HC Deb 10 June 1910 vol 17 cc953-64

After paragraph (d) of Section 8 of the principal Act (which specifies the cases in which a pension or an allowance under that Act becomes liable to be forfeited wholly or in part, and permanently or temporarily) there shall be added the following new paragraphs:—

"or

"(e) if the grantee supplies to any person or publishes in a manner which the police authority consider to be discreditable or improper any information of a confidential nature which he may have obtained in the course of his employment in the police; or

"(f) if the grantee solicits, or, without the consent of the police authority, accepts directly or indirectly any testimonial or gift of a pecuniary value on his retirement from the police; or.

"(g) if the grantee enters into or continues in any business, occupation, or employment as a private detective, after being prohibited to do so by the police authority on any reasonable ground."

Lord HUGH CECIL

I. beg to move to leave out of paragraph (e) the words "the police authority consider to be," and insert "is," leaving the paragraph to read in this way: "If the grantee supplies to any person or publishes in a manner which is discreditable or improper."

The provision as it stands in the Bill leaves the police authority power to absolutely determine, as far as I understand it, whether a pension should be forfeited or not. It is for that authority to decide absolutely and without appeal whether any particular confidential information has been discreditably or improperly disclosed. That seems to me to be a very important power to put into the hands of the police authorities. It may be justifiable, but I cannot at all see the defence for it. The position of the pensioner is absolutely at the mercy of the police authority: they can say that anything which was indiscreet was a "discreditable" or "improper" disclosure, although the provision might not be applicable, at any rate to the degree necessary for procuring the forfeiture of the pension. It is an exceedingly serious and heavy penalty for what might be a mere act of indiscretion. Possibly it may be a defensible proceeding that the local authority should have absolute command over the pension of a man who has had long service in the police, but it does seem to put a very heavy burden on a policeman that if he is casually indiscreet in what he says in the course of some investigation, or in answers to questions, he should be held guilty of an indiscretion, and that thereupon the whole of his pension should be forfeited. I think that is rather harsh measures to deal out. I should have thought it was proper, if this matter must be at the discretion of some authority, that it should be a higher authority than the police authority who should have the decision of the matter, or else that it should be thrown upon the police authority to show that the disclosure was discreditable, while the constable should have the right to show the contrary. That is the nature of my Amendment as it stands. I hope the supporters of the Bill will give some explanation of the reason for inserting this very drastic provision in the measure, and that they will be able to justify what on the face of it seems to me a very hard and superfluous condition.

Sir F. BANBURY

seconded the Amendment. I am not quite clear whether my Noble Friend thinks that this paragraph should be left out.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I only leave out the words "the police authority consider to be," leaving the sub-section to read: "if the grantee supplies to any person or publishes in a manner which is discreditable or improper," etc.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am very glad of that, for I think some sort of power ought to be retained to prevent a police constable from publishing information which he might have obtained in the course of his employment when he was on actual service. Certainly I disagree altogether with the giving of power to the police authorities on their own initiative and without any appeal to any judicial authority to take away the pension of a police constable, earned by many years of service, because perhaps in some foolish moment he has done inadvertently something which he ought not to have done. This is another instance of the great powers which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be willing to leave in the hands of officials and local authorities. Under this Bill we are giving increased advantage to the police in regard to superannuation. We do not give that increased advantage unless we think the police deserve it. Yet, when the House of Commons think that something of that sort ought to be done, it allows some small sub-section of a clause like this to be put in, which practically annuls all the advantages which the House is giving to this force. I do not say that the police authorities are likely to act in a tyrannical manner, or to take a dictatorial line, but we cannot always trust everybody; human nature, even human nature opposite, sometimes errs, and it is evident, I think, that we should not put the whole well-being of pensioners in the power of one particular authority after they have passed out of the jurisdiction of that authority. I do not know what line the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire is going to take, but I cannot conceive that he will resist this Amendment, the effect of which will be that where it is proposed that the pensions shall be forfeited it will have to be shown that the information was discreditably or improperly disclosed. I do not think that the sub-section as it stands, which makes the police authority the sole judge, can be supported by hon. Members opposite. I trust therefore that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

The promoters would hardly be justified in accepting this Amendment for various reasons. I know it would be beyond my task to convince the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), but I would point out that in Section 5 of the English Police Superannuation Act there are exactly the same words conferring exactly the same discretion on the English police authorities. Our position on that point is that we do not want to limit the discretion of the Scottish police authorities to a greater extent than the discretion of the English police authorities is limited. On the point as to who should be the judges, both in England and in Scotland, the police authorities are the only judges that have been suggested. Consequently it seems to me that the point of judgment must really be left to their discretion. There is another reason for which, and on account of the interests of the police themselves, it would be highly undesirable to accept this Amendment Assume that the Amendment was accepted and that the Bill thus amended became law, and that then there is some discreditable publication within the Section, under the circumstances the police authorities would have no alternative but to dismiss the man. The object of the Clause is to enable them to modify their action, and to deal wholly or in part with the pension. I think that that alternative, by way of discretion, should be given as it is in England, and that it should be reserved to the police authorities in fairness to the grantee.

Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER

This is not a question of dismissing a man, but of reducing or withdrawing his pension. This Clause is a very great advance on that in the English Act. In the English Act the grounds stated are if the man associates with thieves or refuses to give the police all the information and assistance in his power for the detection of crime and the detection of criminals, or if he carries on any business, occupation or employment which is illegal, or in which he has made use of the fact that he is in employment in the police. Those are very specific and very plain and flagrant cases, as to which there could be no great difficulty or doubt. When you come to decide what is "discreditable" and what is "improper" you enter on a very much wider field. It appears to me that while the authorities ought to have some discretion in the matter, there ought to be, as there is in certain instances, power of appeal given whenever you get on questions of opinion and not on questions of fact. My hon. Friend knows that in one case publication might be improper, and in another it might not. It would depend on what was published and on the circumstances, and all sorts of considerations, and therefore this is extending the powers enormously and very widely as against the individual. While I do not know that I should care to support my Noble Friend in taking out the words suggested in his Amendment, I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dundas White) would see some way of adding to this Clause a provision that under circumstances of this kind the man should have an appeal, because the question is not one of fact but of opinion.

Sir BRYNMOR JONES

I do not think that the Noble Lord is right in construing the Clause, or that he has thoroughly thought out the effect of his Amendment. As I understood his argument in favour of leaving out these words, it was based upon the opinion that the words, "which the police authority consider to be discreditable or improper," apply not only to the publication, but to the supply of the information as well. If the Noble Lord will look at the Clause he will see that there is a distinction drawn between the supplying of the information and the publication of the information in the words, "If the grantee supplies to any person or publishes in a manner…" Supposing the words "or publishes in a manner which the police authority consider to be discreditable or improper" are left out the Clause would then read: "If the grantee supplies to any person any information of a confidential nature.…" The Noble Lord will see that the word "which" qualifies the word "manner," and the discretion given to the police authority is only a discretion to say that they may consider the manner of publication to be discreditable or improper. It gives them no express discretion on the question whether any information which is supplied is information in respect of which there is improper conduct. I am not, of course, responsible for the words of the Clause, nor do I think the wording of the Clause particularly happy, but the mere omission of the words menti6ned in the Amendment hardly carries out the object the Noble Lord has in view.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I may be wrong, but I should have thought the words "in a manner" are meant to govern the whole Sub-section, and that it is a general expression intended to govern the whole of the disputable words in the Sub-section, and that, therefore, the police authority would have the discretion to determine what was discreditable or not. If the hon. Member's theory is right, I cannot quite understand how the Clause will operate. It cannot be directed against a constable shouting out in the street or in a disorderly way, but must be intended to prevent publication, and not, strictly speaking, the manner of publication.

Sir BRYNMOR JONES

The offence, as I understand it, is the breach of confidence in supplying confidential information; and it does not matter whether the manner of publication or the manner of supplying it is discreditable or not.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I agree. I presume, therefore, that the question for the police authority would be whether, taking the circumstances of the particular case into consideration, this sort of information ought to be published in this sort of way. There has recently been before the House a conspicuous case—the Anderson revelations—which would have raised this very point if a police officer had been concerned.

Sir BRYNMOR JONES

I am not against the Amendment of the Noble Lord. I merely pointed out the construction of the Clause.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of another Division. No doubt the Bill will go to another place, and I hope the hon. Member will consider whether the whole of this Sub-section might not be redrafted and made rather more workable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord HUGH CECIL

moved to leave out paragraph (g).

This Sub-section imposes a restriction against policemen engaging in the business of a private detective after retiring from the police force. The proposal, on the face of it, seems to me rather difficult to defend. The business of a private detective may cover what is perfectly legitimate or it may cover what is highly illegitimate. It is often a business of a very discreditable character. You are really setting up here a sort of licensing authority for private detectives, and you are treating that business much in the same way as you treat the business of a licensed victualler. I think that is a somewhat objectionable proposal. You will have the police authorities always scrutinising the proceedings of a private detective, and saying whether or not the business is being conducted in a proper manner. All sorts of allegations might be made—allegations of blackmail, or highly injurious imputations on personal character, and the question might arise whether the licence of a private detective ought not to be withdrawn. I have always disliked the licensing laws, and have thought that free trade in liquor would be the true solution of many of the difficulties which face us in that matter. In my opinion, it would be undesirable to extend administrative control over this business. You are giving the local authorities an administrative control over the business of men who have been in the police force. That is a dangerous and, I should have thought, a novel proposal. It is in a different plane of thought from the provisions in the principal Act, which, for the most part, deal with plain matters of fact. I hope the hon. Member will consider whether he cannot omit these words.

Sir F. BANBURY

I second the Amendment. There may be something behind the Sub-section of which we are not aware, but as I had not the advantage of serving on the Scottish Committee I should like to know why the Clause was put in. On the face of it, the case made out by my Noble Friend is almost unanswerable. A pension is given to a police officer for services rendered in a fit and proper way: the man has not been dismissed or censured, and all the rules have been observed. You do not say that such a man is not to engage in otter work. Many valuable servants are provided by retired police officers in receipt of pensions. But you now propose to say that though he may engage in other work, there is a par- ticular business into which he may not enter if the police authority prohibits him from so doing. My Noble Friend is not quite correct in referring to the police authority as the local authority. I understand that the police authority in Scotland, as in England, is a combination of the magistrate and the local authority. Therefore, the matter does not depend entirely on the local authority. If it did I should certainly be in favour of the Amendment. There is some reason to believe that this prohibition would be exercised with ordinary care and caution. But why should this power be given at all? Can the hon. Member bring forward a single case in which, if this power were not given, something might result which ought not to happen? Does he know any cases where abuses have arisen through police officers in receipt of pensions serving as private detectives? My Noble Friend says that many discreditable matters have occurred in the offices of private detectives. I have no acquaintance with private detectives; my Noble Friend apparently has. Of course, I do not mean with the discreditable occurrences to which he refers. No particular branch of employment will always be perfectly immaculate, but I do not know of any flagrant instance where private detectives who have been police officers have done something against the interests of the public. I am opposed to all this interference with a man's life. I do not think you ought, if you can possibly avoid it, to be continually setting up authorities, local or otherwise, to investigate the procedure of certain people. The hon. Member may be able to show that there are sound reasons for this provision, but unless he can I shall support my Noble Friend.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

In the Sub-section there is the saving clause that "If there is in the opinion of the police authorities any reasonable ground." "Reasonable ground" is fully wide, and probably will be properly interpreted. I do not think there has been any complaint as to the working of the English Clause. If this Clause has not been working well in the English Act it was the duty of the hon. Baronet to let us know of it. Mention was made of flagrant cases.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am sure my Noble Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not bring up any flagrant case. I asked the hon. Gentleman opposite to bring up a flagrant case and then we should be convinced. I put it the same way to the Noble Lord.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

I thought the flagrant case argument was used. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City stated that he did not know of any instance: "flagrant instance" were the exact words, which means he did not know of an instance.

Sir F. BANBURY

No, no; not at all.

MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE

In any case, I do not think there has been any complaint since 1906 in regard to the similar Clause in the English Act, and I do not see why we should anticipate it with regard to Scotland. In any case, I think it will be easily understood that the business of a private detective should be carried on in a way which is conducive to the public welfare. If it is not carried on in such a manner the police, I think, are the proper people to deal with the matter. As to this particular Clause relating to police pensioners, the very best reason a man can have for doing what is right is that possibly he may lose that pension if he does not carry on his business in a proper manner. I have no doubt my hon. Friend has found some great flaw in what I have stated, and we shall hear it on the Amendment. I am sorry to say that whatever he says will not persuade me that this particular Amendment will conduce to the good of the Bill.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

I should like to join the Noble Lord below in uttering my protest against this Amendment. I do not think it will be really accepted by a large number. In fact, I would propose myself, if it were possible, that the hon. Member should consider the propriety of not doing away with this restriction, but of making it very considerably severer. I should have liked him to leave out altogether the last few words in the Sub-section, and to make it impossible for a police officer in any sense to become a private detective. I think that of all occupations that of a private detective is one of the most unsavoury. It is not one which is in the interests of the public as a whole. It leads necessarily to suspicion and a disagreeable spirit, and to what may very easily become a very considerable interference with the ways of justice. Of all people most dangerous in the position of a private detective is the one who has been a constable, and who may be in receipt of a pension. Such a man can introduce himself into the inner circle of the police, and into their more intimate conversation. He learns distinctly from them what a great many other men could not learn. He is unduly aided in this what I call the unsavoury business of a private detective by having previously been a member of a police force. I shall be very glad if instead of accepting this Amendment the hon. Member would delete the last few words, and make the grantee who is a private detective absolutely shut out from those who hold police pensions.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

Hon. Members who have spoken have expressed very fully the views of the promoters of this Bill. I can assure the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that there is no desire in any way to enable any person to do other than to earn an honest livelihood as a private detective. I am speaking of the Bill as it stands; but it has become a very serious matter, in view of the very discreditable character of much private detective work, if police reservists can embark upon it, and can use the experience and knowledge of police affairs which they have acquired in the service for the purpose of a private detective agency, and can get paid not only for their service, but in a sense for the experience they have won in the force. Therefore it seems to me very desirable that the police authorities should in such a case have discretion, and should, if the reservist is engaged on undesirable or private detective work, be able to say: "Very well, if you insist upon using your experience in this way then to some extent the pension shall be discontinued." That seems to be very reasonable. I do not want to refer unduly to the English Act of 1896. That Act contains precisely the same provision. For years that Act has worked well in England. I feel again that the Scottish police authorities ought to have exactly the same discretion as the English police authorities, and their discretion should not be in any way unduly narrowed. I quite appreciate the criticism of the Noble Lord on the Act of 1906, but I say this: it seems to me desirable that in the present Bill the powers of the police authorities in both countries should be placed on a par.

Mr. A. C. MORTON

So far as I know there have been no complaints from the police in Scotland with regard to this particular Clause. It has reference only to some pensioner who wants to do what is wrong. I think hon. Members ought to be satisfied and not talk so much upon this Bill, about which probably they do not know much, seeing that they will have sufficient opportunity for talking upon other things about which they know something.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I am quite prepared to acknowledge the great courtesy of the hon. Member for Dumbarton. He has met us in a most conciliatory spirit, and I regret that the hon. Member for Sunderland should not have followed the excellent example which was set him. I do not like to press this Amendment against the sense of Scottish Members, but I think that hon. Members have not quite appreciated how strong the case for it is. There was one occasion when I myself was interested in private detective work. In connection with a certain election in which I was interested there was a suspicion that illegal practices had taken place in the constituency. I desired to make inquiries myself, and I went to a private detective firm for assistance. Let us suppose such a thing occurred in Scotland, and a private detective was employed in connection with some electioneering interest. We all know it is part of the regular business of private detectives to look into such cases and to help to get them up. The collection of evidence is indeed the very essence of election petitions, and for that purpose private detectives are employed. Supposing a private detective who had been a policeman was engaged upon an inquiry connected with a contested election, would he not be liable to reprisals in periods of great political heat from the police authorities who might be, and very likely would be, strong politicians? They might say there are these various ways of conducting these inquiries, and they might say the private detective conducted his inquiries in an improper manner. The police authorities might come down upon him and say: "We prohibit you from going on with this any longer." That is a sort of case it seems to me that might very easily happen. It would be a case where the police authorities, acting rightly or wrongly, were acting with bias. There is no more unsound policy than to give an administrative body control of any business. We are suffering here from exactly the same fault as under the Licensing Law. There is hesitation in people's minds in regard to something which is wrong to them and which ought to be put down by law, but which is allowed as a business. You ought to make up your mind in either case whether to allow the thing or to prohibit it. If you propose to allow this private detective business, let its course come under the ordinary provisions of business enterprise. If you propose to prohibit it, pass a penal law and put it down. Make this business illegal.

Sir H. CRAIK

We do not say it is illegal, but we would prevent a detective acquiring knowledge which he would get as an ex-policeman which he could not otherwise get.

Lord HUGH CECIL

My hon. Friend's position is: You may be a private detective so long as you are incompetent, but the moment you have skill in the matter you ought to be prohibited by law. If you are to prohibit it by law, do so, and do not leave it to the police authorities to come down under the stimulus of political excitement to compel a man to give up his business or to forfeit his business. I protest against the Clause, but as my Friends are all against me, it is hardly worth while dividing upon it.

Amendment put, and negatived.