| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.48 pm
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) for giving me his permission to contribute to the debate. He is a good friend of many years' standing, and we have discussed Operation Lancet often and at length. I have had to tell him that I believe him to be wrong. I fear that I must repeat that view today.
I have tried to explain to my hon. Friend that if the Minister and I investigate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the shadow spokesman, for nefarious activity, the hon. Gentleman will want to know two things: how much we know and how much we are in danger of discovering. That would give him the opportunity--as he is an ex-policeman--to cover his tracks. We are trying to deal with such a process.
I have a copy of a letter from the solicitor for Superintendent Raymond Mallon, who is my constituent. I have read the solicitor's assertions and also the letter that was sent to him on 25 March. That letter states plainly the nature of the allegations against his client. The solicitor has not contradicted them or made a counter proposal. He has not even acknowledged the letter other than to send a letter that makes a disclosure about regulation 6 disciplinary notices.
My hon. Friend has issued a press release in his usual efficient way--I do not mean that disparagingly. It claims that
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East makes the point that much time and £2.5 million have been spent on the investigation, which continues.
What does my hon. Friend want to do: throw the time and the money out of the window? That does not make sense to me. Scrutiny of this kind must be completed. One cannot apply a guillotine to such inquiries because we do not know how long the investigations will take. I must say candidly that the number of questions raised and the media concentration prompted by those questions have prolonged this investigation and incurred more cost.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing this debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for his contribution--although I cannot agree with his suggestion that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) would seek to evade justice for his political crimes, past and present. That remark was totally uncharacteristic of my hon. Friend and I cannot associate myself with it.
I will make only two points of substance: first, we must inquire into issues of this kind in order to establish the truth; and secondly, such inquiries should take place as rapidly as possible. I begin by referring to the state of the Cleveland force. Her Majesty's inspector recently published his inspection report into Cleveland police. It found that overall recorded crime in Cleveland increased by 0.1 per cent. during 1998-99 and that violent crime accounted for 6.3 per cent. of all crimes recorded in Cleveland, compared with 11.9 per cent. nation wide.
There is nothing to suggest any connection between the matters under investigation and the positive approach to policing in Cleveland, which I fully support and to which I know the force remains committed. I understand further from Cleveland police that crime decreased by another 2 per cent. in the first six months of this year and is now at a 10-year low.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North said in his speech, the recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary described general morale in Cleveland as "buoyant". There is no reason to doubt the validity of that assessment. I have noted the strength of support for the positive policing methods employed by Cleveland police.
The Cleveland police budget is £83.3 million for 1999-2000, which is an increase of 3.6 per cent. over last year. Latest estimates indicate that, in 1999-2000, Cleveland police will spend £145.90 per head of population, which is above the estimated average of £115.29 for English shire counties. Cleveland police had 1,400 officers at the end of March 1999.
That is the background to the inquiry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East said, Operation Lancet--the investigation of Cleveland police--resulted from disturbing allegations of serious misconduct against a number of officers. It is a fundamental and important principle that such allegations are investigated thoroughly, and I am pleased that the force has acted robustly to deal with these matters.
I must seriously contest only one point in my hon. Friend's speech. There is no substance in the suggestion that the inquiry is about justifying past expenditure rather than trying to get to the facts of the case. I believe profoundly that all concerned are trying to get to the facts and address important and difficult issues.
My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that several officers have been suspended. A number of possible criminal and disciplinary matters are being addressed and eight officers remain suspended from duty. As my hon. Friend knows, matters involving the suspension of police officers before 1 April 1999 are governed by the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, which state that an officer may be suspended from the force by his chief officer if it appears that he may have committed a disciplinary offence. Suspensions among the Cleveland police are reviewed regularly. Unless the chief officer decides otherwise, the suspensions will continue either until it is decided not to bring disciplinary charges or until the case is resolved. That is, quite properly, a matter of judgment for the chief constable of Cleveland police.
It is not appropriate for me, as a Home Office Minister, to comment about on-going criminal or disciplinary investigations. I shall not follow my hon. Friend in reciting the details that he gave, as comments on my part could prejudice any possible criminal proceedings. That convention is well established, and I intend to respect it today. The Home Secretary has a role in the disciplinary process as the appellate authority, and may be called upon in that capacity to consider any future disciplinary appeals from officers arising from the inquiry.
That is my first point: the inquiry is necessary and it is taking place. We must discover the full facts. I believe that is the only basis upon which the people of Cleveland can be truly confident that any concerns about the situation have been investigated and considered properly.
My second point--and here my views are alongside those expressed by my hon. Friend--relates to timing. This is a wide-ranging inquiry and one of the largest supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The length of the investigation is a matter for the investigating officer and the PCA, but it is in no one's interest to
prolong it any longer than necessary. There has been close consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service throughout.
I cannot agree with the suggestion that a time limit should be imposed, but I can associate myself with my hon. Friend's sentiments that it is desirable for all concerned that the inquiry be concluded as rapidly as possible. That is an entirely understandable and fair point. However, I emphasise that the desire to reach a conclusion must not inhibit the need to get all the facts into the open and to conduct the inquiry in the fullest possible way. That must be the first consideration.
Finally, on the general issues that my hon. Friend raised regarding the complaints procedure. He referred to time limiting the inquiry and the suspensions of police officers in certain circumstances, and raised issues of accountability, cost and expenditure. Those points are legitimate when considering the working of the complaints system. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised in relation to this inquiry extend to other inquiries that will take place in other parts of the country.
Some of these concerns were addressed by the Macpherson inquiry following the death of Stephen Lawrence. The Government understand the anxiety about the police investigating themselves. That is why the Government accepted the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee and the Macpherson report that the Home Office should examine the feasibility of an independent investigation of complaints against the police and various other processes and procedures. Our consultants, KPMG, are carrying out that work and will report by spring next year. We will decide how to proceed on the basis of those findings and of the contributions made by my hon. Friends and others about this and further cases.
There is no doubt that a complaints process in which everybody has confidence is critical to the respect and support for the police that exists in communities throughout this country. That is why I take seriously general points about the nature of the complaints process. I shall certainly consider them.
"hatreds and jealousies are endemic in the force"
10 Nov 1999 : Column 1093
and that morale is plummeting. I shall quote not policemen's views about Cleveland constabulary, but parts of this year's report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The inspector was
and with the partnership proposals. The report states that
"impressed with the standard of crime and disorder reduction",
"commitment is strong, the expertise of staff is impressive".
It continues:
"Her Majesty's Inspector is fully satisfied with the probity of complaints investigation by the Force . . . Her Majesty's Inspector found morale to be generally buoyant with the vast majority of staff wanting to 'get on with the job' . . . Her Majesty's Inspector continues to have confidence in the Force and its leadership."
The inspector also found
"bitterness and depth of feeling that he has rarely witnessed before",
but those feelings were expressed by the people under investigation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |