Police (Complaints And Conduct) Bill

Debate between Alison McGovern and Stephen Mosley

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘(e) for sanctions to be imposed on serving officers who fail to comply with the interview process.’.

One of the advantages of a Committee stage that directly follows Second Reading is that every Member in the Chamber has heard the preamble. Everyone is aware of the issues, and everyone has heard the Minister’s initial response. That means that my speech can be much briefer than it would otherwise have been: I hope to be able to complete it in two or three minutes.

We have all heard the arguments, and we have all heard the discussions. We have heard the discussion about whether former police officers should be forced to attend hearings, and the discussion about whether officers who attend hearings but refuse to give evidence should be included in the scope of the Bill. I want to concentrate on an issue on which I think we can have an impact: whether sanctions should apply if a police officer refuses to engage in the investigation process. That was mentioned to us by the IPCC itself, and we ought to give further consideration to whether it should be included in the Bill.

One question is whether the Bill should include a requirement on Ministers to draw up sanctions. To that end, I and other members of the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster have proposed a probing amendment, to encourage the Minister to explain why such a provision is not included in the Bill. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that it is not designed to obstruct what is an important and necessary emergency Bill, and that he will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, which is to raise a serious question that requires a serious answer.

The Bill compels serving officers to attend interviews in the course of an IPCC investigation, but it does not give an indication of what sanctions can be imposed on a serving officer who fails, or refuses, to attend an interview. As the Bill stands, sanctions for non-compliance will be dealt with by the relevant authority tasked with dealing with the misconduct of the officer in question. However, whether the non-attendance of the officer is to be determined as misconduct is also left to the discretion of the relevant authority.

I agree with the IPCC that a refusal to attend an interview should be immediately categorised as misconduct, and that appropriate disciplinary action should be instantly triggered. The IPCC says in its briefing document:

“The Commission is firmly of the view that if this power is to be effective, a failure to comply with a direction to attend should amount to misconduct. The Bill does not provide for such a sanction and we have expressed some concern about this, as we anticipate that some chief officers would welcome this unambiguous approach. The Commission hopes that Parliament will make clear that it is its express wish that police personnel should co-operate with IPCC investigations.”

By adding the amendment to the Bill we will instantly deal with all of the IPCC’s concerns in this area. Parliament will be giving a clear indication that police personnel should co-operate with IPCC investigations. Parliament will also be offering a clear, unambiguous approach to chief officers across the country as to the disciplinary action that we expect to be taken if a witness fails to comply with an interview request. The IPCC will have the confidence to deliver on its duty, in the full knowledge that Parliament is prepared to support its difficult work in calling police officers to account through an unambiguous legislative framework.

What I am not seeking to do through this amendment is tell the Minister what form any sanctions should take, although the IPCC has made a firm statement that it believes the failure to comply with a direction to attend should amount to misconduct. The amendment merely requires the Minister to make a provision for sanctions to be imposed on a serving officer who fails to comply with the interview process. It is a simple provision that failure to comply would be a breach of the prescribed standards of behaviour as defined by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 and would result in misconduct proceedings. That would satisfy all the issues raised and would be clear and unambiguous to all involved. I therefore encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider agreeing to this amendment.

I began by saying that it was a probing amendment to explore the issues involved in imposing sanctions on serving officers who fail to comply with a direction to attend, but I hope the Minister will send out a clear, unambiguous message about the sanctions that he expects to be imposed on those who fail to comply. I am sure that if he does so, he will get the clear and unambiguous support of all Members of this House.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I want to raise a couple of issues. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) that our Second Reading debate served to provide an eloquent account of the context and importance of the Bill, so I shall not repeat any of those themes, but let me repeat, as I never tire of doing, my personal tribute to the families of the 96. As I said before, they should think of this as their Bill.

Our amendment was designed to be a probing amendment, and again I thank the Minister for his response to my letter yesterday. With your agreement, Mr Evans, I shall just ask a few further questions and I hope the Minister will help the Committee by answering them. He said that effective sanctions are available to deal with those officers who do not wish to attend. The question we seek to ask through this amendment is this: to whom are those sanctions available? From what he has said, I take it that they are available to the officer’s force, but we are trying to push for them to be available to the IPCC. What we are doing here is giving the IPCC sufficient powers to make the necessary investigations, so my question to the Minister is this: how will the Government ensure that the IPCC has effective sanctions to deal with those who do not wish to attend?

Arising from that is my second question: is deferral to the police force in question enough? Does the Minister have any evidence to suggest that that is a sufficient way of approaching this issue? I was helped in my thinking about this amendment, which we tabled in recent days, and here I must thank Sally Lipscombe of the House of Commons Library. She quickly looked up for me the regulations that apply, and it appears to me that there are some questions on which an answer from the Minister would be helpful, not the least of which is the point that I have just made about what evidence there is that such a sanction is enough to compel officers to attend.

Thirdly, what happens once a sanction is applied? How does the interview and the evidence-gathering process then proceed? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned, we are concerned here with not only those honourable members of police forces who will be happy and keen to co-operate with the IPCC, but those officers whose evidence is vital but who do not wish to co-operate, for whatever reason—they must understand that for themselves in their own heart. If the force in question does choose to use the sanctions, does the IPCC then have sufficient powers available to ensure that the evidence-gathering interview proceeds properly and informs the investigation?

In essence, I wish to probe the answer to the three questions. How will the Government ensure that the IPCC, de facto as much as de jure, has effective sanction to make sure that people attend and give evidence? Is deferral to the force enough? Do we have any evidence that that is enough? If a sanction is applied, what then happens? How does the IPCC make sure that it has sufficient power for evidence-gathering to proceed?

I will not trouble the Committee any further on the issue of retired officers, except to repeat my earlier words of hope and anticipation that, notwithstanding the fact that many retired officers would want to give evidence freely and happily, all retired officers who may add to this investigation and bring about justice in a speedy fashion will find it in themselves to do so.

In conclusion, I just wish to say that although “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a hackneyed old phrase, it could have been written for this debate. So I anticipate speed, as the Minister has suggested, and I thank all Members of this House, not least those on both Front Benches, for their efforts to date.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Debate between Alison McGovern and Stephen Mosley

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

I, too, welcome and warmly approve of the Bill. The whole country was shocked by the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel. In subsequent statements and debates in this House, it has become obvious that there is a huge groundswell of parliamentary opinion that swift action needs to be taken to achieve swift justice for the 96.

Outside this debate, the Attorney-General is doing absolutely the right thing by pushing for an early referral to the High Court and for it to make a speedy decision on the validity of the original inquests. The Home Secretary has done absolutely the right thing by calling for the IPCC to investigate both the actions of the police on the day of Hillsborough and their subsequent involvement in any form of cover-up. She promised that the IPCC would be given the powers and resources it needs to pursue that investigation, and that is what the Bill delivers.

I would like to thank the Home Secretary for the speed with which she has brought the Bill forward. The families of the Hillsborough victims and the survivors are understandably looking for swift justice. Given that the IPCC intends to begin calling witnesses to its investigation at the beginning of next year, the sooner it is in possession of the necessary tools, the better.

It is important to say that, as with all the progress that has been made on Hillsborough since 2010, I am delighted that the Bill has cross-party support today. I know that the shadow Home Secretary spoke in favour of fast-track legislation during the Bill’s First Reading a fortnight ago, and Opposition Members have been a great help in advancing the Bill.

[Alison McGovern]

I agree wholeheartedly with every word the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that if it was possible to dedicate legislation, we would all like to dedicate this legislation to the families of those who lost loved ones on that day?

[Stephen Mosley]

I agree entirely. I know families of people from Chester who sadly died that day, and 23 years later it still affects them daily. It is up to us in this House to ensure that we achieve a swift resolution for them, and that is what we are trying to do. It is what we have been trying to do since the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) set up the independent panel three years ago. Absolutely everything we do is to ensure that we get justice for all 96 and all survivors.

The Bill, as we have heard, contains two main clauses and performs two main functions. I will look at it backwards and consider clause 2 first. Clause 2 allows the IPCC to launch investigations into incidents that occurred before the commission was established in 2004 and incidents previously investigated by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. The Bill will essentially make it possible for the IPCC to investigate police actions at Hillsborough 23 years ago, which I totally support.

The Bill will also compel serving police officers to attend hearings as witnesses, a power that has not previously been available to the IPCC. It is important to note that, although the Bill has been brought forward specifically because of Hillsborough, most of us would agree that the power to call police officers as witnesses should be a tool that is regularly at the IPCC’s disposal. I am therefore pleased that the Bill is not set to expire and that the powers conferred on the commission will be retained for future IPCC investigations.

I note, as did the shadow Policing Minister, that the Police Federation has expressed some concerns, especially about the clause that will require police officers to attend an interview. Steve Evans, who leads for the Police Federation on professional standards, has raised a valid concern:

“Police officers are going to be treated differently from any other section of society. I am not quite sure what”

the Home Secretary

“is hoping to achieve.”

In response to that point, I think that police officers should indeed be treated differently from other sections of society, by virtue of the fact that they are entrusted to administer the law, must be accountable for their actions and must not be able to shy away from any form of investigation. Mr Evans went on to say:

“I would like to know what the problem is that needs fixing—as well as the evidence which suggests that officers do not comply with the current system.”

The IPCC briefing paper that we received helps us in responding to Mr Evans’ concerns. It says:

“Though we do not keep specific records of instances of non-cooperation, we have readily been able to identify at least 25 cases, involving over 100 police officers, where there has been a refusal to attend for interview. These cases cover such serious matters as death or serious injury, police shootings, road traffic incidents and the use of excessive force.”

Indeed, a recent case in point is that of the shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham last year that contributed to the escalation of violence in the area and led eventually to riots across the country. The police marksman who shot Mr Duggan refused to be interviewed by the IPCC as part of its investigation into the incident, as did 30 other officers. Because of the legislation that is currently in place, the commission was unable to insist on attendance. Regardless of the specific need to expedite investigations into Hillsborough, Mr Duggan’s case alone highlights a need for wider change in the legislation.

While I am totally supportive of the Bill and wish it all speed and every success in its passage through Parliament today, there are a couple of areas where questions need to be answered. First, the Bill does not compel ex-police officers or ex-police staff to attend interviews as witnesses. Hillsborough was 23 years ago, and many of the officers involved will no longer be serving. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of this problem and has considered it. On 22 October, during the debate on the Hillsborough independent panel’s report, she said:

“The Government are already looking at what additional powers the IPCC will need, which includes proposals to require current and ex-police officers who may be witness to a crime to attend an interview”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 721.]

I, too, would like the IPCC to be given the power to call former officers to give evidence. I appreciate, however, that that may be a difficult provision to enact and that this emergency Bill is probably not the right place in which to include such a power. I note that the IPCC has discussed this and decided that the requirement relating to former officers would be unenforceable and that there would be little value in adding it to the Bill.

However, I would like one aspect to be tightened, and, with other Members on both sides of the House, I have submitted a probing amendment to be discussed in Committee to explore it further. In essence, it is about sanctions for non-attendance at interviews. As the Bill stands, sanctions for non-compliance will be dealt with by the relevant authority tasked with dealing with misconduct against the officer in question. However, the question of whether the non-attendance of the officer is to be determined as misconduct is also left at the discretion of the relevant authority. The IPCC has stated that a refusal to attend an interview should be immediately categorised as misconduct and that appropriate disciplinary action should instantly be triggered. I have a large degree of sympathy with that proposal. I implore the Policing Minister to consider adopting the amendment, which would allow the Home Secretary to ensure that clear, unambiguous and consistent sanctions can be implemented across the country.

This debate is set in the context of an extremely tragic matter, but in my two and a half years as a Member of Parliament the issue of Hillsborough has consistently brought out the very best in this House. For as long as that is necessary, I hope that it continues.