POLICE REFORM BILL
B. NEW POLICE COMPLAINTS SYSTEM
29. The provisions in the Bill for an Independent
Police Complaints Commission to replace the Police Complaints
Authority are the culmination of extensive consultation by the
Home Office. The new system is designed to ensure that the most
serious complaints against the police are no longer investigated
by police officers. It is expected that the new body will have
a budget three times greater than the current one. Arrangements
are now in hand for the new system and the Police Complaints Authority
has described to us how some of the pilot schemes are operating.[31]
30. Considering the careful preparation that
has gone into the new complaints system, we were not surprised
to receive only a few suggestions for improvements to this part
of the Bill. Liberty argued for a tighter definition of the type
of cases which ought always to be examined by the new Independent
Commission.[32]
The Police Federation wanted a time-limit on investigations and
an offence of malicious or fabricated complaint.[33]
When the Committee examined police complaints and disciplinary
procedures in 1997-8 this issue was considered. We concluded then
that genuine complaints could be deterred if there was a new criminal
offence of making a false complaint. The Committee accordingly
did not recommend the introduction of such an offence.[34]
We stand by that conclusion.
31. We welcome the provisions of the Bill
for a new complaints system—which is in line with our proposals
in 1997-98—and are not persuaded that they need substantial
amendment. They may have to be adjusted in future in the light
of experience. We share the views of our witnesses that the new
system must not only be independent but must inspire public confidence
by being seen to be independent of the police and of the Home
Office. This will require adequate resources, a reasonable degree
of discretion, high calibre staff and good leadership.
32. We believe that the planned budget of
£14-18 million a year, the provisions of the Bill and the
pilot schemes already being conducted by the Police Complaints
Authority have the potential to achieve an effective and independent
system dealing with complaints of a serious nature.
33. One aspect of independence is the method
of appointment to senior positions in the new Commission. The
Bill provides for the chairman to be appointed by the Queen on
the advice of ministers, for other members of the Commission to
be appointed by the Home Secretary and for the chief executive's
appointment to be subject to approval or veto by the Home Office.
The chairmanship of such an independent investigative body is
not an executive function working for the Government in the same
way as the Director General of the Prison Service or the Chief
Executive of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. There
is a case for making this appointment, like that of the Comptroller
and Auditor General, subject to some form of parliamentary endorsement.
When asked about the independence of the IPCC, John Wadham of
Liberty told the Committee:
"I would prefer bodies like the Police
Complaints Authority or the [new Independent Police Complaints]
Commission to have some process whereby appropriate parliamentary
committees would have some kind of say [in the appointment of
chairman]...although theoretically the appointment by the Queen
is a protection, in practice decisions are made by the Government
of the day and I think there should be some process of accountability,
some process of transparency".[35]
34. The Minister told us:
"The normal practice over a huge range
of public bodies that are regarded as independent is for ministerial
appointments".[36]
35. We note that the Comptroller and Auditor
General is appointed under section 1 of the National Audit Act
1983 by the Queen on an address presented by the House of Commons
and proposed by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Chairman
of the Public Accounts Committee. An arrangement on these lines
could be devised for the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints
Commission.
36. We recommend that the appointment of the
chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission should
be with the 'advice and consent' of the House of Commons.
OTHER
ASPECTS OF
POLICE DISCIPLINE
37. A new complaints body is only the apex of
a wider system of police discipline. The Bill contains only two
other clauses dealing with this subject (clauses 33 and 34). Clause
34 (conduct of disciplinary proceedings) provides for the
Independent Police Complaints Commission to be involved in disciplinary
proceedings arising from a complaint. It also allows for supporters
of complainants to attend disciplinary hearings. A third provision
would enable an inference to be drawn from a failure to mention
a fact when questioned or charged in police disciplinary proceedings
(in line with section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order
Act 1994). The need for improvements to police discipline procedures
was set out by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police:
"The disciplinary process that we have
got in the Police Service goes back to the court martial process
of 100 years ago; it is an absolutely arcane and bizarre process,
and we have to have better processes of dealing with grievances.
And what has come out of the Gurpal Virdi inquiry...is [that]
we have to have a far less rigid system of dealing with complaints
[and] grievances...".[37]
38. The Police Federation did not agree:
"We think [police discipline procedures]
work well, they provide adequate protection for officers and adequate
powers to chief officers to do everything up to dismissal and
a reduction in rank of officers...there are a significant number
of malicious complaints in the system, police officers are at
risk frequently out patrolling on their own and they need some
degree of protection...it has worked well in the past and it works
well now".[38]
39. The Metropolitan Police Service has told
us of the changes they would like made in disciplinary procedures.[39]
Those proposals are:
- there should be provision for compulsory
testing of staff for substance abuse
- it should be possible for a written warning
to be given by a superintendent in cases where the officer concerned
does not admit the conduct complained of
- it should be possible to dismiss a probationer
constable on the grounds of poor conduct as an alternative to
holding a discipline board
- chief constables should have more discretion
about whether to refer to the Crown Prosecution Service all cases
originating from a public complaint that an officer committed
a criminal offence where this would delay misconduct proceedings.
40. We support the proposed changes to the
police disciplinary procedures in the Bill, but we share the view
of the Metropolitan Police Service that they do not go far enough.
We believe that, so far as possible, police disciplinary procedures
ought to reflect those in other walks of life. The current procedures
were devised long before employment law gave protection against
unfair dismissal. Taking modern employment law into account, police
regulations could be simplified. We regret that the Government
has not gone further in this Bill to reform police disciplinary
procedures.
41. One of our witnesses has drawn attention
to a remaining lacuna: clause 24 (Forces maintained otherwise
than by police authorities) enables the Commission to make
arrangements with the Ministry of Defence Police and British Transport
Police for handling complaints but this would apply only in England
and Wales, leaving some 1,000 officers in Scotland and Northern
Ireland outwith the complaints procedures.[40]
42. We understand that the Scottish Executive
is consulting on plans to update its own police complaints system
which would include police officers in these two forces. We also
understand that protocols are being drawn up in Northern Ireland
to bring such officers serving there within the remit of the new
Ombudsman. We believe that Ministry of Defence Police and British
Transport Police operating in Scotland and Northern Ireland should
be covered by complaints procedures similar to those in England
and Wales.
31 Ev 130. Back
32
Ev 117. Back
33
Q. 163 (Clint Elliott). Back
34
First Report, 1997-98, HC 258, para 133. Back
35
Q. 350. Back
36
Q. 551 (John Denham). Back
37
Q. 132, 5 February 2002 (Sir John Stevens). Back
38
Q. 165 (Clint Elliott). Back
39
Ev 122. Back
40
Ev 153. Back
| 
