§ As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(Captain Hacking.)
§ 12 m.
§ Mr. HAYESI merely want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having had an opportunity to consider two or three points which were put in Committee, he can give us any assurance that we can have them settled. One point was that where there is a tribunal consisting of two or more persons one of those persons should be a barrister. Another is the question whether an officer appearing be fore the tribunal may be legally represented if the authority is represented by
§ 2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
§ the Town Clerk, who may be a solicitor himself. The third point was whether there would be any objection raised by the Home Office in any application made by the police of any particular force, through their chief constable, for the purpose of raising the necessary amount of money for an officer defending himself by being legally represented. I hope the Under-Secretary can give us some assurance that those matters will be observed when the Bill is in working order.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking)I think I can give the hon. Member some degree of satisfaction in connection with the points which he has raised. First, with regard to the costs and expenses of an appeal, whether or not collections can be made by the police force to cover the cost of the appeal. I cannot go so far as to say that the present system will be in any way interfered with. The hon. Member knows 2109 that the present system really means that if the chief of the police decides that such a collection can be made, then the collection will be made. He will see that Clause 5 states, quite clearly, that
The Secretary of State may by his order direct that the appellant shall pay the whole or any part of his own costs, but, subject to any such direction being given, ail the costs and expenses of an appeal under this Act, including the costs of the parties, shall be defrayed out of the police fund.''I think one of the hon. Member's points is that the Secretary of State may not be in the position to decide whether or not the appellant has put up a frivolous or a genuine case. I do not think the hon. Member quite likes the idea that the Secretary of State should be the person to whom that should be referred for decision. Perhaps it will satisfy the hon. Member if I give him an undertaking that a rule will be made to allow the tribunal to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to whether or not, in their opinion, the costs should be paid out of the Police Fund. I think that will go a long way to meet his objection. His second point was whether or not the police should be legally represented. On the condition that there is somebody on the other side who is legally represented by the town clerk or somebody of that character, then I think there is no reason to suppose that the rule would not be made to allow the appellant also to be legally represented. The other point was whether or not a barrister should be appointed on the tribunal. I think a request was made in Committee by the hon. Member that if there were three or more members of that tribunal one of them should be a barrister. It is not right, perhaps, to give a direct undertaking that the third person in such a case would be a barrister, but, according to the reasonable request that the hon. Member has made, I can give an undertaking that the Secretary of State will be guided in the sense requested by the hon. Member when he makes appointments to the tribunal. I think that will go a long way towards meeting that point. Those are the only three points that the hon. Member has raised. This Bill, as he knows, is a Bill which the whole police force have desired in principle for a long time past. It is a Bill which is 2110 welcomed by people who have taken an interest in the police force, and I hope that the House will now give it a Third Reading.