§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
For what reasons they decided to reject four recommendations of the Police Complaints Authority Triennial Review, concerning the recording of complaints, serious complaints, the production of documents and the use of firearms, detailed in the Official Report for 28th June 1989 (cols. 831 and 832).
Earl FerrersThe reasons for the decision of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to reject recommendations (2), (8), (14) and (18) of the report of the Police Complaints Authority's Triennial Review after consultation with interested parties are as follows:
Recommendation (2), concerning the recording and de-recording of complaints, was rejected on the basis that it could conflict with the chief officer's broader responsibility for the efficient management of his force.
Recommendation (8), concerning the powers laid down in Section 88 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, was rejected for the same reason and because experience has shown that the police are quick to refer non-complaints matters to the authority wherever public confidence is in issue.
Recommendation (14), concerning the production of documents, was rejected because no practical advantages could be seen to flow from the implementation of the recommendation, since the law already allows police operating under the supervision of the authority to apply to the courts for the production of documents.
Recommendation (18), concerning incidents involving the use of firearms, was rejected because there is no evidence that chief officers are reluctant to refer to the authority incidents involving police use of firearms whenever public confidence is an issue.