| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.
PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND
Ordered,
That, in pursuance of section 1(2) of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, Mr. Eric Martlew be appointed a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in the room of Paddy Tipping.--[Mr. Paddy Tipping.]
Ordered,
That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with a committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill published in the Command Paper entitled Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm. 4298);
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee shall have power--
(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
(vi) to communicate to any Select Committee appointed by either House its evidence and any documents of common interest;
That the Committee shall report by 31st July 1999;
That Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Graham Stringer, Ms Margaret Moran, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Robin Corbett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. James Gray and Mr. Paul Burstow be members of the Committee.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Conservation and the Environment (Purbeck)
8.36 pm
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition, the signatures for which have been collected by my constituent, Mr. James Selby Bennett, since last Saturday in the Purbeck district council area of my constituency. The petition says:
- Purbeck's position is unique due to its contribution to the nation's needs for oil, minerals, tourism and the Army's only tank training centre. Purbeck receives no additional recompense for this contribution. Purbeck is also an area of unusual geography, which in turn produces an environment of extraordinary rarity and fragility. For several decades the need to improve the single dangerous road access to Purbeck has been recognised but has been put off pending a large development which was intended to fund it. Now road access rectification has been prevented by the environmental designation of a small part of the route alongside a railway.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to
1. achieve a balance between the conservation issues and the safety and environmental damage to the Purbeck community, and
2. ensure that this balance is struck by our own Government and not delegated to the commission of the European Union.
Mr. Bill Sutherland
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
8.38 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): I rise from a slightly unaccustomed position on the Back Benches to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Sutherland, who was at one time in the service of the police. I do so because I have had no success in having it properly examined by other means. In a sense, this is an action of last resort, so I make no apology for detaining the House. It may be useful to the Minister if I outline some of the main points of the case and then draw some conclusions.
In June 1988, Mr. Sutherland, who was then a police constable, attended a planning committee meeting regarding the application of a Mr. Sam Morris for a toy and leisure centre to be sited opposite Caledonian Road underground station in Islington. He attended as a private resident, as was made clear at the outset. However, the neighbourhood watch co-ordinator was unable to speak, so Mr. Sutherland was asked to comment. He gave the opinion of the local residents, with which he agreed, who were generally against the application. Summing up,the council highlighted the comments made by Mr. Sutherland and the application was refused. It was later reported, incorrectly, in the Islington Gazette that Mr. Sutherland had attended as the local policeman and had given the views of the police. That was not the case, as was made clear at the time. Chief Superintendent Alan Moss later wrote to the council's planning committee to explain that the police had no serious objections to the case.
On 2 August 1988, PC Sutherland, as he was then, was made aware that his actions at the planning committee had caused the wrath of his chief superintendent at Holloway, Archie Newlands. Chief Superintendent Newlands informed PC Sutherland that Chief Superintendent Moss was annoyed at his input at the planning meeting and that he should contact Chief Superintendent Moss. Chief Superintendent Newlands humiliated PC Sutherland and treated him in an unnecessarily callous manner, choosing deliberately to misunderstand his presence at that committee. So bad was his treatment of Mr. Sutherland that Superintendent Doug Hopkins, his deputy, subsequently apologised for his behaviour when he left the office.
Later in August, PC Sutherland was contacted by two of Chief Superintendent Newlands's secretaries regarding their concerns that they had received a call from Mr. Morris asking favours of Chief Superintendent Newlands. Mr. Morris wanted a letter sent to Islington borough council with Chief Superintendent Newlands's signature on it. The secretaries asked PC Sutherland to report the matter to the area senior management, which he subsequently did.
As the Minister will recall, or be reminded of in his briefing, that was not long after the Holloway Road incident, which had repercussions on the internal police investigation procedure, so everyone at Holloway was a little sensitive about these matters. PC Sutherland felt that, as a result of the Holloway Road incident, they would be more reactive and responsive to complaints. They were
told by senior management that all officers must act with "openness and honesty" at all times if they suspected a fellow officer of wrongdoing. Quite rightly, people feared the repetition of such an incident.
In September 1988, PC Sutherland reported Chief Superintendent Newlands's behaviour and his relationship with Mr. Morris to Assistant Commissioner Geoffrey McLean at New Scotland Yard. He advised that PC Sutherland should not continue his service at Holloway and he was subsequently moved. Commander Ken Merton was put in charge of the inquiry.PC Sutherland was told that the inquiry would take six weeks, but eventually it took just over six months. Commander Merton retired after six weeks and the inquiry was taken over by John Gold Taylor. PC Sutherland was interviewed for three days.
In November 1988, it came to Mr. Sutherland's attention that Chief Superintendent Newlands was being transferred to Brixton in January 1989 with no explanation. On 8 February 1989, PC Sutherland was finally informed that his complaints were unfounded and no further explanation was given. Yet early on in the inquiry, PC Sutherland had been informed that Mr. Morris had denied making any phone calls, whereas itwas subsequently found that he had. In addition, PC Sutherland had been told early on that the secretaries, both of whom he had known for a number of years, had substantiated his allegations at the time.
Mr. Sutherland, as he is now, agreed to go along with the investigation because he trusted the system. Now, after all these years and all his attempts to get some redress, he feels tricked and deeply disillusioned with the manner in which he was treated. He says that, with hindsight, he would have serious doubts about going through the same process again. When I discussed the matter with him, he said that although he still maintains that an extra wrong would not put the case right, he feels deeply unhappy that the blame seemed to have been placed on him rather than the person whom he alleged had committed a wrongdoing.
Mr. and Mrs. Sutherland had lived in the Holloway area for more than 20 years and Mr. Sutherland had spent some 25 years policing the area. He was highly respected in the area and in the police force and he had been awarded the British Empire Medal for his outstanding contribution of police service to the community. That is hardly the record of someone who was an internal troublemaker or a discredit to the police force. However, when he made the complaint against Chief Superintendent Newlands, he was taken away and sent to a crime prevention branch. In other words, he was treated like a leper.
In contrast, Chief Superintendent Newlands continued to work at Holloway during the first part of the investigation until he was moved. Later, it seems as though nothing was done about his behaviour--nor did he have to comment on it at any time. It is strange that Chief Superintendent Newlands was moved in the middle of the inquiry, despite the fact that apparently no wrongdoing was found to have occurred.
Mr. Sutherland says that, when such an experience happens, it seriously weakens the foundations upon which so much of life is built, particularly in a force as closely knit as the police. It also clearly affects one's self-esteem and self-respect, and he has been made to suffer.
His health has deteriorated dramatically, and he suffers from a serious nervous complaint for which he has been receiving treatment for some time.
Mr. Sutherland said:
What is clear is that the internal investigations system did not work, and there are serious questions about whether it would work in future cases similar to that of Mr. Sutherland. Surely the case should not have taken so long and then been dismissed in such an arbitrary way. Mr. Sutherland believes that the manner in which the witnesses were interviewed was biased, and certainly was not open. All the witnesses were serving officers in the Holloway division and at no time was he allowed access to any of them. Mr. Sutherland made the complaint in good faith about the chief superintendent because of information that he was given by the chief superintendent's secretaries. Clearly, he had nothing to gain from such a complaint and, as we have seen, he had everything to lose. Yet he still made the complaint.
Mr. Sutherland believes that some form of independent ombudsman should handle internal complaints. He believes that the police have far too much power to be both judge and jury inside a closed system, without redress for those who have come forward with issues of conscience or with problems that they have seen in the system.
Mr. Sutherland recognises that the introduction of "Right Line"--which allows staff to pass any concerns about a colleague whom they believed might be acting improperly--while encouraging, does not go far enough. Some forces are setting up proactive squads which seek to identify corruption before it comes into the public arena. However, there is more to be done to encourage those who are decent, honourable and honest to come forward without fear of the repercussions that happened to my constituent.
During, and particularly after, the investigation, Mr. Sutherland was shunned by other policemen. It is difficult always to specify how the process works, but I am sure that the Minister would accept that that sort of thing happens in a tight-knit community--particularly if it is encouraged from the top by a nod or a wink, or if there is a general assessment that somebody is a troublemaker.
In the end, Mr. Sutherland was invalided out of the police force, directly as a result of an accident at an athletics track, which Mr. Sutherland believes--I do not intend to cast aspersions on any individual--was not an accident. He believed that it occurred as a result of those in his company at the time taking a view about his previous actions. I am not attempting to make further allegations about individuals.
I raise the matter because I was deeply concerned about this matter some years ago, and I have tried hard to seek redress for Mr. Sutherland. Not once have I had the whisper of an apology or an attempt to reopen the case, to look at it properly, or to ask the questions that should have been asked. Every time, I am told, "It is too long after the event. It is so stupid to open up cases again. We have other, more important, things to do than that."
In conclusion, Mr. Sutherland used to be a policeman, and he used to serve the force and the public with great honesty and decency. Every day, he set about doing what he believed to be right and proper, in line with his duties. In July 1988, he had, for the first and perhaps only time, cause to complain about someone in authority--in this case, his chief superintendent. He is now dead but, due to a variety of issues, Mr. Sutherland was concerned about his actions. Yet he was made to feel as though he should not have made the allegation.
Having raised the issue, far from being applauded for doing what he thought was right, Mr. Sutherland was shunned, ostracised, moved, humiliated and, eventually, forced to leave the police force. His crime was to raise a concern about a senior officer who, he thought, had got too close to somebody outside and was open to the wrong sort of influence in the pursuit of his duty.
When the case was finally examined, the individuals about whom Mr. Sutherland had raised concerns were utterly exonerated, and no comment was made to him about the reasons or about what happened in the inquiry. Perversely, after a series of problems, the man who had had the temerity to raise the matter was eventually invalided out of the police force. To this day, he continues to attempt to get the police to investigate the original charges reasonably and properly or at least to give him a full, open explanation of why his case was dismissed and he was treated as he was.
"People have always looked up to the Police as a benchmark of what is good and honourable, and rightly so. In my case, that has been destroyed and I, an ex-policeman, would never trust them in future."
That reaction might be expected, but it is one that I would hope the Minister will address.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |