HC Deb 15 July 1992 vol 211 cc752-4W
Mr. Gale

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decisions he has reached on the recommendations contained in the report of the Independent Commission of Police Complaints on its triennial review 1988–91.

Sir Patrick Mayhew

My predecessor announced on 27 March 1991 that he intended to consult various interested bodies. A consultation document was sent to the police authority, the Chief Constable, the police representative bodies, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and Northern Ireland Members of this House. The document was also made available to anyone else on request.

I have given further consideration to the recommendations in the light of the comments received. I have decided to accept six of the commission's nine recommendations in whole or in part.

I have accepted the following two recommendations which can be implemented by amendments to regulations and I have asked my officials to bring forward the necessary amendments as quickly as possible: The informal resolution procedure should be amended to provide for the complainant to indicate in writing that he is satisfied that his complaint has been resolved (recommendation 2). The regulations would make it clear that the complainant is not required to sign such a statement if he or she does not want to. Regulations should be made to provide a monitoring role for the Commission where the Police Authority decides to use its discretionary power under Article 6(2) of the 1987 Order to deal with a complaint against a senior officer other than by formal investigation (recommendation 3).

I have also accepted the following three recommendations whose implementation will require primary legislation. The second of these is part of a wider recommendation. They will be implemented at the earliest legislative opportunity: A complaint should be referred to the Commission once it has been recorded by the appropriate authority under Article 5(1) or Article 6(1) of the 1987 Order (recommendation 4).

The Commission should be granted discretion to discontinue supervision of a case where it becomes apparent that supervision is not warranted (second part of recommendation 6).The 1987 Order should be amended to require the Commission to give its reasons to the Chief Constable for preferring disciplinary charges at the recommendation stage under Article 13(1) rather than at the later stage of direction (recommendation 7).

The purpose of recommendation 7 is being achieved by administrative action pending amendment to legislation.

I have accepted the following recommendation which is an administrative matter for the Policy Authority and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints: meetings between the Police Authority and the Commission should continue on a more structured basis (recommendation 9)

I have decided not to accept the following three recommendations and the first part of another recommendation: The Chief Constable should be required to consult the Commission in those cases where he is of the opinion that the matter does not constitute a complaint within the meaning of Article 2 of the 1987 Order; the Commission's decision should prevail where there is a difference of view as to whether the matter should properly be regarded as constituting a complaint (recommendation 1) The Commission should be given a reserve power under an amended Article 8 of the 1987 Order to "call in" for supervision in the public interest those matters considered by the Commission to be of grave or exceptional circumstances (recommendation 5) The mandatory supervision of complaints category relating to serious injury should be eliminated, that supervision in all cases should be a matter for the discretion of the Commission (first part of recommendation 6) Consideration should be given to the establishment of a truly independent tribunal with a legally qualified chairman to hear disciplinary charges. Such charges would be presented on behalf of the Commission at the hearing; any consequential disciplinary action would be the responsibility of the Chief Constable and he might therefore require to have a presence or a specialised function at a tribunal (recommendation 8).

I have been heartened by the positive response to the consultation document on the commission's recommendations and I am satisfied that the action I have outlined will further enhance the operation of the procedures for dealing with complaints against the police.