HC Deb 16 June 1958 vol 589 cc826-52

10.9 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George (Carmarthen)

I beg to move, That the Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire Police (Amalgamation) Scheme, 1958, a Draft of which was laid before this House on 24th April, be not made. Before I go into the general merits of this amalgamation scheme between the two counties, I wish to say that we have two causes of complaint against the Home Secretary as to the manner in which the Scheme was brought into being. When the House considered the Police Act, 1946, an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), then Home Secretary, that before permitting a compulsory scheme the first step would be a conference in which the local authorities whose forces the Home Secretary desired to be amalgamated would be consulted. The purpose of that was that the Home Secretary should put before the local authorities concerned the reasons why he thought it necessary to have a combined police force for that area. It was a very admirable, very sensible and very democratic procedure, but it was not followed in this instance.

In fact, no consultations took place at all or were even suggested by the present Home Secretary. That was a breach of the undertaking which was given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. I believe that it is true to say that consultations took place in other amalgamations. They took place, for example, in the case of Mid-Wales and Gwynedd. I have no doubt that they took place in other instances outside Wales.

Not only were local authorities not consulted in this instance but the very first intimation which they received that an amalgamation was even contemplated was from the newspapers. I submit that that was adding insult to injury and that the manner in which the Home Secretary treated the authorities in this respect was very cavalier indeed, to say the least.

I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) will make it very clear that the proposed amalgamation is opposed not only by Carmarthenshire but also by Cardiganshire. It is in no sense a marriage of convenience. It is a union at the point of the pistol. I ask the Government to remember the song, "You can't get a man with a gun." This is not the best way to go about a scheme of amalgamation.

The Home Secretary says that this is being done in the interests of efficiency. With the permission of the House, I should like to examine that claim for a moment or two. First, is this area which he has chosen for amalgamation a workable one? Carmarthenshire has many qualities. I will not dilate upon them at the moment, but amongst many other qualities is the fact that it is the largest county in Wales, with a circumference of 160 miles. If Cardiganshire were added it would mean that the distance by road from the southern boundary to the northern boundary would be about ninety miles. To make matters worse, the bulk of the population in Carmarthenshire is at one extreme end, while the bulk of the population of Cardiganshire is at the other extreme end, in Aberystwith. It therefore seems to me that it is hardly a workable area.

The Home Secretary may say that there are other police areas as large or larger in other parts of the country, but there are few, if any, with such totally inadequate bus and train services as this area. I ask the House to realise that it takes an hour longer to get from Aberystwith to Llanelly than it takes to get from London to Cardiff. Moreover, it is not so uninterrupted a journey. I have counted twenty-five stops between Aberystwith and Llanelly. It is hardly what I would call an easily accessible area. Had the Home Secretary come to this area last winter when the roads were sometimes impassable, I think he never would have dreamed of bringing this Scheme before the House.

I maintain that conditions such as these are bound to impair the efficiency of the police force. The personnel will be spreadeagled over this vast area. That is not to speak of the difficulties facing the members of the Standing Joint Committee. If a member travels from Borth, in Cardiganshire, to Carmarthen-shire for a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee, he cannot make the return journey in one day, but will have to stay the night on the way.

When one considers efficiency, one cannot underestimate the all-important human aspect in this or in any other service. The views of the force on this amalgamation were taken, and out of about 150 men and women in the force, 146 were against it. Three were in favour. Those three came from Cardiganshire, and were attracted, no doubt, by the prospect of membership of one of the most efficient police forces in the kingdom. Three or four were new recruits who, perhaps, felt a little nervous about expressing their opinion.

No police force can be efficient unless its members are contented. Dissatisfaction is bound to have an effect on their efficiency and morale, and in the Carmarthenshire Police Force there are many reasons for dissatisfaction, for a sense of insecurity and of uneasiness, all caused by the Scheme contained in the Statutory Instrument now before the House.

Another point is this. Every member of the Carmarthenshire Police Force knew perfectly well, when he signed on, that he might be moved from one area to another in the county, but, under this amalgamation, he has no guarantee that he might not be sent to an area in which, on his original entry, he had no wish to work.

Another very important matter is the widows' and orphans' fund. By their own efforts, the members of the Carmarthen-shire constabulary have raised a widows' and orphans' fund which is worth about £30,000, and from which each widow receives 25s. a week. I think that the force is entitled to know what is to happen to that fund. Is it to be specifically earmarked for the men who belonged to what was the Carmarthenshire Police Force, or is it to be dissipated amongst the Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire forces? The police are also greatly concerned whether promotion will be on a county or on a force basis. All these matters have given rise, and will continue to give rise, to a great deal of dissatisfaction, of insecurity and uncertainty, none of which will contribute to the efficiency of the force.

On one thing there is complete unanimity, and that is on the efficiency of the Carmarthenshire Police Force itself. That was made abundantly clear at the recent inquiry, when Mr. Nelson, who conducted the inquiry, reported specifically that the Carntarthenshire Constabulary is a most efficient force, supported by an effective standing joint committee. That view was emphatically endorsed by the Home Office.

Not only are they a very fine body of men, but the force is very well equipped. It has specialised departments—a criminal department, a traffic department, training and welfare and photographic departments, and it has just had a large new police headquarters built at a cost of about £77,000. The housing conditions would, I think, compare extremely favourably with those of any other forces in any part of the country. It is, in fact, very proud of its housing record.

Another very important test of efficiency is the record for indictable offences cleared up, as compared with the number that became known to the police. I should like to give the figures from 1948 to 1956. Those figures vary from 81 per cent. to 76 per cent. Those are remarkable figures in themselves, but they are even more remarkable when one compares them with the figures for the rest of the country which show percentages in 1954 of 49 per cent. and in 1956 of 47 per cent., while Carmarthenshire shows a figure of 76 per cent. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is an impressive record and entitles them to say that they are a very efficient force.

The reward for this initiative and progress and these high standards is that their individuality is to be merged and they are to be made to pay through the nose for the amalgamation, because in the Scheme the Home Secretary—I was about to say "in his wisdom," but I think I should say "in his unwisdom"—has provided that the cost of the combined police authority is to be based on rateable values, which will mean increased costs to the County of Carmarthen. It will mean an increase of £2,750 on their present rate in 1958–59 and it will rise to £6,000 in 1960–61.

The hon. and learned Gentleman may say, "We need not worry unduly about that; there is to be a review in three years", but that review must of necessity be based largely on the same figures. I do not see how the Home Office can get away from that. Before that time the County of Carmarthen will have borne more than £13,000 in additional police costs, of which Cardiganshire is to be relieved. I understand that Cardigan does not complain about that. I am sure that the people there will not misunderstand me if I say that it is very much in character that they should not. The "Cardi" is the Aberdonian of Wales. But sitting as we do on the Carmarthen-shire side of the fence, we worry very much. We think it is extremely unfair that they should have to suffer this extra burden not because of inefficiency but because of the efficiency of the force.

This basis of assessment was not the only basis for which the Home Secretary could have opted. He could have made the allocation, as has been done in the case of Gwynedd and Mid-Wales, half on the basis of weighted population and half on rateable value. They would have been prepared to compromise on that basis.

Why was not the Home Office prepared to operate on that basis as it has done in other areas? If a county has got a special case for consideration, it is Carmarthen-shire, because it has the third highest rate in the whole of England and Wales. Therefore, Carmarthenshire has a special case. On grounds of equity and efficiency of the administration of the police force, not only in Carmarthen but in Cardigan as well, I hope the Home Secretary will think again and will think this time to better purpose.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen (Cardigan)

I beg to second the Motion.

With the exception of certain of her concluding remarks, I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is to reply for the Home Office. It is particularly appropriate that he should be given this task, because we have had only one debate on an amalgamation since the passing of the Police Act, 1946, and, on that occasion about seven years ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman valiantly championed the cause of little Rutland, which the Home Office then desired to have swallowed up by Leicestershire. In a few moments, I shall be citing some of the arguments he then used in his efforts to save Rutland from that fate.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was joined in his efforts by the present Attorney-General. I shall be referring to his arguments. I hope that, before the end of the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will come here to repeat the arguments he then advanced in favour of Rutland. I am pleased to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs in his place. I feel sure that, after what happened in Rutland, the right hon. Gentleman will not stand by without putting in a word in favour of the sentiments of two counties within his jurisdiction.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to the efficiency of the Carmarthen-shire Police Force. She was fully entitled to do so because, at the inquiry into the amalgamation conducted by Mr. Nelson, not a shadow of evidence was given at any stage to suggest that Carmarthenshire had other than a thoroughly efficient force. It is only right, in the circum-stances, that I should indicate to the House what evidence was given about the state of efficiency of the police force of the County of Cardigan. It would be a grave disservice to the members of that force if the impression went out that any reflections were made upon their honour or integrity. The chief witness called by the Home Office to deal with the question of the efficiency of the Cardiganshire force was Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Tarry. This morning, I re-read the evidence he gave at the inquiry. Mr. Tarry has carried out Her Majesty's inspections of this and the Carmarthenshire force since 1951. I say nothing about Carmarthenshire. The hon. Lady has dealt with Carmarthenshire adequately.

Her Majesty's Inspector has never made a single adverse report about the police force of the County of Cardigan. He admitted at the inquiry that its operational work had at all times been efficient, with no question whatever of a period when that was not so. The hon. Lady gave figures about the detection and prevention of crime. The position in relation to Cardiganshire in this respect is the same as it is in Carmarthenshire. Our figures for crime detection are substantially higher than the national average. Our figures for crime prevention are substantially higher than the national average.

It is sometimes suggested against small forces that they do not provide full opportunities for promotion within themselves. The figures for Cardiganshire show that promotion prospects are far better than the national average. That was a specific matter dealt with at the inquiry, and it was quite clearly elucidated that promotion prospects in Cardiganshire were well above the average to be found in the forces of this country.

Cardiganshire, in contrast to most forces, has had no difficulty in recruiting, and recruiting suitable members. Mr. Tarry agreed that training arrangements were satisfactory. I could go on in the same vein. All the evidence of Mr. Tarry relating to his inspection of this force throughout the period from 1951 to the time when he was giving his evidence was that this force was operating with complete efficiency.

In March, 1956, events occurred which led to inquiries, which undoubtedly ultimately led to the Home Office taking the action which it has taken. I shall not go into the circumstances which arose in March, 1956, other than to say this. The two inquiries—the Scott Henderson Inquiry and the Phillimore Inquiry which followed—were both inquiries which were requested by the police authority in the County of Cardigan; so that whatever came to light as a result of those inquiries, came to light as a result of inquiries requested by those responsible for police administration in the county.

Whatever may have happened in March, 1956, certainly did not relate to the behaviour of the rank and file of the police force, because it was conceded in both inquiries that the rank and file of the police in Cardiganshire had behaved in an impeccable manner. One thing, however, which was conceded at Mr. Nelson's inquiry relating to amalgamation was that whatever the position had been for a short period in 1956, by the time the inquiry was being held the state of the Cardiganshire force was, with one possible exception, to which I shall refer, perfectly efficient.

Let me indicate that by reading one question and the answer given at the inquiry. The witness who was then being examined was Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, who was being examined by counsel on behalf of Cardiganshire. He put to Mr. Tarry this question: May I take it that accordingly you are now of the view that Cardiganshire has, subject to the fact, which I will came to, that it has not yet a chief constable, resumed its former efficiency which you regarded as existing unbroken up until 1956? The answer to that question was "Yes"—that is to say, it had resumed its former efficiency which had existed unbroken up until 1956. The answer was: Yes. There is a very big 'if' about this, because of the vacancy of the chief constable. That is to say, at the time that this inquiry was held, the only allegation of inefficiency which Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary could make against the Cardiganshire police force was one which related to the appointment of a chief constable.

Of recent months, there have been troubles—I shall not refer to them—with chief constables in many parts of the country. No one can suggest that the troubles which have occurred with regard to chief constables have anything to do with the size of the force with which they have been concerned. There is nothing whatever to suggest that there is any greater likelihood of trouble with chief constables or the hierarchy in a police force in a small one as contrasted to a large police force.

I have indicated the views of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. The Home Office, at that inquiry, placed great reliance upon what Mr. Phillimore had had to say in his report, and particularly upon one of his phrases when he talked about the deficiencies being "ineradicable" in a small force. He went on in the same report to say that he did not doubt that "under a strong chief constable Cardiganshire could be efficient and may readily attain a corporate spirit which is perhaps less easily instilled into a larger force".

The whole basis of the evidence of the Inspector of Constabulary was that there would be difficulty in getting a chief constable for a force of this size. That is an absurd suggestion. The Inspector of Constabulary concerned was appointed a chief constable from the rank of inspector, and I refuse to believe that there are not inspectors and superintendents in the police forces of the country who are perfectly competent persons who would be prepared to take on the task of chief constable of a force of this kind. If the police forces of the country cannot produce one man of suitable experience to take over a force of this kind it is a very sad reflection upon them.

The Home Office referred at the inquiry to restoring confidence and discipline in the force. As one who lives within the county, I would say that there is certainly no question today of any necessity of restoring the discipline and confidence of the Cardiganshire Police Force, and if the Home Office makes any suggestion that there is not adequate discipline and confidence in the force at the moment, I should like it to indicate it. If there has been any suggestion during the last twelve months of lack of discipline or lack of confidence within the force, it behoves the Home Office spokesman to indicate what he has in mind in that respect.

The Home Office witnesses also referred at the inquiry to the need to restore the confidence of the public. The confidence of the public in the county in which the force operates had never been lost by the rank and file of the force and was quite unaffected by the complications which arose in March, 1956.

The noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen referred to the absence of any consultation or conference. I associate myself with what she had to say in that respect. The attitude of the Home Secretary in this regard is in marked contrast to the assurance given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he was Home Secretary and, perhaps even more important, contrary to his actions in relation to the amalgamations with which he was concerned. Before amalgamation took place—I am dealing only with the cases which were controversial in one form or another—in the case of Mid-Wales a conference was held, I believe in Mid-Wales.

With regard to Cheshire and Chester, there was a conference. What is particularly relevant is that when the then Home Secretary, in 1949, proposed the Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire and Pem-brokeshire amalgamation there was again a conference. When this amalgamation was proposed, the first that Carmarthen-shire knew about it and the first that Cardiganshire knew about it was what those authorities read in the daily newspapers.

I referred to Pembrokeshire. The attitude of the Home Office towards that county has certainly been somewhat peculiar. What I have to say about Pembrokeshire in this respect is my own personal view. At the inquiry conducted by Mr. Nelson, the Home Office said that amalgamation of the three counties was better than amalgamation of the two. While I am opposed to amalgamation, if amalgamation of Cardiganshire is inevitable, I would far sooner see amalgamation of the three counties than the amalgamation which is proposed.

The argument for leaving Pembrokeshire out of the amalgamation was very strange. It was that Pembrokeshire was opposed to it. It did not matter that Carmarthenshire was opposed to it. It did not matter that Cardiganshire was opposed to it. The Home Office paid deference to the view of Pembrokeshire and was prepared entirely to ignore the views of the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan.

If this amalgamation is forced on the two counties, it will be introduced in the most unfavourable climate. Both counties will enter it nursing a grievance. The hon. Lady has referred to the financial grievance of Carmarthenshire. That is not a grievance which I share. The remedy for that grievance is for the Scheme to be rescinded. If it is suggested that the Scheme will place a financial burden on Carmarthenshire, the remedy which Cardiganshire suggests is that the circumstances which will give rise to that maladjustment should not be allowed to occur.

I can advance a number of arguments to show why this financial arrangement is the right and proper one, if the amalgamation has to take place, but the Home Secretary has had Cardiganshire's views in this respect, and I shall not repeat them. If there is to be amalgamation, then I have no quarrel with the specific financial arrangements which are planned.

It is the normal arrangement and follows the lines of the other eight amalgamations which have taken place. It is the arrangement which has applied in five of the cases. That applied in two would place a greater financial burden on Carmarthenshire and in one case only would the arrangement produce a result which would be beneficial to Carmarthen-shire. This is the method which has been adopted for the amalgamation of fire brigades and is the normal one used for the amalgamation of local government services.

Here are two authorities, one substantially larger than the other, being forced against their will to amalgamate. What is happening in effect is that the larger is swallowing the smaller, and doing it against its will. Nothing is more unpleasant for the swallowed and the swallowed than the action of swallowing something which one does not want to swallow. That is the position, and Carmarthenshire will regard this amalgamation in that light—and I do not make any complaint about it.

Carmarthenshire has a satisfactory unit at the moment. It is the largest county in Wales and the set-up is perfectly satisfactory. Now it has to have added to it another very wide and extensive area which it will regard as an unwanted appendix, a complication to its communications with the added difficulty that it has a grudge in relation to the financial operations.

Cardiganshire will have six representatives out of 22 on the committee controlling the joint police force. I do not complain about the proportion, but the fact is that it will cease to have the slightest say in the control of the police force which operates in its area. It will hardly be worth while going near the meetings, which will take place outside its county, in Carmarthen. On a previous occasion the Under-Secretary used these words, and I pray them in aid in this debate. He quoted this passage in the debate on 20th February, 1951, in relation to the amalgamation of Leicestershire and Rutland Police Forces: The administrative control of the police of a district is an ancient democratic right. … That democratic right should not lightly be taken away. He went on to say: The local responsibility for police for the supervision of a county police force should not be separated from the general responsibility for local government."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1215–6.] If the Home Secretary has his way, this amalgamation will take place immediately before a review of local government and local government boundaries. If this amalgamation were part of a general operation to amalgamate a number of small forces in the country, it would be less open to objection, but there are in Scotland a large number of forces—at least a number of forces, "large" is not the word to use—which are substantially smaller than the Cardiganshire Police Force. I wish to refer to what the present Attorney-General had to say in that same debate. I am disappointed that he is not here to repeat his arguments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said: The only words which the judge could find for his conclusion.… That was the judge who carried out the inquiry and who was equivalent to Mr. Nelson— having approached it. I think, from quite a wrong angle, is the smallness of the force and the slowness of promotion". He went on to say: These arguments are not, in my view, sufficient to justify this scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1230.] Here we have a scheme which is opposed unanimously by the Standing Joint Committee of Cardiganshire, opposed by the police forces concerned and opposed by public sentiment. What is true of the County of Cardigan is equally true of the County of Carmarthen. I urge the Home Secretary to consider whether he should force on these two counties an amalgamation in which the prospects of healthy and wholesome co-operation are endangered by the existence of many difficulties.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas (Conway)

I wish to say a few words in support of this Scheme and to lend a somewhat different voice to the debate from the voices which have been raised so far.

In his conclusion the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said that the Scheme was contrary to the sentiments of the people and of the police force in Cardiganshire, and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) said that it was also contrary to the wishes of the people of Carmarthenshire. I would point out at the outset that when the efficiency of a police force is in issue, it is not solely the concern of the people in the area where the problem arises but is a matter of acute public interest. The public generally are extremely concerned about the efficiency of the police in all parts of the country. If, as sometimes happens, some inefficiency is shown in the administration of a force somewhere in the country, it is the police in Britain in whom the public confidence is lost.

I therefore submit to the House that the real test here is not what is felt by the people in Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire; it is, what is the existing standard of efficiency in the police force in Cardiganshire? We know the standard of efficiency in Carmarthenshire, and we should ask ourselves, if those two forces amalgamated, would the standard of efficiency over the combined area be raised? In my view it would.

We in Wales—and I speak from experience—have police forces which are comparable with any police force in Britain, and we are proud of that. I know that everyone here connected with Wales is anxious that that standard should be general. I think that if there were this amalgamation of the two forces, we should be on our way to making that standard of efficiency general.

I said that I speak from some experience, because I have had considerable contact with an amalgamated police force in Wales—that of Gwynedd, where three counties were amalgamated. I can personally testify to the fact that there has been great efficiency as a result of the amalgamation of those three counties. We have had another amalgamation in Wales—that in Mid-Wales, where Brecon, Radnor and Montgomeryshire were amalgamated against their will.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

A conference was held, presided over by myself when I was Home Secretary. It is true that of the three counties who came there, two were opposed to the amalgamation. We had a discussion during the morning. We adjourned for lunch, and after lunch I was assured that all three were in agreement with the Scheme, and no opposition was made to it thereafter.

Mr. Thomas

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience whereas I speak from hearsay in the matter. I thought that it was a compulsory amalgamation. If I am wrong, I apologise. I know that there was opposition to the amalgamation initially. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman's charm won round the opposition.

Perhaps I may now say just one or two things about the observations of the two speakers who have preceded me. The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen quite rightly said that Carmarthen had already in existence a most efficient police force. There is no doubt whatsoever about that—a most efficient police force, and a first-class chief constable, and a very good Standing Joint Committee. Nothing detrimental has ever been suggested, of course, against that force, but, in my submission, the Carmarthen people should think of this, not as a Carmarthen matter but as a police matter, and should ask themselves whether they, with their efficiency, could take in Cardiganshire, and whether the general overall effect would be increased efficiency. One knows that they have their own personal pride in their county and their own pride in this excellent force which has existed for so long, but I would suggest that in this matter they should subordinate their own feelings to the common good, because I think that common good will result from this amalgamation.

In that respect, I would pray in aid what was said at the inquiry by the Chief Constable of Carmarthenshire himself—although I cannot remember, of course, his exact words. He was called on behalf of the objectors, but admitted, in cross-examination, that, having regard to the size of Cardiganshire, manifest benefit in efficiency would result if the Cardiganshire force were amalgamated with that of Carmarthen. That is what was said by that chief constable, who, we all hope, will soon be the chief constable of the joint amalgamated area.

As to whether the amalgamated force would be workable, the hon. Lady herself knows the Gwynedd area. She will know, for instance, the distance from Aberdovey to the north of Anglesey. That is a distance far greater than the journey to which she referred—Aberyst-with to Llanelly—and probably a much more difficult one. Nevertheless, evidence was given at the inquiry by the Chief Constable of Gwynedd that the administration of the area was very effective, so I do not think that the hon. Lady, or other people from the County of Carmarthen, need worry as to the workability of this scheme. It is a far more workable one than Gwynedd, and the Chief Constable of Gwynedd testified to the excellence of the arrangements there.

The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has given the House extracts from the speech of—

Mr. Bowen

The evidence.

Mr. Thomas

I beg pardon—extracts from the evidence of Mr. Tarry, who was one of the witnesses at the inquiry. Mr. Tarry, the Inspector, Mr. Armstrong, another Inspector, Lieut.-Colonel Williams, Chief Constable of Gwynedd, and the Deputy Chief Constable of the Mid-Wales Constabulary, all experienced people, all testified from their own experience that it would be to the advantage of police efficiency in Cardiganshire if the force there were amalgamated with that of Carmarthen. Each one of them said that.

If I may say so, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman put his case extremely well for his county, but I did not feel that he was thinking from a very broad point of view but purely from his county's point of view. The position, as I see it, must really be considered alongside the history of Cardiganshire. I do not want to go into that at length, but let us remember that Cardiganshire has the smallest county police police in the whole of Britain—

Mr. Bowen

No.

Mr. Thomas

I am sorry—in England and Wales. In just over ten years, through its Standing Joint Committee, it brought disciplinary charges against two of its chief constables.

Mr. Ede

And proved them.

Mr. Thomas

A situation arose in 1946 which, I submit, could not have arisen in a force which was large and efficient. The situation was serious. It was, in fact, a deplorable one and public confidence in the police went down greatly as a result. There is no doubt that it would be extremely difficult for the force that exists in Cardiganshire today to emerge completely unscathed from the situation that obtained. It is important that police efficiency should be maintained, and the only possible way in which this can be done is by this Scheme going through and the two forces being amalgamated.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), and I would appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw this Scheme for three reasons. I will not argue about the principle of amalgamation being right or wrong. There are circumstances in which, in Wales—as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) rightly said—the amalgamation of police forces, resisted and feared at the beginning, has now been accepted, and looking back everyone says that it was to the advantage of the people and the police.

I wish to put three reasons to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Home Secretary to show why I believe they should withdraw this Scheme. The first is that the local authorities believe that the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when Home Secretary, has not been carried out, and that that is a breach of faith. The House assented to the Police Bill under which this amalgamation is to take place on the then Home Secretary's assurance that before a scheme for compulsory amalgamation was imposed upon a number of forces who objected to it, there would be consultation.

The second reason is that if there is to be an amalgamation of forces in this area of south-west Wales—and I would not reject that for a moment—let it be an amalgamation which is determined solely by considerations of efficiency, and arrived at after full consideration. If the Home Office were now actuated solely by the desire to get an efficient police force, is this the scheme they would put forward? We are entitled to an answer. If it is felt desirable that the police forces in the three adjoining counties of Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire be linked up for the purpose of efficiency, on grounds of principle I would not object, and that is what the Home Office themselves proposed. Why have they dropped it? Why did they do so at a time when circumstances favoured the amalgamation of the three—when the Chief Constable of Pembrokeshire had retired? At this very moment, the Home Office have given consent and approval to the appointment of a new Chief Constable for the Pembrokeshire Police Force.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was Home Secretary, he put forward a proposal for the amalgamation of the forces of the three counties. He had a consultation with them. I am afraid that the lunch provided in Carmarthen was not of the right quality, and the result was that the scheme was still objected to. My right hon. Friend carried out his pledge to have a conference, and the result of the conference was that the Home Secretary dropped the scheme. But that was the scheme to put forward. This Scheme is not determined by considerations of efficiency. If it were so determined I am sure the Home Secretary would agree that the original proposal was the one to adopt.

This is the wrong time to bring forward this Scheme. I am not entering into discussions about what went wrong in Cardiganshire. The circumstances in which it is proposed to amalgamate these forces are these. We are proposing to amalgamate these forces because something went wrong in Cardigan. It is the wrong time to do a thing of this kind—to begin with this joint police force in circumstances in which everybody says that one is a first-class police force and the other one is hitched on to it because something went wrong and it is not efficient. Those are not auspicious circumstances in which to start an amalgamation scheme. They are the worst possible circumstances in which to start a Scheme of this kind.

The Home Secretary will know that we have had discussions with him upon this matter. The suggestion was made to the Home Secretary, which I hope he will consider, to withdraw this Scheme without prejudice to its being reintroduced in a couple of years' time, in the course of which time the Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committee and Police Force will have had an opportunity of putting behind them the events of the past. Then let the matter be reconsidered, not in this atmosphere which is wrong and poisonous, when everybody says, "The reason why we are doing this is that the Cardiganshire Police Force had something wrong with it; the chief constable was condemned for some reason." That is amalgamation in the wrong spirit.

The Home Secretary will be well advised to withdraw this Scheme. The Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committees and both police forces are opposed to this Scheme. The local authorities are against it. If they were opposed to it for parochial reasons I would not support them. I support them because this Scheme will not make an efficient police force. I ask the Home Secretary to withdraw this Scheme and bring forward a considered scheme based on grounds of efficiency. Speaking for myself, I would not oppose it then. I oppose it now because from every standpoint it can only be forced, and I do not believe that in these matters force ought to be adopted.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I shall not stand long between the Joint Under-Secretary and the House, but my name has been mentioned on several occasions during this debate and, as the Home Secretary knows, I spoke to him about this matter when the cloud was no bigger than a man's hand, some time ago.

There is undoubtedly at the moment in this country grave disquiet about what has happened in some of the police forces and when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and previous Home Secretaries have been questioned about provincial forces, the proper answer is, "They are independent police authorities, over which I have very little control". Therefore, the efficiency of those forces must depend to a very large extent upon the courage—and I use that word advisedly—of the standing joint committees, watch committees and other authorities in dealing with suspected indiscipline and inefficiency inside a force.

Everyone knows—or at least everyone who has been a member of a standing joint committee, or a county council, or who has been a county justice—of the difficulties of dealing with the discipline of police forces. I know it, because I was a member of a standing joint committee for nearly thirty years. Now let us not forget that Cardiganshire had the courage—the courage—when accusations were made against the Chief Constable, to investigate them themselves and then to call in Mr. Scott Henderson and a superintendent of police from the West Riding of Yorkshire. They found that the action of the Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committee was correct and that the Chief Constable should be given the opportunity of resigning. This was communicated to the Home Secretary, who did not reverse the verdict, but reduced the penalty to a reprimand.

Now, I do not know how one reprimands a chief constable. We can reprimand a Minister, but for anyone who serves on a standing joint committee to be asked to reprimand a chief constable is something past my understanding. I say that a standing joint committee which has had the courage to do what Cardiganshire has done is one which ought to be congratulated and ought to be supported. I know of no grounds for suggesting that the public authority for the police in Cardiganshire has fallen down on its job. I am not so certain about the Lord Lieutenant, although I must not discuss him here. Neither do I understand why the person who accused the Chief Constable had his name, when it reached the top of the roll for High Sheriff, not pricked because he was told he was a controversial figure. If one is to do one's duty in public life, there must be occasions when one must be controversial and to be controversial on a standing joint committee is one of the highest tests of courage.

I regret, too, that this amalgamation is for two counties only, because when two counties as dissimilar in size as Cardiganshire from Carmarthenshire become associated, the association in the end must appear to be annexation. Three counties should be brought in, because with three one could so arrange representation by agreement that no one county could outvote the others. That is the reason for the success in Mid-Wales and in Gwynedd. Those three authorities have to meet jointly and cannot rely on one to rule the roost. There is no similarity here with the Rutland case. There the total was only 20 policemen and there was no chance of promotion for anyone for ten years at least, short of sudden death.

I do ask the Home Secretary to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and to withdraw this Scheme. Let him have a conference between the three counties in an effort to arrive at the most efficient arrangement.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have a great fondness and respect for the Welsh people. In this difficult and delicate matter, I know that my right hon. Friend has been most conscious of local pride and feelings in the two counties.

It may help if, first, I remind the House of the statutory background to the matter, because, although the circumstances surrounding this particular amalgamation have no precedent, it is, in fact, part of a process which has gone on since the right hon. Member for South Shields invited Parliament to pass the Police Act, 1946. Under that Act, there were three kinds of amalgamation—automatic, voluntary and compulsory. The automatic amalgamations were of all the non-county borough forces, which, immediately on the coming into operation of the Act on 1st April, 1947, merged with their neigh-bouring county forces.

That applied in every case except Cambridge and Peterborough. Voluntary amalgamations under Section 3 have led to six amalgamation schemes involving 14 forces, including the one referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), the amalgamation of Anglesey, Caernarvon and Merioneth in making the combined force of Gwynedd.

There are then the compulsory amalgamations, and of these there have been three before the present one. Those three schemes involved seven different forces, including the Mid-Wales force of Brecknockshire, Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire. Those amalgamations left Cardiganshire with the smallest force in England or Wales, less than 80 strong. In spite of the fact that it was the smallest force, until 1955 Cardiganshire constabulary was undoubtedly efficient within the limits of its size and resources, as Mr. Nelson found. In 1956 and 1957 came the unhappy circumstances involving not only the Chief Constable and several senior officers, but their relationship with certain members of the Standing Joint Committee. They, as the House knows, were the subject of several inquiries by experienced Queen's Counsel.

If I may say so, I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who moved and seconded the Prayer, did so in very temperate terms, hearing in mind the local feelings aroused. They refrained, and I wish to refrain, from rubbing salt into old wounds by referring in detail to any of the unhappy circumstances. Nevertheless, one must stress the findings of those inquiries which are relevant to the issue of amalgamation. Mr. Scott Henderson, in January, 1957, heard the disciplinary charges against the Chief Constable. He said that the question arose whether it was in the public interest that such a small police force should continue to function as a separate unit.

Mr. Phillimore, who was appointed soon afterwards to inquire into the administration and efficiency of the Cardiganshire constabulary and the state of discipline of the force, found that it was not functioning efficiently and that, in the light of the circumstances which had arisen and the personalities involved, the faults which he had found in this small force were ineradicable.

I will quote what he said at page 17 of his Report, his concluding words, because they are very forceful. This is relevant to the very point which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made about not doing anything now—about postponing action. He said: To leave mutters as they are today would be unfair to the bulk of the force, who have carried on loyally and efficiently throughout the period of about nine months during which their Chief Constable and consequently the whole force has been the subject of criticism. It would also be unfair to the public, whose confidence in their police force has inevitably and rightly been seriously affected. Those findings necessarily compelled my right hon. Friend to consider what should be done.

Let me concede at once that if no trouble had arisen with regard to Cardiganshire or its Standing Joint Committee, the question of amalgamation might never have arisen. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan paid me the rare compliment of quoting something which I said in this House seven years ago, when the Rutland-Leicestershire amalgamation was afoot. The answer to the hon. and learned Member, however, is that nothing had ever happened in Rutland, or, so far as I know, in any of the other small forces, comparable with what happened, alas, in Cardigan, but that if any such events had occurred in Rutland or in any of those small forces, the Home Secretary of the day and the House would at once have been put on inquiry what to do, in just the same way as my right hon. Friend was put on inquiry.

Mr. Bowen rose—

Mr. Renton

I have a lot of ground to cover to answer all these points by half-past eleven, but I will do my best.

Therefore, I say that in the face of these reports something had to be done. What was done? The first step was that my right hon. Friend asked the Standing Joint Committee of Cardigan to consider some form of voluntary amalgamation with a neighbouring county; but the Committee unanimously declined to do so. This left my right hon. Friend with no option but to consider a compulsory amalgamation. Both geographically and to get the best helping hand available, Carmarthenshire seemed to be the obvious choice.

It has been suggested that Pembrokeshire should have been brought in as well. Indeed, the right hon. Member—

Mr. J. Griffiths

It was the Home Office who suggested that Pembrokeshire should be brought in.

Mr. Renton

That is perfectly true; and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), having considered the suggestion, did not pursue it.

The point with which we are faced tonight is whether the addition of Pembrokeshire was necessary to secure the efficiency of the proposed, or a proposed, combined authority. Mr. Nelson found that a combined authority consisting of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire would be efficient and we accept his findings. I shall have more to say about that presently.

My right hon. Friend having informed both counties of his proposal to form such a combined authority, then appointed Mr. Nelson in accordance with statute, to hold a local inquiry. It has been suggested by several speakers this evening that there was a breach of an undertaking given by the right hon. Member for South Shields on the Report stage of the Police Bill, in that no conference was held before amalgamation.

We should remind ourselves of the words of that undertaking. I have the exact words with me. It is a fairly lengthy quotation and I will faithfully paraphrase it. The words can always be checked afterwards. That undertaking was that before promoting a compulsory scheme if a voluntary scheme was not submitted, the first step—I emphasise "the first step"—would be to hold a conference with the police authorities of the forces which the Secretary of State might desire to amalgamate, to put before them his reasons for setting up a joint police force. It is a fact that no such conference was held in this case. As I shall show, there were special reasons which justified my right hon. Friend in not holding one.

I agree that the letter of the undertaking of the right hon. Member for South Shields was not complied with, but I do not agree that there was any breach of the spirit of it. In fact, my right hon. Friend did very much the same as the right hon. Member for South Shields did in the Leicestershire and Rutland case, when the right hon. Member certainly did not comply with the letter of his own undertaking.

There was no conference with the two police authorities when that compulsory scheme was prepared and put forward in 1949, and no meeting was proposed before the right hon. Gentleman decided to give formal notice to the authorities of his intention to proceed. When he sent formal notice to the authorities of the scheme which he proposed, they were invited to offer any comments or suggestions on the scheme and were told that the Secretary of State would be prepared to discuss any such comments and suggestions; but the authorities did not avail themselves of this opportunity for a meeting. I mention that only because it has been said that there was a conference in the Rutland case, whereas there was not.

What happened in this case? The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen said that there was no conference even suggested. If she will turn to page 9 of Mr. Nelson's Report, to the last sentence in paragraph 13, where a Home Office letter of 3rd July, 1957, is quoted, she will find these words: In order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether any useful purpose would be served by discussion of the question of amalgamation it would be helpful if you would furnish him in the first instance with a brief statement of the points which they wish to raise. I would have wished, to answer this quite fully and fairly, to make various other quotations from the correspondence on pages 8 to 10 inclusive of Mr. Nelson's Report, but I am prepared to leave it to the House. Hon. Gentlemen who have interested themselves in this matter will know—

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

On a point of order.

Mr. Renton

May I finish the sentence? I leave it to the House to consider, on the basis of that correspondence and the circumstances of this case, whether any such consultation was likely to serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Callaghan

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Under-Secretary has very properly said that he has more quotations which he is not able to read because of the shortness of time. There are other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. As the debate has been proceeding for less than an hour and a half, and it is an important matter and we are complaining of being rushed, may I ask whether you would be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to use your powers under Standing Order No. 95A (2), which says that if Mr. Speaker considers that a question is of importance because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion … he shall interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting …"? Would you be prepared to do that, as some of us have important questions to ask about the future of the police officers themselves who will be concerned in this amalgamation and about whom nothing has been said by the Joint Under-Secretary in his reply?

Mr. Speaker

My view is that this is a matter on which I should put the Question at half-past eleven. As regards the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I think he could properly elicit the information that he wants by question and answer in the usual way.

Mr. Renton

The final inquiry into the proposed amalgamation scheme was carried out by Mr. Nelson, and he heard evidence from both counties and recommended that amalgamation should take place in accordance with the draft Scheme. He found that the Cardiganshire force had not been restored to full efficiency—this is the answer to the question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the conditions in the force in the last twelve months—and, after giving due weight to local pride and historical and other considerations, he found that these considerations did not outweigh the need for amalgamation.

As to the question of the feelings in Carmarthenshire, I should tell the noble Lady, particularly on the question of cost, that if one compares the police expenditure of the two counties over the last ten years it will be found that it is in the proportion of 75 per cent. to 25 per cent., and that that approximates very nearly to the rateable values on which it is proposed to divide the expenditure in future, because the rateable values are also approximately 75 per cent. to 25 per cent.

As I now have to conclude, I would just say this. The question is whether it is in the public interest that in this small county we should let things drift and hope for the best, or whether we should take the advice given as a result of three impartial and careful inquiries and join that police force with a larger and more efficient one. I ask the House to endorse the view and the findings of Mr. Nelson and the decision of my right hon. Friend because I feel that it will be realised that it is in the interests of Wales.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 123.

Division No. 153.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Awbery, S. S. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Bonham Carter, Mark Grimond, J. Ross, William
Brockway, A. F. Howell, Denis (All Saints) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Callaghan, L. J. Hubbard, T. F. Stonehouse, John
Diamond, John Johnson, James (Rugby) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Donnelly, D. L. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Wade, D. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. MacDermot, Niall Watkins, T. E.
Fernyhough, E. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wilkins, W. A.
Foot, D. M. Mitchison, G. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Pearson, A. Lady Megan Lloyd George and
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Probert, A. R. Mr. Bowen.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Glyn, Col. Richard H. Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Aitken, W. T. Goodhart, Philip Oakshott, H. D.
Arbuthnot, John Gower, H. R. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Armstrong, C. W. Grant, W. (Woodside) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ashton, H. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Page, R. G.
Atkins, H. E. Green, A. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Barlow, Sir John Gresham Cooke, R. Partridge, E.
Barter, John Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Peel, W. J.
Batsford, B. C. C. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Pitman, I. J.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Powell, J. Enoch
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bidgood, J. C. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Profumo, J. D.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Ramsden, J. E.
Bingham, R. M. Hirst, Geoffrey Rawlinson, Peter
Bishop, F. P. Holland-Martin, C. J. Redmayne, M.
Body, R. F. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Renton, D. L. M.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Ridsdale, J. E.
Braine, B. R. Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Roper, Sir Harold
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hurd, A. R. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Brooman-White, R. C. Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Bryan, P. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Studholme, Sir Henry
Chichester-Clark, R. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Summers, Sir Spencer
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Kaberry, D. Temple, John M.
Cooke, Robert Kerr, Sir Hamilton Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Kershaw, J. A. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Leavey, J. A. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Vickers, Miss Joan
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Currie, G. B. H. Linstead, Sir H. N. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Wall, Patrick
Deedes, W. F. Longden, Gilbert Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
du Cann, E. D. L. Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Webster, D. W. E.
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Markham, Major Sir Frank Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Farey-Jones, F. W. Mathew, R. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Finlay, Graeme Mawby, R. L. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fisher, Nigel Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Woollam, John Victor
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gammans, Lady Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Mr. Edward Wakefield and
George, J. C. (Pollok) Nairn, D. L. S. Mr. Gibson-Watt.