§ Mr. Ernie Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, distinguished by ethnic appearence, died in police custody over the past five years.
§ Mr. BrittanThe numbers of persons who died in police custody during the years 1975 to 1979 are contained in table 1 of appendix 1 to the Home Affairs Committee report on deaths in police custody (HC 631). Information about the ethnic appearance of those who died is not readily available.
§ Sir Graham Pageasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to respond to the report from the Home Affairs Committee on deaths in police custody; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WhitelawI welcome the Committee's report and in particular its first and most important conclusion that it found no evidence to support generalised accusations of police brutality to those in custody. Nor did it consider there to be valid statistical correlation between the incidence of deaths in custody and the number of complaints alleging assault by the police in a given area. On the 151W particular recommendations I have the following observations.
I accept the recommendation that chief officers of police should report all deaths in police custody to the Home Office and arrangements have been made accordingly. The relevant information will in future be included in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Chief officers of police are already fully aware of the need to ensure that the procedures for the care of persons in police custody are rigorously observed, but the matter is again being drawn to their attention in the light of the Committee's report. I also accept the need for adequate lighting in cells for the conduct of proper medical examinations. My Department is giving further consideration to how this recommendation might best be implemented having regard to the cost of making the necessary arrangements.
As the report recognises, the Government are already taking steps to develop facilities for the diversion of drunkenness offenders from the criminal justice system. A full account of these measures is set out in the Government's observations on the fifteenth report from the Expenditure Committee—The Reduction of Pressure on the Prison System—a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. (Cmnd. 7948.) We intend to see how successful these measures are, before considering further the possible abolition of the "drunk and incapable" offence. In the present circumstances, and having regard to the resource implications, I do not regard it as appropriate for the police to seek to provide special care and reception centres for persons who are considered by the police surgeon concerned as fit to be detained in police custody.
I accept the principle that all deaths in custody should be reported to the coroner, that inquests should be held with a jury on all such deaths, and that coroners' juries should be selected by the process used for juries in other courts. These matters will require legislation in due course. Negotiations are already proceding for the employment of civilians rather than police officers as coroners' officers in the Metropolitan Police district and a study is being undertaken of provincial areas to determine the level of 152W replacements required. Though costing must be speculative, it is thought that at least £3 million a year could be required to make legal aid available for proceedings in coroners' courts, and I fear that I cannot hold out any hope of the money being found for this in the foreseeable future. The coroners' service is essentially a local one and I do not consider that a sufficient case has been made out for the appointment of coroners to be centralised. Nor am I convinced that it is essential to restrict the field of elegibility for appointment as coroners to those with legal qualifications.
On the question of making the police investigator's report available to the legal representatives who are likely to appear at the inquest, it is a principle of longstanding and of universal application endorsed by successive Governments that the reports of police investigations are confidential and should not be published. Many reports contain information which could certainly not be freely disclosed, such as the names and addresses of witnesses, or criminal records of named persons, as well as statements made to the police and facts disclosed in the course of investigation which might be prejudicial to named persons. I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to depart from the established practice.
I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who agrees with the decision reached, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered the Committee's recommendation that he should make it his normal practice to supply a complainant with at least a summary of the considerations which led him to decide against prosecution, but has decided, for the reasons which he explained in oral evidence to the Committee, that it would not be right for him to do so. (The reply to Question 170 on pages 34 and 35 of the Committee's report refers.)