HC Deb 20 February 1951 vol 484 cc1207-31

10.22 p.m.

Major Conant (Rutland and Stamford)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Draft Order entitled the Leicestershire and Rutland Police (Amalgamation) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be annulled. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for coming here tonight to reply to this debate. On the face of it, it may seem that this scheme of amalgamation affects only the inhabitants of the two counties, the police of which are to be amalgamated, but it is the first time upon which the right hon. Gentleman has used his powers under the Police Act to separate the police force of a county from the other county services, and I feel, therefore, that the matter is of more than local interest.

The scheme involves the merger of a very small police force with a much larger force, and that must, in the end, result in the disappearance of that small force. As the House knows, Rutland is a very small county, but in spite of boundary commissions it is still a separate county and it is still providing for its inhabitants services which are as efficient as those of any other county. The police force of Rutland is necessarily a very small force. To many people it is regarded as a curiosity or a link with the past, but everyone with a sense of tradition—and who has not a sense of tradition—would agree that such a force should not be abolished unless it can be shown that real efficiency would result—and I employ the term "efficiency" in no parochial sense.

The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that this question of amalgamation has been the subject of a lengthy local inquiry, that the learned judge whom he appointed to conduct the inquiry, after sifting and weighing evidence for two days, reluctantly, but quite firmly, reached the conclusion that the amalgamation should take place. In what I say I intend no reflection upon the learned judge, who conducted the inquiry with great good humour and admitted a good deal of evidence which might perhaps have been ruled out of order. But if one considers the nature of the inquiry one cannot fail but be surprised by what the learned judge says in his report. On page 3, discussing the purposes of the inquiry, he says: During the proceedings I have borne in mind what I conceive to be the policy and purpose of Parliament in passing the Police Act, 1946. That policy and purpose are indicated in the title 'an Act to provide for the amalgamation of county police forces'. Later, on page 10, he says: Prima facie the scheme of amalgamation should be adopted, in view of the fact that it is a scheme designed to carry out the purpose of the Act. He goes on: The inquiry is intended to give dissenting parties an opportunity to show cause why such a scheme should not be established. One might say that the County of Rutland is guilty but that anything they might like to say in mitigation of punishment will receive very careful consideration.

I would remind the House that the Act of 1946 provided for the automatic absorption or abolition of the police forces in non-county boroughs. In the case of counties, however, different considerations were thought to apply, and provision was made, in certain instances, of which this is one, for the holding of a local inquiry. So far as this inquiry was concerned, the most important evidence submitted, from a practical standpoint, was that of the chief constable of the county affected, Rutland. Of him, the report says: He has held a number of responsible posts in the police force. He has commanded the force with great distinction. And I may add that he was commandant of one of the training colleges and has also been called to the Bar.

In the minutes of evidence which I have studied and which I imagine hon. Members have not studied because I understand that each copy costs £9—I am quite ready to lend mine to the right hon. Gentleman—the evidence of the chief constable and his cross-examination occupy some 22 pages. In the course of that evidence he completely destroyed, to my mind, all the theoretical arguments for amalgamation, from the point of view of his county. In the report, as hon. Members can see, all that we are told is that the chief constable gave evidence "against amalgamation" and we are told of four questions to which he answered during his cross-examination.

I may be doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice in suggesting that he will use the report to support his case, but I would ask him to read very carefully the evidence given at the inquiry because I feel sure that he will agree that, however strong may be the arguments for the theoretical abolition of small police forces, they cannot be applied in this instance. What is the case, briefly, for the amalgamation of these police forces? The Rutland force is exceedingly small, ridiculously small some hon. Members may say.

Mr. Gooch (Norfolk, North)

How many?

Major Conant

A chief constable, 28 men and one woman. It may be said it may be efficient within the limits of its size, but clearly, because of its size, it cannot be organised into specialist departments. It cannot afford the scientific equipment which a larger force can have. It cannot command the reserves which other forces can command, and, obviously, the chances of promotion in a small force like this are infinitely less than in a force which has more jobs to offer. As a result, one would expect to find bad discipline and discontent and, of course, it must often be below strength because of the difficulty of recruitment.

I suggest to the House that, these arguments, strong as they are, are pure theory. It is suggested because of these facts that the amalgamation of this small force with a larger force would lead to greater overall efficiency, but efficiency is a general term, and a term upon which there is plenty of room for disagreement. Surely, in regard to a police force the term "efficiency" is greatly narrowed, because there are hundreds and thousands of policemen employed day and night in keeping crime statistics.

On 13th November, the Home Secretary was good enough to give me statistics of crime for the counties concerned: He gave me the percentage of crimes cleared up in Rutland and in Leicestershire and the average for the rest of the country for each of the past six years. I will not read these figures to the House. I always thought that the Rutland police force were efficient, though I have not been caught myself, but I never realised, till I studied these figures, how much more efficient they appear to be than the rest of the country.

I would give the House only the average over the past six years. In the case of indictable offences, 52 per cent. were cleared up in the county of Rutland, and 43 per cent. was the average for the rest of the country. In the case of breaking offences, 49 per cent. of cases were cleared up in Rutland but only 37 per cent. in the rest of the country. Of course, it can be said that these figures are not reliable; and I agree that when a small force, faced with a comparatively small number of crimes, catches one man who confesses to half a dozen crimes, that has a totally different effect on the statistics from that which would be caused if the same man were caught by a larger force. But in this case I am taking the figures for six years, and I am quite prepared to take a much longer period if the right hon. Gentleman will supply the figures.

I have the figures for Rutland, and the percentage of superiority over other forces is so high that I am convinced that these figures do represent a fair measure of efficiency. What is more, it seems to me that in these country districts we meet with a great many instances of the types of crime which are particularly difficult to clear up. I mean crimes on the farm—such as tools stolen from a tractor, eggs from chicken-houses, a sack of potatoes which has been left in a field. These offences are particularly difficult to clear up, because often they are not reported until several days after they have been committed, yet they all count in the number of crimes recorded and appear in the percentage of efficiency. I say, in all seriousness, that these statistics represent a fair measure of the efficiency of a force.

It is said that the county ought to be organised into specialist departments. But, personally, I feel that a force ought to be organised in relation to the task it has to do. In a case like this, an agricultural area, surely it is better to train men as all-round men, rather than to put the men into watertight compartments and to have the same man always answering the telephone and the same man always filling in forms. Our men are trained in all aspects of police work, and I think they are better policemen as a result.

Mr. Messer (Tottenham)

Is it true that there is no one there who can take photographs of fingerprints?

Major Conant

If the hon. Gentleman cares to come down, we will certainly take his, provided we have not got them already. I know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, because that point was raised at the inquiry. There is a better type of camera than ours which we are quite ready to buy, because the price has now come down, but the one we have is quite efficient.

Traffic, which is a big problem in some parts of the country, is no problem in the county of Rutland. Our transport is necessarily small. But if we were amalgamated there would be no more transport provided for the county of Rutland than is provided now for the obvious reason that it would not be needed. We have all the transport needed for the particular job we have to do, and I think our accident record will bear comparison with that of any other county.

On the question of scientific equipment, it is quite wrong to suggest that any force is accustomed to own not only all the equipment it is likely to want, but all the equipment which may be available. That is a long way from fact. I am told that there is practically no force which is self-supporting in respect of equipment. We make as full use of the forensic science laboratories as any other force whenever that is necessary. It would be a waste of money if we were to provide other and expensive equipment because of the remote possibility that we might want it. In fact, there would be no item of equip- ment available to our use after amalgamation which is not now available.

Reserves have not been needed in the county during the past 10 years. I agree that we have to be prepared for the future, but we have more than 200 special constables, and there is not the slightest doubt if reserve police were needed we could obtain them without any difficulty from any of our neighbours. But I think the implication behind these arguments is that there lies around a police force a kind of iron curtain through which criminals can pass freely but which holds up the police. That is not so. The police have no boundaries. But even supposing that there was some kind of unwritten rule that police did not go into their neighbour's territories, then this amalgamation scheme would only remove a boundary of some 30 miles between the counties of Leicester and Rutland. There is no traffic in criminals between these counties. The external criminals of Rutland, that is, criminals coming into Rutland to commit crimes, do not come from Leicestershire. The external criminals of Leicestershire do not go there from Rutland. Therefore, the removal of this boundary will not improve what might be called unified control, or remove any imaginary Iron Curtain which may be said to exist.

I think there is force in the argument that promotion in a large force is quicker, but it certainly has not led in the case of Rutland to any discontent. The report itself recalls how contented the force is, certainly, that is my own experience. As to recruitment, I doubt if there is any other force in the country which has had so little difficulty in recruitment since the war. Very few forces have not had difficulties we have had none. I notice that the Oaksey Report, in recording the survey which they undertook on the subject of promotion prospects and which covered practically every force in the country or extended over a long period, say exactly the opposite to what one might expect. On page 69 of Part I they say: Comparison of the proportions of men promoted in different types of force and in different periods of time shows that promotion rates were lower in large forces, particularly in the case of promotions to superintendent. Finally, the police of this country are rightly respected by all good citizens, and they can undoubtedly count upon the cooperation of the general public whenever that is needed. How fortunate is their lot compared to the police of many Continental countries. Yet surely the main reason why they can command that happy position is that we regard the police as "our police," unlike the position in many countries. I believe that the local association of our police is even more valuable than the Territorial Association in the military sphere, and I think it would be most unwise, particularly in these days of Civil Defence, to defy local opinion which, in this case, runs very high, by separating the police force from the county which has owned it for over 100 years with entire satisfaction. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, to reconsider the step which he proposes to take.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)

I beg to second the Motion.

Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Major Conant), who has put forward some very convincing arguments tonight, I shall seek to advance practical reasons why this Order should not be confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, tempted though one may be to turn to the sentimental reasons, such as the fact that Rutland's police force, small though it is, has a brass band.

My hon. and gallant Friend represents the smallest county in the United Kingdom and I represent the second smallest county in England, namely, Huntingdonshire, which is, however, much larger than Rutland. I suggest that besides the test of crimes detected, to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, a valuable test consists in the number of crimes committed per head of the population—the right hon. Gentleman looks a little puzzled, but I understand that if he searches his records, he will find that Huntingdonshire and Rutland, both of which have small units of police forces, compare very favourably with all the rest of the country so far as the number of crimes committed is concerned.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

I was only puzzled by the reference to "per head" because I understand that, fortunately for this country, crime does not amount even to one per head.

Mr. Renton

I appreciate the allusion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Perhaps I can make it more clear by saying per thousand of the population. I do not think he will quarrel with that or be puzzled by it.

I believe that a general principle is involved here because we live in an age of great social experiment in which the United Kingdom is the laboratory and the British people are the subject of experiments some of which are successful and some of which are not. All these experiments are being carried out on a large scale with mainly large administrative units as the testing grounds. I suggest it would be unwise for us to rely entirely upon the large units only for experiments, and that in time we may find we have plenty to learn from the smaller units as well. That in itself is a strong reason for not doing away with our smaller units without great and strong reasons.

In Huntingdonshire we share our chief constable with the Isle of Ely. The two forces are quite separate, but they have one chief constable. After carefully considering the report of the learned judge in the case of this amalgamation, I must confess that the point which seemed to me to be most strongly brought out by the learned Gentleman who represented the Home Office was that the Chief Constable of Rutland was in a somewhat ridiculous position. There was a very able man with great qualities leading a very small force. Now, we have to remember that amalgamation will find him in a job of technically inferior status, though possibly of greater responsibility.

I suggest that the best solution of this problem with regard to the chief constable is to follow something on the lines of what Huntingdonshire and the Isle of Ely have done. Let Rutland have a joint chief constable, let the present Chief Constable of Rutland be his deputy for the time being and let him find the opportunity, which will surely arise for a man of his capabilities of seeking an appointment as chief constable elsewhere as soon as the opportunity comes.

Besides the argument put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford there are other strong reasons why the Home Secretary should refrain from forcing this amalga- mation, as he must do, against the wishes of the people of Rutland. As Mr. Elwes, their counsel, said on page 15 of the judge's report: The administrative control of the police of a district is an ancient democratic right … That democratic right should not be lightly taken away. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, on careful consideration of this matter, would not wish by his decision to override the wishes of the Rutland County Council and place the police force under the control of an authority which will, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford pointed out, sit at Leicester, which is 20 miles away from the county town of Rutland, and an authority upon which the people of Rutland will be represented in very much of a minority. They will only have four places on the new authority compared with 24 held by the people of Leicester. I am not making a party point, but, with all respect, I say that that sounds to me rather undemocratic.

A further point is that the establishment of this new authority, instead of being a measure of economy, as no doubt it is intended by the right hon. Gentleman to be, may involve additional administrative expenditure at a time when public administrative expenditure should be saved. The new authority must have officers and clerical staff appointed, but at the moment they are not required, and the Rutland representatives will incur the expense of travelling, which presumably the public will have to bear, and which they do not have to incur at the moment to attend their standing joint committee. They will have to travel much farther to the meetings of the new authority, so there are disadvantages from the point of view of expenditure. If the right hon. Gentleman has an answer let us have it. These disadvantages are against the mere theoretical advantages of obtaining a larger unit.

Now may I attempt to interpret the point which the right hon. Gentleman may make—a very important point—with regard to Civil Defence? The facts are, as I understand them, that Oakham, the county town of Rutland, is the headquarters of one of the Civil Defence Corps which the right hon. Gentleman's Department has already established, and that Rutland is a com- pact division of that corps. That arrangement is already working smoothly under things as they are, so that the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain to the House that this amalagamation is in any way necessary to ensure better working, or better liaison, or greater efficiency in the matter of Civil Defence.

I suggest that it would be better to leave the matter alone. In the Second World War, under the Defence regulations, it would have been possible for the then Home Secretary—or either of them—to have amalgamated these two forces compulsorily; but no step was ever taken in that direction, nor, so far as I am aware, was even suggested. That was so, even although the responsibilities of the Rutland police were very considerable, and were, in fact, far greater than they now are. They have two operational aerodromes and a large military camp in the area.

On page 17 of his report, the learned judge records the fact that when the chief constable was questioned—and may I interpolate here that he was questioned by my hon. and gallant Friend for several hours, although only half a dozen of the questions are recorded—he agreed that the only grounds on which it could be suggested that Rutland should have exceptional treatment were those that it is a rural area with a separate county administration. That, I would suggest, is not in itself a very strong ground at all. The local responsibility for police for the supervision of a county police force should not be separated from the general responsibility for local government. It has been the habit of recent years for us to make the boundaries co-terminus with the police force areas for the most part; I know the exceptions which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I think that the action he has taken in some of those instances in recent years has been right: but it is not so in this case.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

I do not propose to detain the House for more than a short time. Rutland is a small place, and has a small police force, and right hon. and hon. Members might feel that the subject we are now discussing is a small matter. But, it is, however, a matter of very great principle and it is right that it should have been raised tonight.

The report of the learned judge who conducted that inquiry contains many important paragraphs which, to my mind, indicate that the basis upon which he conducted the inquiry was unsound. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Major Conant) referred to a short part of the report, but I wish to direct the attention of the House to the bottom of page 9, where it is stated: The Act is silent as to the purpose of such an inquiry and the functions of the person conducting it. That purpose and those functions must be ascertained and determined by necessary inference. The position appears to he this: the Secretary of State, in the discharge of his statutory duty, decides that an amalgamation of certain police forces is expedient in the interests of efficiency, but as the forces affected—or one or more of them—do not assent to it, that scheme cannot become law until a 'local inquiry' is held, and, in consequence, the Secretary of State causes such an inquiry to take place Then comes the part which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, and to which I again draw the attention of the House: Prima facie, the scheme of amalgamation should be adopted in view of the fact that it is a scheme designed to carry out the purposes of the Act. And it seems to me that an inquiry is intended not so much to enable the Secretary of State to justify the action he proposes to take, and to prove he has arrived at a correct decision, as to give to the dissenting parties an opportunity to show cause why such a scheme should not he established. If this view be correct, then it follows that the burden of proof is upon the objectors. … As I understand the meaning behind that, it is this: that provided the Secretary of State has made his scheme, then that is the same as if a local inquiry is held to have been carried through unless the objectors—the local people who object to it—can shift the burden of proof. In other words, the local force is to be amalgamated; is to be found guilty of being inefficient and too small and all the rest until it can prove otherwise. That, I suggest, is wrong.

I would like to introduce two compelling reasons for my argument. First, this is an entirely new departure, or else it is a reversion to a former bad practice which the Government have given up in other forms of public inquiry. Take the case of town and country planning inquiries. When these inquiries were first started, shortly after the war, it was noticeable that this same principle was being put forward, namely, that a scheme the Minister propounded should go through and it was only for the local people to object and show cause why it should not go through. In time, and as the result of considerable pressure, the situation has been reversed. Now it is for the Minister to satisfy the local inquiry that the scheme is a desirable one. It is not for the local people to satisfy the inquiry that it is not a desirable one. In this scheme connected with Leicestershire and Rutland we are going back to the old practice, which is something the House ought not to condone.

The second fact I want to deduce comes from the Home Secretary, himself. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Police Bill, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with Clause 3, now Section 3 of the Act, and explained what he had in mind in that particular Clause. He said this: Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State power, where he thinks it is expedient in the interests of efficiency that an amalgamation scheme should be made for any of these police areas, and no scheme satisfactory to him is submitted by the local authorities, to make, by Order, a scheme. If the scheme produced by the Secretary of State is accepted by the constituent police authorities, firstly I shall believe that the age of miracles has returned and, secondly, I shall he very pleased to accept their commendation of it. If either of them object"— and this is the point to which I want to draw the attention of the House— it is then my duty to appoint an inspector, who may not he an officer of the police or a servant of any Government Department, to hold an inquiry into the scheme, and to make a report to me. If, after receiving his report, I approve the scheme, whether as originally drafted or as amended, I shall have to lay the scheme before this House and another place, and either House, within 40 days, can annul the scheme by negative resolution. That is really the only new power the Secretary of State gets in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 651–652.] The only meaning that these words indicated was that the right hon. Gentleman intended, in the exercise of his administrative power, to have a completely open mind on this subject. What he has done indicates that he has not really got an open mind. He has made the scheme and then gone through the form of an inquiry. It is for the local people, as the learned judge said, to say a scheme is a bad one and he has to be satisfied that it is a bad one, otherwise it goes through.

Mr. Ede

I made the scheme as required by the Act. The inquiry was then held. The report was made and I considered that report, which is exactly what I said when I was moving the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hay

I appreciate that point, but in my opinion the basis upon which the learned judge held his inquiry was a wrong one, namely, that the burden of proof lay upon the local objectors and not upon the Minister. I was merely trying to illustrate that by saying what was obviously in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when the Police Bill was going through the House.

Then there is a further quotation I would like to make. In the Standing Committee on 31st January, 1946, the right hon. Gentleman said, in dealing with Clause 3: I do not think I can he expected to have to approve a scheme which I regard as unsatisfactory when, as a matter of fact, there are two umpires between the locality and me—first, the local inquiry and secondly, the final decision of Parliament on the matter, if it is still contested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 31st January, 1951; c. 778.] It would be a very unusual umpire who gave a decision on a particular point when he had already in mind the fact that he was to agree to a contention on one side unless the other side satisfied him that that contention was wrong—and that is what happened here.

Now I want to raise the other point—the question of efficiency. As I appreciated the report, the whole question of amalgamation turns upon this being done in the interests of efficiency. My hon. Friends have mentioned Leicestershire in this matter. I do not represent Leicestershire, but it is quite obvious from the report that their police force is a most unwilling party to this amalgamation; they are not desirous of having this additional force added to them. That question of efficiency comes out in the report, when the hon. and learned gentleman who appeared for the Home Office said, on page 10: What I do suggest, on behalf of those who instruct me, is that the efficiency of an amalgamated force under a unified command will be greater than that of the two forces operating as two separate police forces. The process of amalgamation would improve their efficiency, that acting jointly they would be more efficient than they would be acting separately, and that is the basis upon which the matter is put. The judge notes that particular view and he goes on, in his report: The nature of the 'efficiency' to he considered was also (in my view) clearly stated by Sir Frank Brook at a previous inquiry—'I think, however well you may co-operate between the two forces, if one is one one side of the line and the other is on the other side … it can never be so effective as if the operational activities of the men involved in the investigation of the important crime were under one controlling and directing head'. If that is the basis upon which the question of efficiency is to be judged, where, in logic, are we to stop? That would be a very good argument for the creation of a national police force with no county boundaries at all. What we have to decide here is whether or not Rutland has a police force which is efficient in the normal sense of the term. It may be very important that the two forces should be amalgamated so that the whole apparatus for the detection of crime can be brought to bear upon the person who commits a crime in Rutland, but the figures themselves show that over crime detection and crime prevention this small county has a record which will bear comparison with that of any other county in this country.

I think the House should consider a very long time before it agrees to the strangling and dispersion of these police forces whose amalgamation will be carried out so forcibly against not only the will of the forces themselves but in the face of a strong body of local opinion if this Order is passed.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Vane (Westmorland)

When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Major Conant) was speaking I could not help noticing that the greatest interest was shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite when he mentioned the small numbers of the police force in Rutland, as if there were something humorous in that small size. I know that there is today a certain prejudice against everything that is small, and a certain tendency among many hon. Gentlemen opposite to want to amalgamate everything now on a county basis into a regional basis and everything on a regional basis into a national basis. In many cases they are wrong in wishing always to amalgamate smaller units into greater ones. They may say that I am prejudiced in favour of smaller units. I did once live in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency and now I represent Westmorland, one of the smaller counties of this country.

I would like to reinforce the plea of my hon. and gallant Friend. Westmorland and Cumberland have found a solution to this problem, by which they have a common headquarters and chief constable, and maintain the separate entities of the two county police forces. I have never heard anyone say that either is inefficient, and if any hon. Gentlemen opposite come to either county we can take their fingerprints by the most efficient methods. Nothing could be said against the efficiency or happiness of either force. Through the combined headquarters it is possible to organise specialist branches.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that sort of solution is a better one than that he proposes for the county police forces of Leicestershire and Rutland. Surely all law—canon law and the law of this country—prescribe that if there is to be a marriage between two persons they must be willing, or no one could hope for success. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is effecting a compulsory marriage between two unwilling partners. Between two police forces, as between man and woman, such a course cannot succeed.

11.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

We have had a very interesting discussion on this Order and I thank the hon. Gentlemen opposite for the temper with which the matter has been discussed, because I know only too well how high county feeling can run on this kind of issue.

In spite of what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said, the course I have pursued in this matter is strictly in accordance with what I laid down when the Police Act was before Parliament. Some features of these inquiries are quite novel. In the Standing Committee on the Bill as the Committee was, naturally, anxious that there should be reasonable impartiality in the conduct of the inquiry, I conceded that I would not appoint an inspector "out of the blue" to hold an inquiry but would go to the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils' Association and ask them to nominate a number of gentlemen from whom, in any particular case, I could select one to hold the inquiry.

That course was pursued, and among the names that appeared on the panel was that of the learned county court judge whom I selected to hold this inquiry into this case. He was a Member of two Parliaments; he is a chairman of quarter sessions; and he is a member of a standing joint committee. Therefore, he is a man who has a very considerable knowledge of the kind of subject which had to be considered at this inquiry. I know from what I have heard from both counties that he carried out his task with affability, and, I believe, with some distinction, and I have, therefore, been surprised at the attack that has been made tonight on the attitude he adopted towards the inquiry.

Mr. Hay

I certainly did not make any attack on him. All I said was that the way he conducted the inquiry, the way he approached his task, was wrong—in other words, that he misdirected himself.

Mr. Ede

That is hardly lavish commendation. I must say that I do not share those misgivings.

The hon. and gallant Member for Rutland and Stamford (Major Conant) said that this was the first time I had exercised my compulsory powers. That is not so. Under this Act I have exercised them more than once. I myself went to Newtown, in mid-Wales, to preside over a meeting of the Standing Joint Committees of Brecon, Montgomery and Radnor, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) being one of those present. We adjourned for lunch, and when the representatives of the three counties came back, they announced that they had been convinced by what I had said, and they offered a voluntary amalgamation. But when they got to their three separate counties one group found themselves repudiated by the Standing Joint Committee, and I had to make a compulsory order.

Major Conant

What I said was that this was the first time the right hon. Gentleman had compulsorily separated the police of a county from all other county services. In the case of Wales the principle of amalgamation was agreed before the inquiry took place.

Mr. Ede

No. When they came to the meeting in the morning all three were against me. I managed to convince the people to whom I could speak personally what I failed to do was to convince the people who could only get their reports from the people to whom I had spoken.

Police functions are not a very intimate part of county government. The county police authority is one of the outstanding anomalies in our local government system. I see the Chairman of the Surrey County Council Finance Committee, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) nodding his agreement, although he sits on the other side of the House. The standing joint committee consists of representatives of the justices, who number half, and the other half are members of the county council. Their decisions are final, and they merely present their precept to the county council, who have to honour it whether they like it or not, and who cannot even say a word in criticism of it.

In addition to those three I amalgamated Cheshire and Chester, where I established a new police authority which took the police service of Cheshire away from the Cheshire Standing Committee and vested it in a new joint police authority for the county and the borough, just as here I propose to vest the police functions of the new authority for Leicester and Rutland.

Major Conant

In this case it is another county.

Mr. Ede

But Chester, as a county borough, is not in the Cheshire police authority's area.

Major Conant

It is an island.

Mr. Ede

I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by saying that it is an island. It is a separate police authority, a separate sovereign state as far as this service is concerned.

The Act lays upon me, as proved by the quotations made, the duty to make an order for amalgamation if I decide that this course is necessary in the interests of efficiency. I think a history of what has happened under the Police Act of 1946 is worth recalling in that respect. Before that Act was passed, there were in England and Wales 30 police forces with establishments of less than 50 and 74 with establishments of less than 100. Immediately after the coming into operation of the Act, only eight police forces with establishments of under 50 were left. Of these eight forces, six have since been amalgamated with other forces, and of the remaining two, one now has an establishment of more than 50 and the other is Rutland.

I do not share the view that has been expressed on the other side of the House that in these days we can afford to neglect opportunities for specialist services of the sort that can be maintained by an authority of reasonable size. Rutland contains part of the Great North Road, a road along which I travel with fair frequency. Just beyond Stamford, the Great North Road enters Rutland and travels through the county for several miles. Yet with that important main road, with its heavy traffic, in the country, there is no traffic department of the police force. It must appeal to everyone, I think, that in these days when the control of traffic on the main arterial roads is one of our major problems, that is a position we cannot very well leave to chance.

Criminal investigation has become highly technical and a small force cannot reach the standard of efficiency which should be common to the whole police service. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) talked about a national police force. As I have repeatedly said in the House, I am opposed to a national police force. I believe that one of the best safeguards of our liberty is the fact that we have local police forces which are responsible to local police authorities, and removed from democratic control, as most of these police forces are. I limited myself in the Police Act so that I could not amalgamate a police force for a population of over 100,000 with another police force against the wish of that force.

I have put forward this scheme only because in modern conditions, with mobile, highly scientific criminals, it is essential that, immediately a crime has been committed and brought to the attention of the police authority, there should be available all the skilled technical resources under the command of the police force of the area to enable at least a scientific and thorough preliminary investigation to be made. I do not suggest that for a police force of its size the Rutland force can be regarded as inefficient, but I suggest that in an area where an amalgamation can take place as easily as this one can on geographical grounds, a police force of 30 people cannot be defended as an efficient unit.

As a matter of fact, the Police Post-War Committee have drawn up a report of post-war police organisation. That report recommends that the minimum size of the county division—not a county force—should be 40, and that the appropriate size for a normal county division should be 60 or more, so that this force represents about half of what is regarded as the normal size for a police division in a county. Indeed, at the time of the public inquiry there were only two county divisions in the whole of England and Wales having a strength of the size of the Rutland force, and only a dozen with a strength below 40. By the 1st February, these figures had been reduced to one under 30, and six under 40.

The criminal investigation department of a force has to be efficiently manned if the work of detecting crime is to be carried out. Any statistics with regard to a county of this size may be misleading, for each additional detection means an increase of 5 per cent. in the number of successful detections made during the year. In Rutland the criminal investigation department consists of one sergeant. He has 121 criminal record cards in his charge. In Leicestershire the criminal investigation department has a detective superintendent, eight detective sergeants and nine detective constables, with two civilians for clerical work. I want to emphasise that, because of what the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland and Stamford said about policemen being used on clerical work for this purpose. In Leicestershire, they have already gone far ahead of that in their organisation of the force.

Major Conant

Will the right hon. Gentleman add that there are also three officers who have gone through the Home Office course in detection, in addition to the sergeant?

Mr. Ede

I have no doubt that these are gentlemen looking for employment where promotion will come more rapidly than it will in Rutland, where, I think, the chief constable admitted at the inquiry that the next promotion would be due in 10 years' time.

In a large county area it is possible to use a force far more effectively than is possible in a small, circumscribed area like this. It is also possible to give the men opportunities for a greater width of experience than can be afforded in a smaller area. I have had commended to me the examples of Westmorland and Cumberland and of Huntingdonshire and the Isle of Ely. Let me say to the hon. Member for Westmorland that I am quite sure that his suggestion that the headquarters of the Rutland constabulary should be moved into Leicestershire, and that one chief constable should control the two separate forces, with his headquarters outside the county of Rutland, would not be satisfactory to Rutland, judging by the conversations I have had with them. Neither would it be satisfactory to Leicestershire, I think, if the headquarters of the Leicestershire constabulary, under the same chief constable, were moved to Oakham. I cannot believe that that would be satisfactory.

Major Conant

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but did I understand him to say that he consulted us about having a joint chief constable for Leicestershire? I have not heard about that; if he had done so, I am sure would have heard.

Mr. Ede

No, the whole of this problem has been discussed with the two police authorities. The first suggestion came forward when there was a vacancy for a chief constable in the county of Leicester, which seemed to me a good opportunity for carrying this through with the minimum of personal inconvenience. In the presence of the hon. and gallant Member I have had interviews with the members of the Rutland Standing Joint Committee, where it was accepted on both sides that on the matter of principle we were at variance. They submitted to me certain representations with regard to two or three matters which had not been included in the original Order. I think I am justified in saying that I met them on every one of those points. As far as the Order is concerned, if the decision of principle is favourable, the scheme that is now submitted is regarded—I will not put it any higher than this—as the least objectionable that could be framed.

The House has to make up its mind. I admit that there is everything to be said for paying attention to tradition and local sentiment, but voluntary amalgamations have been carried through in which issues far more difficult than this one have been settled. Kent and Canterbury agreed to amalgamate. Usually, it is said on these occasions, "Why interfere with the county when you have a county borough like Canterbury, with 24,000 people, who cannot be made amenable?" They have come in. Peterborough and the Soke have amalgamated. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. As a matter of fact that was a marvellous scheme, because I doubled the size of the police force in the Isles of Scilly and it cost them less than did a force half the size. They used to have one constable, and they now have two. County Durham, Darlington and West Hartlepool; Anglesey, Caernarvon and Merioneth—those schemes have been carried through voluntarily.

I ask the House to agree that we must expect from the police force such an organisation as shall enable modern conditions to be fully met. I cannot believe that a police force with only 29 men and one woman on its staff can, in these days of high specialisation, provide all the services that are necessary.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South)

I do not represent any part of Rutland, but I represent part of the county that has not so far spoken a word upon this subject and which borders upon that small county of Rutland.

It seemed to me, listening to this debate, that there are two questions which have to be considered. First, whether the correct procedure has been followed; second, whether the decision taken by the right hon. Gentleman is right on the merits. No one, so far as I am aware, has made any attack of any kind upon the right hon. Gentleman for the course that he has pursued. I did not understand my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had not acted strictly within what he had laid down.

No one suggested that the learned county court judge who presided over this inquiry had in any way behaved improperly. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of his being affable and said he was surprised at the attack made upon him. I do not think there was any attack made upon him in that sense whatsoever. I certainly do not want to make one, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it does sometimes occur that judges misdirect themselves in law and there is a Court of Appeal to put that right. What my hon. Friend the Member for Henley urged was that it was clear from the report of the learned county court judge that he had misdirected himself in law as to the basis upon which the inquiry was being held.

I am glad that the Attorney-General is here because I shall be interested indeed to hear his views—and no doubt he has been attending throughout the debate—on the principles which the county court judge enunciated at the beginning of the report. It is a matter of importance and principle, both with regard to this case and the future. The Police Act does not do more than say that where the authorities object to a scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman there shall be an inquiry. There is nothing further in the Act to give an indication—and I think the county court judge indicates that—of the manner in which that inquiry should be held. I am sure it was the intention of the House when the Act was passed that that inquiry should be an inquiry into the scheme, an impartial inquiry to see whether the scheme was well-founded and warranted and ought to be put into execution.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that when he used the word "umpire" he meant that there should be an impartial tribunal which would listen to the evidence and only recommend a scheme if satisfied that the scheme would promote efficiency. I think the right hon. Gentleman is with me so far, but when one looks at the report one sees quite clearly that that was not the basis which the county court judge applied. He said, quite clearly, that he approached it on the basis that it was not for him to be satisfied that the scheme was a good one but for the opponents to it to satisfy him it was bad—putting the onus of proof quite differently.

That being so, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that if that inquiry was not held in the way in which it should have been held, namely, that the person deciding should not report in favour unless he was satisfied that the scheme was a good one, then a very important element in the procedure set out by the Act has not been complied with. I must say that I had hoped that in his speech, when he dealt fully with other points, but not with this one, he would say what, in his view, was the principle which should be adopted by those presiding over these inquiries before there are any further inquiries under this Act. I am sure he would say, quite differently from the county court judge here, that a person presiding, before he reports in favour of a scheme, must be satisfied that that scheme is a good one. That is one respect in which the procedure here has not been correct.

I should like to say a few words about the small force. It is very easy to gibe at a small force. I am not suggesting the right hon. Gentleman did so, but it is very easy to say that a small force cannot be as efficient as a big one. But when one comes to consider the area concerned, it is arguable that efficiency will not, in fact, increase if this scheme goes through. The Home Secretary says that one cannot have specialist services on the spot with a force of this size, but surely, when this amalgamation takes place, the technical services will presumably be in Leicestershire. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Great North Road being nine miles in length, and to there being no traffic department; but, so far as I know, there is no greater amount of crime and no more traffic offences in that area than elsewhere. Indeed, it is far Safer to drive along the Great North Road at that point in Rutland, which we both know so well, than along Watling Street, which runs through my constituency.

The right hon. Gentleman also says that 30 policemen cannot be efficient, but that is contrary to the view of the county court judge for, at the bottom of page 17 of the report, he states: In my judgment, a small unit of public service, based upon and inspired and invigorated by a long and honourable tradition, should not, if efficient, be forcibly divested of its separate identity unless it be plainly shown that such a course is eminently desirable in the public interest. In that category stands the Rutland Police Force. For a full century it has existed as an individual entity. It is efficient, its officers are contented, and now suitably housed, and held in very high esteem by the people of the area which they serve. It is controlled by a chief constable of outstanding ability. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of that finding of the county court judge, the case for this amalgamation has not been made out, and that the decision with regard to it should not be prejudiced by the fact that the Home Secretary has multiplied policemen in the Isles of Scilly. The only words which the judge could find for his conclusion, having approached it, I think, from quite a wrong angle, is the smallness of the force and the slowness of promotion. These arguments are not, in my view, sufficient to justify this scheme.

11.39 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has pointed out, and the Home Secretary has confirmed it, that Huntingdonshire and the Isle of Ely share the same chief constable, and the Home Secretary, in his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Major Conant) rather dismissed the idea that Rutland and Leicestershire would be pleased to adopt the same procedure. I do not know whether, in fact, he has actually asked that question—whether they would like that procedure or not. It has worked extremely satisfactorily so far as Huntingdon and the Isle of Ely are concerned, and the Isle of Ely police force has not suffered one tittle so far as efficiency is concerned. It is a highly admirable force, as indeed, is the Huntingdon force.

The right hon. Gentleman made some play with the fact that he had asked the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils' Association to suggest some one to take the chair at this inquiry.

Mr. Ede

I did not say that. Each of these Associations suggested certain names for a panel from which I selected a name. These were two county forces, so the name I took was from the County Councils' panel.

Major Legge-Bourke

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his correction. If I were he, I should be a little shy of citing those two organisations in dealing with one of these two counties. There is a tendency to desire administrative tidiness. I believe that the best thing we could possibly have in this case—and the Home Secretary was arguing against it—is something a little bit anomalous. My feeling is that we are an anomalous nation and that we enjoy anomalies. We have made anomalies work extremely well. I shall always be one of those people who believe that local authorities should not be fixed to any one particular size; nor should police forces as far as that goes.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind this one vital factor so far as the police force is concerned. I think he will agree that the first requirement of a local police force, particularly in rural districts, is that all members of that force should have the confidence of the people with whom they are living and working. I believe that if one makes a police force too big and combines a great city like Leicester City—

Mr. Ede

Leicester City does not come into this.

Major Legge-Bourke

I am glad to hear that. I understood that the city and the county were already together. I am greatly relieved to hear that. If one unites an entire small area, which is very proud of its local traditions, with a great area, which is comparatively unknown, one will destroy the confidence, which is essential, of the local people in their police officers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford have said. I shall support the Prayer.

11.44 p.m.

Major Conant

The Home Secretary based his case upon the small size of the county of Rutland, but he said very little about efficiency. Smallness is not a crime; inefficiency may be. I do not think that he seriously called into question the efficiency of the Rutland police. Rutland is our smallest county and it is a very proud county for that reason. Feeling runs very deep on this matter of the amalgamation of the police force, because many people think it is but the first step to the disappearance of the county altogether. I do not think that this amalgamation will go smoothly. The right hon. Gentleman said that amalgamation had run smoothly in other cases and I hope it will in this case. I should hate to feel that anything I have said, or any action I might take, would make the junction of these two forces more difficult, and to that end, and in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read through what has been said during this debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.