§ 16. Mr. Neil MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland how many police constables in Kilmarnock have resigned, been dismissed, or suspended since Chief Constable Roy has been appointed; and whether any of those who were forced to resign are now in another police force and have shown sufficient efficiency to merit and obtain promotion?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI am informed that, since the appointment of the chief constable referred to, five men have resigned, two have been dismissed, and two suspended pending investigation of charges against them. These figures do not include two probationers whose services were dispensed with on the ground that they wore unlikely to become efficient, or men who retired on pension in the ordinary course. No man 202 who has resigned from the Kilmarnock Force during the tenure of office of the present chief constable has obtained promotion in another force.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of those who were asked to resign from this force has been promoted to an inspectorship in another force in Scotland?
§ Sir J. GILMOURMy information is that is not the case.
§ Mr. MACLEANWill the right hon. Gentleman try to get some good information, instead of the information he is giving to the House?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI understand that one man was transferred and has since got promotion, but he was not dismissed.
§ Sir JAMES REMNANTCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether this chief constable had previous service in the force, or was appointed from outside?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI must have notice of that question.
§ Mr. HAYESIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of a police force, before he can be transferred to another force, must resign from the one in which he is serving—that it is not a question of transfer but of resignation and re-appointment?
§ 17. Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the police constables of Kilmarnock have been warned by their inspectors of the consequences of being seen either on or off duly in the company of or speaking to Hill and Moore, the two dismissed constables; and whether he can state the reason for such action on the part of the inspectors?
Sir J.GILMOURI am informed that since the dismissal of the two constables referred to they have been frequently seen standing about the main thoroughfares in proximity to points where constables in uniform were stationed and, with the approval of the chief constable, constables on duty were warned by the inspectors not to gossip with them. No instructions were issued by the inspectors in regard to constables who were off duty. There are obvious disciplinary reasons for the action of the inspectors.
§ Mr. MACLEANAre we to take it that constables are not to speak to any civilian in any particular area in which these constables are working? Is the persecution by this chief constable to be carried out against these two individuals even when they become ordinary citizens?
§ Sir J. GILMOURNo, there has been no question of police being prohibited from speaking to a man in plain clothes. Obviously it is within the jurisdiction of the chief constable to issue such instructions to his officer on duty as he may deem desirable.
§ Mr. MACLEANIf either of these two dismissed constables approached a constable and asked a perfectly legitimate question regarding certain things happening in the borough, are the constables not allowed to reply when asked that question?
§ Mr. WESTWOODIs the House to understand that chief constables have power not only to interfere with constables when they are on duty but to interfere in their private life when they are off duty?
§ Sir J. GILMOURMy answer was perfectly clear. No instructions were issued by the inspector in regard to constables who were off duty.
§ 18. Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he received a claim from the Constables Branch Board, Kilmarnock, signed by G. Hill, the secretary to the Board, sent through the usual and regular course, with details concerning the well-being of the police force in Kilmarnock, rest day improperly withheld, commencing day of annual leave, and complaints against treatment of constables by Chief Constable Roy; and whether it was on account of his share in sending this claim that Hill was dismissed by the chief constable three weeks after sending this claim on the instructions of his Board?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI have received no communication from the Kilmarnock Constables Branch Board, but I am informed that they made representations to the chief constable and the police authority with regard to annual leave and the weekly rest day. As stated in the reply to the hon. Member's question 204 on the 12th May, the Joint Central Committee of the Scottish Police Federation made a representation to me on the subject, enclosing papers received from the Branch Board. As regards the last part of the question. I would refer to my reply on the 23rd June, in which the grounds of dismissal are stated. I have no reason to believe that the proceedings against Hill had any connection with his actions as secretary of the Branch Board.
§ Mr. HAYESWill the right hon. Gentleman receive representations re-received direct from the Kilmarnock Branch Board?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think the proper channel has been taken.
§ Mr. HAYESWill the right hon. Gentleman see that if representations are made by the Branch Board through the proper channels those representations are not blocked before they reach him? That is the point.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI am perfectly willing to receive, through the proper channels, any representations from the proper quarters, but matters of discipline and questions of that kind lie outside my province and are in the hands of the chief constable.
§ Mr. WALLHEADDoes not the right hon. Gentleman see that this chief constable is a bully?
§ Sir J. GILMOURNo, I do not accept that.
§ Mr. MACLEANHas the right hon. Gentleman considered the reply he has made? In that he says he has received no communication from ex-constable Hill to the Constable Branch Board, when, as a matter of fact, the question asked is "sent through the usual and regular course," and in his reply he has admitted that it came through the National Board, and Therefore through the regular course. Will he consider the contradiction he has made and try to let us have some information on the situation in Kilmarnock, which is growing beyond a joke?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI do not think there is any difficulty in understanding my reply. I have stated plainly that I 205 received a communication through the joint general committee, and I have given full consideration to it and find no reason to take action.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs not the first portion of the reply a statement that the right hon. Gentleman has received no claim from the ex-constable?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe reply had better be read. It was in two parts. The question is whether the second part explains the first. I think the hon. Member had better study it in writing. It was a full answer. He may think the two parts inconsistent, but there is no purpose in pursuing that for the moment.
§ Mr. MACLEANArising out of the whole situation, and the unsatisfactory nature of the replies which have been given, I give notice that I will raise the matter to-night on the Motion for the Adjournment.