HC Deb 15 July 1980 vol 988 cc488-9W
Mr. Mates

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish the triennial review report of the Police Complaints Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw

The triennial review report of the Police Complaints Board is being published today. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I welcome this report, based as it is on the board's detailed examination of over 30,000 matters of complaint against police officers over a period of almost three years, and the most careful consideration of the important issues involved. The main recommendation, contained in chapter V of the report, is that complaints of serious injury should be investigated by a specialist body of investigating officers answerable to an independent lawyer, preferably one who has excercised judicial office. The board recognises that before a final decision is taken on the recommendation a number of important issues need to be considered further. They include, in particluar, the relationship between the proposed investigating body, the Director of Public Prosecutions, chief officers of police and the complaints board. I am therefore inviting representatives of the professional police associations to join the Director of Public Prosecutions and representatives of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, of the complaints board and of my Department in a working party to consider in detail how it might be possible to implement the recommendation. I am glad to announce that Lord Plowden has accepted my invitation to chair the working party, in a personal capacity. I hope that the working party's report will be available by the end of the year so that in consultation with the Police Advisory Board an early decision can be taken.

The board's other main recommendation, in chapter VII of its report, is that the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in complaints cases should be modified so as to provide that within a specified range of minor criminal offences the deputy chief constable would be free to bring criminal proceedings without reference to the Director: alternatively, he would be required to refer the papers to the board with his assessment of the case for bringing disciplinary charges. The process of and responsibility for the prosecution of criminal offences is at present under review by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. It would not in my view be appropriate to consider changes in the prosecution arrangements in respect of possible offences by police officers in isolation from the wider issue. Before considering this recommendation further, I therefore propose to await the Royal Commission's report, which I understand should be available by the end of the year.

The Police Complaints Board's triennial review report contains in addition to those to which I have already referred a number of subsidiary but important recommendations for other improvements in the existing complaints system. My Department will be consulting direct the organisations concerned about the possible implementation of these proposals.

I should welcome comments on the board's report, from Members of Parliament and from the general public.