without a single criminal disciplinary charge being levelled against them. The cost of Operation Lancet now stands at £5 million, which has been funded by the Cleveland taxpayer. The buck stops with the Government, who must explain what is happening. The public in my constituency have been hit by the largest hike in police precepts in Britain, yet those responsible for launching the inquiry have deserted the sinking ship. Moreover, they have walked the plank, but with very fat pay-offs and the knowledge that they have avoided any possible disciplinary repercussions. I urge my hon. Friend to agree to hold a public inquiry into the Operation Lancet fiasco once it is officially over, so that there is never again such an abuse of public office and public money in the police service.

12.12 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)

May I begin, as is conventional, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) for raising those issues, as he did in the previous debate to which he referred on 10 November last year? I am acutely aware of the interest that the inquiry continues to attract, both nationally and, more importantly, among the constituents of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the area covered by the Cleveland police.

I shall begin by referring to what the Government are doing overall. I made a statement to the House a month or so ago to launch our whole approach to police complaints. There have been two inquiries; one by KPMG and another published on the same day by Liberty, which identified the best ways in which to fulfil our commitment to establishing an independent police complaints system. One of the key drivers in that is to reduce the time that is taken up by police complaints.

Unfortunately, the example from Cleveland described by my hon. Friend is not unique in terms of the length of time that the inquiry has taken for a variety of reasons, although the scale of that inquiry is more substantial than most of those undertaken by the Police Complaints Authority. We believe that, for some of the reasons stated by my hon. Friend, the system should be reformed. We are committed to reforming the system and have published a consultation paper based on those two reports, to which we are seeking early responses so that we can take action as rapidly as possible. Therefore, I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's main point that the length of the inquiry has led to difficulties in delivering policing, and those difficulties must be addressed. However, it is still the case that the performance of the Cleveland constabulary is good, and morale in the force, according to Her Majesty's inspectorate, is also good.

Some of the language used by my hon. Friend was unwarranted, but, before I explain why, I shall put the facts of the case in context. The inquiry began in late 1997, following serious and disturbing allegations against a number of officers, not only Mr. Mallon. It would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of the cases under investigation while the possibility of criminal and disciplinary proceedings exists. The Crown Prosecution Service is considering a number of files from Operation Lancet. The Lancet team began submitting files to the CPS in November 1998. The CPS referred them to Treasury Counsel for advice, and is now considering those papers. The investigation team asked to make further inquiries, after which, in the near future, the CPS hopes to be able to make decisions.

More files were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service last year. Many of them have also been referred to Treasury Counsel, and I understand that there is material still to be submitted. That material will also need to be carefully considered, before decisions are taken on possible criminal proceedings. Responsibility for such matters rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I know that he is taking a personal interest in the case.

I must rebut my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is any question of political interests conflicting with justice. The sole responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this area is to secure justice. No political interest conflicts with that, and it would be wrong if it did. That is not how the DPP operates.

The chief constable and the Police Complaints Authority are responsible for considering the disciplinary aspects of the inquiry and for determining whether officers should face disciplinary proceedings. The Police Complaints Authority has the power to recommend or direct that the chief constable bring disciplinary proceedings, if there is evidence that an officer has behaved improperly. The Home Secretary has a role in the process as the appellate authority and may be called on to consider any disciplinary appeals from officers arising from the inquiry.

Public confidence in the police service rests entirely on its reputation for integrity. That is why allegations, from whatever quarter, must be properly addressed and investigated. The length of time taken is, as I have acknowledged, a serious concern, but it would be wrong if serious allegations of the kind that have been made were not investigated. When allegations of misconduct are made, bringing the reputation of the service into question, there must be thorough scrutiny. That is why I am pleased that Cleveland acted robustly, initiating an investigation into the allegations, although I share the concern that the inquiry should be brought to a conclusion as swiftly as possible.

My hon. Friend referred to costs. As I told him in my answers, the overall cost of the Lancet inquiry, to the end of April, was —2.6 million. The costs can be broken down as follows: for Cleveland officers, including salaries, overtime and travel and subsistence, they are £1.271 million; for officers from Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire, including salaries, overtime and travel and subsistence, they are £1.169 million; for other costs, such as accommodation and office expenditure, they are £182,000. Those are the costs, and they are based on figures given to us by Cleveland police. The only explanation that I can give for the difference from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend is that the figures that I have just given, which I also gave him in an earlier parliamentary answer, do not include the salaries of the suspended officers.

Dr. Kumar

The report produced by Cleveland police on budgeting provision shows that supplies and services for an inquiry that was unforeseen at budget time created an additional cost of £266,000. Similarly, for 1999, the cost of the special inquiry was significantly in excess of the original £1 million budget—an excess of £1.087 million. In the budget for this year, the cost of the special inquiry has exceeded outturn forecasts by £950,000—a total of £1.95 million. It is in the Cleveland authority's papers; that is where the money is going. It has not budgeted for it, and it is not accounted for in the answer that the Minister has given.

Mr. Clarke

The figures that I have given are based entirely on those given to my Department by Cleveland police authority. That is the way in which such things are done, and that is how we should proceed. I shall of course look at the detailed figures that my hon. Friend has given, and ask my officials to discuss them with Cleveland police authority. Perhaps my saying that the overall cost of the Lancet inquiry was calculated to the end of April has caused some confusion. Another possible explanation is that, as I said, the figures do not include the salaries of suspended officers.

My point is that the information that I have given this Chamber is not misleading—it is open and honest, and I regret that my hon. Friend has decided to use such language. An independent audit is not necessary, nor would a public inquiry help matters. However, in the light of my hon. Friend's comments I am willing to ask my officials to discuss the precise figures and try to establish whether there is any sense in which the published figures do not correctly represent the total cost to the police authority. However, I should reiterate that I do not believe that there is any inaccuracy in what I have said to this Chamber.

On personnel, Lloyd Clarke, the deputy chief constable for West Yorkshire, replaced Andrew Timpson, the former chief constable for Warwickshire, as investigating officer for Operation Lancet, after allegations came to light about Mr. Timpson's conduct. Those allegations were made in relation to Warwickshire constabulary, and were unconnected with Operation Lancet. Mr. Timpson subsequently resigned his post as chief constable, but the process had nothing whatever to do with Operation Lancet.

I acknowledge that the departure of Mr. Timpson as officer in command of the inquiry was unfortunate, and partly explains the time that the process has taken. However, Mr. Clarke, who was swiftly appointed in his place, took forward with vigour the task of completing the inquiry. Several officers from Cleveland who are working on the inquiry have now returned to other duties and, as my hon. Friend said, Mr. Clarke's team has relocated to West Yorkshire, which will prove more cost-effective at this stage of the inquiry.

Eight officers are still suspended from duty, and Cleveland police regularly reviews such suspensions. Matters involving the suspension of police officers are governed by the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, and unless the chief officer decides otherwise, suspensions may continue until a decision is taken not to bring disciplinary charges, or the case is resolved. As I said, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to delays in the process, and I hope that they will be rapidly resolved.

My hon. Friend also made some points about senior officers. Officers who have completed 30 years' service are legally entitled to retire on pension and seek further employment. He asked whether that is right. Outstanding issues of discipline need to be considered. Such matters arise in relation to this inquiry and elsewhere, but the law of the land is as I described it.

Mr. David Earnshaw, to whom my hon. Friend referred, retired from the police force on 31 March 2000. He had completed 33 years' service, and had deferred his retirement on two previous occasions at the request of the chief constable. Mr. Earnshaw performed the duties of acting assistant chief constable from 8 February until his retirement, and was therefore entitled to a pension commensurate with that rank. Mr. Earnshaw has been employed by the chief constable on a fixed-term contract in a civilian advisory role to Operation Teak, which is investigating alleged police corruption and is completely separate from Operation Lancet. Operation Teak is at a crucial stage, and the Crown Prosecution Service is considering relevant papers.

Dr. Kumar

My point related to equal opportunity policy. The Government and Cleveland police force might believe in the equal opportunity policy, but they do not demonstrate as much in reality. The post to which Mr. Earnshaw was appointed was not advertised, and the Minister cannot avoid that fact.

Mr. Clarke

The tone that my hon. Friend is adopting is entirely unacceptable in a debate of this kind. Mr. Earnshaw was employed on a fixed-term contract in a civilian advisory role. As far as I am aware, the chief constable fulfilled his proper obligations in respect of the appointments procedure, and in a manner entirely compatible with the equal opportunities policy and other relevant matters. I realise that my hon. Friend is angry about the case of Mr. Earnshaw, and he is entitled to express that anger, but the allegations that due process was not correctly followed are entirely wrong.

The allegations against Mr. Earnshaw were fully investigated by Mr. Williamson, deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire constabulary, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. I understand that the police authority considered an interim report on the investigation on Mr. Earnshaw's final day of service. The report said that there appeared to be no evidence to substantiate the allegations made against Mr. Earnshaw and that, therefore, there was no reason to defer his retirement. The result of the completed investigation was reported to the police authority on 8 June, a few days ago.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the case of Richard Brunstrom. Nottinghamshire constabulary is continuing to investigate allegations made against Mr. Brunstrom, who is now deputy chief constable of North Wales. I understand that the investigation is expected to conclude shortly. The departure of Mr. Brunstrom to North Wales was unconnected to Operation Lancet.

As my hon. Friend described, Deputy Chief Constable Turnbull applied for the post of deputy commissioner in the Turks and Caicos islands on 30 November 1998 and was notified that he had been successful on 2 February 1999. Consequently, he retired from Cleveland police on 8 March 1999 after 32 years in the police service, including almost two years with Cleveland police. Mr. Turnbull retired for personal reasons, to enable him to take up the post abroad; his decision was not linked in any way to Operation Lancet.

I have tried to demonstrate as openly as I can that I sympathise with my hon. Friend's and his constituents' reasonable frustrations at the time taken to complete the inquiry and the way in which it has proceeded, with the changes of senior investigating officer throughout. His suggestion about the motivations of those involved in the inquiry is totally unwarranted. It would have been entirely wrong if we had not investigated properly the serious allegations of corruption in the force, because people must be confident that the police operate with complete integrity. It was therefore right to investigate the complaints, although I acknowledge that the time it has taken has led to a series of problems.

My hon. Friend is concerned about the quality of policing. In the HMIC report last year, general morale in the force was described as "buoyant". I understand, although I am open to correction, that the chief constable has been fully and publicly supported throughout this period by the chair and all members of the police authority. I have noted the strength of my hon. Friend's support and that of others for Cleveland police's positive policing methods.

My hon. Friend referred finally to a public inquiry and to the lack of confidence. The best way to establish—or re-establish if that is necessary—full confidence in Cleveland police force is to conclude the inquiry, which is now near conclusion, publish its reports openly and take whatever disciplinary measures are necessary, so that the people of Cleveland can be confident that there is no corruption in Cleveland police force. That is a course of action to which the Government are committed and which I believe the House as a whole would want them to take, in relation not only to Cleveland police but to other police forces. I see no merit in a public inquiry that simply keeps the uncertainty going longer at a time when, as my hon. Friend correctly says, we must address the issues, so that they can be seen to have been resolved openly and directly and as quickly as possible.

I conclude by urging my hon. Friend, who has campaigned strongly on this matter in debates in the House and in private representations and whose integrity in pursuing the case I fully respect—I understand his motivation entirely—to do what he can to ensure that when the issues are resolved, which I hope will be soon, the positive approach to policing in Cleveland that is so necessary will he re-established.

I have tried to answer the various points made by my hon. Friend and I hope that he will accept my comments in the spirit in which they are made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton)

We now move on to today's final debate in Westminster Hall. I call, for the second time this morning, Mr. Brake.