§ Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his consideration of the request for an independent inquiry into matters raised in the Osmond Report and other related matters in Lancashire which have been drawn to his attention.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesIn December 1976 the Lancashire Police Authority received the report which it had commissioned from Sir Douglas Osmond on his investigation of allegations against the conduct 143W of their chief constable. The Director of Public Prosecutions, to whom Sir Douglas had also reported, concluded that in all the circumstances it would be proper in the public interest for the whole matter to be disposed of by the police authority. The police authority, acting under the relevant regulations, instituted disciplinary proceedings against the chief constable which were heard by a disciplinary tribunal in October 1977. The tribunal found Mr. Parr guilty on 26 out of 37 charges and he was subsequently dismissed. Because of my appellate responsibility, I was not able to read the Osmond Report until the chief constable had withdrawn his appeal against dismissal; but I have now studied the report, an account of the relevant proceedings of the police authority and the report of the tribunal.
Over recent months there has also been a quite separate investigation conducted at the request of the acting chief constable of Lancashire by officers of the Nottinghamshire Police into allegations of corruption in public life in Black-pool. As a result of this investigation, a report has recently been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and I am informed that he has decided that further and wider police inquiries are necessary. He has so advised the acting chief constable, who has now ordered that such inquiries should be carried out and arranged for them to be conducted by a team of police officers from other forces, led by Mr. Imbert, the deputy chief constable of Surrey, and including a senior officer of the Metropolitan and City Police company fraud department. The inquiries are intended to be wide-ranging; I understand that on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions they will embrace not only the matters dealt with in the report of the investigation by officers of the Nottinghamshire police but, in the light of that report, will also review some aspects of the Osmond Report. If these inquiries produce evidence of the possible commission of criminal offences, the question of prosecution will be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the usual way.
These new police inquiries will provide the fairest and most effective way of dealing with matters that have become the subject of rumour and allegation. I 144W have, therefore, decided not to appoint a public inquiry under Section 32 of the Police Act 1964 or to ask the House to agree to a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921. In reaching this decision, I had very much in mind that any such inquiries would be likely to depend for their effectiveness on promises to potential witnesses of immunity from prosecution.
As regards the police authority, my examination of the papers has satisfied me that the authority has at all times acted, and where appropriate has exercised its discretion, in accordance with the relevant regulations. It is, however, apparent that the present procedures for dealing with allegations against the conduct of chief officers of police are themselves in some respects unsatisfactory, and I have already told the House that we intend to review them.