POLICE

HC Deb 20 February 1959 vol 600 cc755-78

2.41 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates on the police in England and Wales; welcomes the observations and further observations of the Home Secretary thereon; expresses gratitude to all ranks of the police forces for their loyal and devoted service; and expresses the hope that further consideration will be given to questions affecting recruiting and training for the several ranks in the police service and for the police cadets, the pooling of ancillary services between police and local authorities and the review of establishments. I think I should explain the reasons why I thought it advantageous to select this subject for debate. I hope that nobody will say, with the lady who was told by the police officer that her husband was wanted, that there is no accounting for taste.

The position of the police in this country is of great importance. Upon their independence, efficiency and loyalty depends to a large extent our free and ordered society, and, if properly used, they can prevent us from falling, on the one side, into a state of lawlessness and disorder and, on the other, into a dictatorship or police State such as we have seen too frequently in parts of Europe in the last half century.

It was interesting to observe that in proceedings which are taking place in Ghana at present the defendants were anxious to establish that they had done nothing to subvert the loyalty of the police. It is a fact that anybody who endeavours to overturn any constitution or State must in so doing obtain control of the police for his purposes.

The second reason why it seemed to me advantageous to discuss this matter today is that this is the first occasion that I believe the Select Committee on Estimates has ever considered the question of the financial background and cost of the police services in this country. I am sure it is right that this House should have the chance of discussing the careful and stimulating Report of the Select Committee and the very helpful replies from the Minister. This is linked with one of the great problems facing us today—the increase in crime, which is such a problem for everybody. In the debate on the Gracious Speech a day was devoted to the subject of crime, but it was largely occupied with a discussion of the treatment of offenders and the institutions and methods by which they could be treated. My right hon. Friend has since made a number of announcements, which are generally welcome, about what he proposes to do in that direction.

Just as important in solving the problem of crime is the question of the prevention and detection of crime. In that respect the prime, if not the only, instrument consists of the police forces of this country. However desirable and necessary those forces are, they are nevertheless a very expensive instrument indeed. In addition, this is a wholly unproductive instrument which adds nothing whatever to the wealth or prosperity of this country. At any rate, in 1956–57 the estimates for the police amounted to £82½ million of public money. That was the total gross estimated expenditure on the police forces. That averages out at just over £1,200 per head for each police officer in uniform, including all ranks up to chief constable.

While it includes expenditure on clothing, pensions, vehicle maintenance, administration and housing, all those items of cost are only intended to support the officer who is performing his duty. Police forces are wholly ineffective except in so far as there are officers in uniform engaged upon the detection and prevention of crime.

What is rather depressing is the fact that during the course of the last 100 years the number of police in proportion to the population—in other words, the density—has had to be almost doubled. In the years 1857 to 1861 there was one police officer for every 1,000 inhabitants, whereas in 1957 there was one officer for every 570 inhabitants. This means that we have had to have this enormous increase in the number of police and, therefore, in their total cost.

If we could be a little more honest, a little less violent and less lustful, and if we could have a slightly greater sense of the difference between right and wrong, we could save ourselves millions alone on police forces, apart from the saving which could be effected in the administration of the criminal law, in the reduction of our penal establishments and of our probation services, and, of course, in the loss caused to the community by the amount of crime which is committed.

This Motion is not in any sense intended to be a critical Motion upon either the police authorities or those who are serving in the police forces. Indeed, it is quite the reverse. It was Demosthenes, who is not nowadays much quoted in this House, who said: It is in the nature of man to be pleased with abuse and accusation and in the same manner to be mortified by hearing praise. I do not have the advantage in this debate of adopting the more gratifying course, and I can only hope that the police officers in this country will not be mortified by hearing the praises which I am suggesting this House should bestow upon them.

We still have the finest police force in the world, but that is not to say that within it there are not certain officers who let it down from time to time. They are the ones who receive all the publicity. Even the best families usually have black sheep within their ranks. I do not pretend that there are no officers who are over-zealous and who, in trying to secure convictions, tend on occasions to overstep the limits both of fairness and honesty. Generally speaking, however, I should think that the ranks of our police forces are filled with loyal, zealous and efficient officers, who on many occasions perform acts of great gallantry and are of the greatest assistance to the ordinary people.

It was for those reasons that I was glad to note that in paragraph 68 of this Report the Select Committee said that it was in no doubt of the zeal and high morale of the police forces generally, nor of their successes in maintaining law and order. The Motion suggests that we should express our gratitude to all ranks in the police forces for their loyal and devoted service, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to join in the expression of that opinion.

I now come to some individual points in the Report, which are almost as numerous as the number of points on a hawthorn bush. They are so numerous that one hardly knows where to begin to seize them. As time is so short, and since other hon. Members desire to speak, I shall confine myself to those points which are concerned with establishment, amalgamations, the system of control, and training for the higher ranks.

The establishments, covering wages and pensions of police officers, account for the highest proportion of the total cost of our police forces. The Select Committee has pointed out that in recent years there has been a steady increase in the numbers authorised by the police establishments, and that since 1938 the total of authorised establishments in England and Wales has risen from 61,600 to over 77,000 officers, while, at the same time, there has been an increasing employment of civilians outside the authorised establishment, which has added to the cost of the police services.

The Select Committee also points out that there are considerable variations between local forces in the establishment per head of population and the density employed, and suggests that we should consider whether there should not be greater uniformity in the various amounts spent on police forces. It recommends that there should be regular and uniform reviews of establishment, and that quinquennial reviews might be made upon the basis of the inspectorate's report. In his first reply my right hon. Friend did not accept that the establishments were inflated, or that they should be uniform, but in his second reply, in November last year, he said that he was giving continuing study to this subject, and also to the question whether there should be any change in the methods for reviewing local police establishments.

I would ask him whether it has been decided to give any guidance to local police authorities and chief constables as to the basis upon which their establishments should be estimated and drawn up. In particular, has any advice been given to chief constables to the effect that it is more important to have an economical and efficient force for local circumstances than to aim at having the perfect force, because it is the duty of local police authorities and chief constables to see that they are being not only efficient but economical both in manpower and in money?

Secondly, does my hon. and learned Friend estimate that in the immediate future there is likely to be pressure upon local police authorities for increases in local police establishments? Will the trend continue in the future as it has done since 1938, or may we expect to see a stabilisation of the number of police employed? Thirdly, if he foresees that there is likely to be pressure for increases in these establishments, what attitude will he and his right hon. Friend take in that regard? Fourthly, has my right hon. Friend had any further thoughts as to the guidance to be given on the question of the uniformity of police establishment as between various local authorities, or does he adhere to the view originally expressed, that this matter is largely one for individual local police authorities?

I now turn to the question of amalgamations. The Select Committee said that it thought that the powers for compulsory amalgamation given by the Police Act of 1946 to my right hon. Friend had not been sufficiently used. I very much welcome the reply made by my right hon. Friend, that he did not think that there was much economy to be derived from such amalgamations. Many county borough police forces which still have establishments of between 150 and 200 men are surrounded by county police forces with establishments of between 400 and 600 men, and at first sight it might appear advantageous to amalgamate those adjacent forces. Examples of this situation occur in Ipswich, Northampton, Norwich, Oxford, Reading, and York. I think that my right hon. Friend was right, however, in saying that the economy to be derived from such amalgamations is negligible; indeed, in Rutland, with which I have some connections, the effect upon the local ratepayers has not been very satisfactory. The result of amalgamation there has been to spread the higher costs of the Leicester County Constabulary over the ratepayers in the County of Rutland.

A borough with a force of between 150 and 200 men has to have that force on the ground, and the only economy which can be effected is by the substitution of a superintendent in charge for a chief constable, which saves only about £400 a year, and that is done at the cost of destroying local loyalties and the excellent esprit de corpsof some of the small borough forces. These forces have a remarkable spirit, which it would be a pity to destroy unless there were the strongest possible grounds for doing so. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think of using his compulsory powers for amalgamations other than in the most exceptional cases.

There is the further point that the difference between the duties of a borough police officer and of a country police officer are very different. A country police officer is probably on his own in charge of three or four villages in a country area, whereas a borough police officer is on beat duty in the town. There is great advantage to the officer of the borough force to be intimately acquainted with the streets and population where his duty takes him, and there would not be much advantage to be obtained by transfers between officers serving in country and town districts.

The third point which I desire to raise concerns the difference in the system of control for police forces as between counties, county boroughs and cities. I am sure that one of the vital things about our organisation of the police forces at present is that it does secure to a large extent the political independence of the police forces, which is essential. There are 126 separate and individual police authorities throughout England and Wales. It would be impossible for any person to subvert all of those in an attempt to obtain control of the State.

I think that it is worth drawing the attention of the House to the difference in control locally as set out in the opening paragraphs of the Report of the Select Committee. In counties, the police authority is the standing joint committee. That consists half of representatives of the local authority elected thereto by the local council and half of justices of the peace appointed thereto by quarter sessions. The standing joint committee has authority to requisition from the local authority the money which it requires for running the police authority and for organising the police.

In a county, a chief constable appoints constables, promotes officers within his force and is responsible for the discipline of his force. In cities and boroughs, the system is very different. One has the watch committee, all members of which are members of the local authority and appointed by the local authority, and the whole of the financial requirements of the police are subject to the decisions of the finance committee of the whole council. In addition, a chief constable in a borough or city has no power to appoint constables, effect promotions within his force, and has not the ultimate responsibility for the discipline of his force, because all those matters are within the authority and jurisdiction of the watch committee.

That divergence in the system of control arises purely from historical reasons and the development of the police forces within those two different types of local authority. There is no doubt that at present each is working well and there have not been recently any difficulties. Of course, provided one gets, as one hopes one always will, people of good will on local authorities, it probably does not make very much difference which of the two systems is employed. Nevertheless, one must look at the other side of t he picture and realise that there can be occasions in times of stress and difficulty when one or other of its two systems may prove to be the better.

I should like to remind the House of what happened in St. Helens in 1928. There was a serious dispute within the borough between the watch committee and the chief constable which broke into open warfare. It began because the chief constable, in the first place, prosecuted an alderman for intimidation and, subsequently, for perjury. Then there was trouble during the General Strike, when the watch committee endeavoured to take control of the disposition of the police force. The meetings of the watch committee became so disorderly that the members of it almost came to blows, and even at the disciplinary meetings, when a constable was supposed to be before his chief authority, there were scenes of complete chaos and confusion between the members of the watch committee.

All that led to the setting up of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, which reported on these events. The tribunal expressed doubt about whether a chief constable of a borough should be at the mercy of a temporary majority of any one party on a watch committee either as to discipline or as to his own tenure of office. While it is true that the events to which I have referred are not in the least typical, they could happen again. I have been unable to find that any con- sideration has been given to the report of that tribunal, or to whether, for the sole purpose of retaining the independence of police from any party or person, it would be better to adopt the standing joint committee system rather than that of a watch committee.

Under the standing joint committee system, the local authority pays only half the cost of the police authority and, therefore, half representation seems fair enough. After all, justices have interests in common with police activities. The whole purpose of a police force is to bring law-breakers before the magistrates, and the magistrates are able to judge whether the police are carrying out that duty effectively. The police are not merely servants of a local authority, they have wider duties connected with law and order in the country, and the justices represent law and order. I do not wish to be dogmatic on this point, I am merely expressing an opinion. I wish only to raise the subject and to ask whether it has been considered, or whether any consideration is to be devoted to it

Regarding the training necessary to qualify a man to hold one of the higher ranks in the police service, the Select Committee notes that the presumptions of the 1947 Committee have not been borne out. The police training college, which we set up after the 1947 Report was issued, has double the number of staff which was originally estimated, and now costs treble the amount originally calculated. But it is still unable to provide instruction for men who might be suitable for promotion either to inspector or, subsequently, to chief constable. I wish to know whether my hon. and learned Friend is satisfied with the present arrangements regarding training for the higher police ranks and with the material likely to be available in future from which chief constables may be selected.

It was pointed out in the 1947 Report that an ordinary police career does not, by itself, make a man fit to hold a higher rank, or even some of the intermediate ranks. Long service in a subordinate capacity, such as that of a police constable on the beat, may impair those powers of leadership and judgment which it is necessary to exercise in performing duties carried out by those in the higher ranks of the service. That is common sense One would not expect to recruit for the higher ranks of the Civil Service from those who have spent long periods in clerical or lower grades, because different qualities are required for the different duties. In 1947 a number of the members of the Committee urged that men of outstanding ability should receive a special police education at a younger age than the normal age. This would enable them to be promoted to a higher rank at an earlier age than is now possible, while at the same time, of course, maintaining a shorter course for those who had risen normally through the ranks of the police service.

The last thing one wants to do is to prevent in any way or to make any suggestion that one is endeavouring to prevent a police officer who is suitable for promotion from reaching the highest possible rank, but the question is whether that system by itself will be sufficient to produce the chief constables and senior officers of the force in the future.

The Dixon Committee in 1930, it should be remembered, reported unanimously on the recommendations which led to the setting up of the Hendon Police College, and I believe it is the fact that at present 50 per cent, of the chief constables were trained at Hendon Police College in the years before the war. We had some seven or eight years' experience before the war of the working of the Hendon Police College system, and we have had some eight or nine years since the war when we have done without that system.

I think that this is the moment at which it is right to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has come to any conclusions now on what should be the source from which chief constables and other high ranking officers of the police should be sought in the future. The 1947 Committee said it was not dogmatic at all upon its conclusions. It did itself recommend that this question should be reviewed later in the light of experience, and I suggest that the time has now come when this question ought to be reviewed, because we have the experience of two periods in which two different systems have worked.

Time is short. I have many other subjects I should have liked to have raised, but I feel that I must make way for my hon. Friends. I am afraid I have raised a large number of points. I hope I have done so in a spirit of helpfulness only. We all do desire that our police forces should remain the best in the world, and the only purpose I have had in mind today is that we should help to raise the policemen of this country from their state of Gilbertian unhappiness to one of economic efficiency which is suitable for the needs of today.

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I beg to second the Motion.

I am sure that all of us are very pleased that when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) was lucky in the Ballot he should have chosen to move a Motion on this very interesting subject. I would also congratulate him upon drafting his Motion so widely that those of us who follow may not err by wandering into distant and separated fields and fall under your police correction, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start by saying a few general words of praise for our police forces. I think it is very necessary to do that because so very frequently the police forces attract the attention of this House or of the public only when something goes wrong or some black sheep brings temporary discredit on his colleagues. I would remind the House and the country of the other side of the picture, which is that we do have a large body of disciplined, trained and unarmed men—and, incidentally, women, too—who help to maintain order and who bring to book a large number of criminals, major and minor. I am sure that every hon. Member of this House and everybody in the country will agree with what I have said, unless, of course, he be one of those persons who either by choice or training has adopted a life of crime.

The fact that our police are unarmed always causes astonishment to foreign visitors. Many a time has one or another said to me, when he has seen our police walking about, very often singly, always totally unarmed except for that not very dangerous weapon, the truncheon, "If that happened in my country, they would not last very long". Just as old soldiers never die but simply fade away, so old policemen never die. They simply live on a pension and get another job as well—and very good luck to them.

Fortunately, in this country, generally speaking, we are free of serious disorders and disturbances. When they occur, or when large numbers of people have to be controlled, either at some demonstration or at a football match, the training of our mounted police is well demonstrated. They deal with occasions like that with tact and, if necessary, with firmness and they save the employment of large numbers of foot police who otherwise might have difficulty in maintaining order.

I cannot deal with the whole of this somewhat lengthy Report. If I were tempted to do so I should be speaking not only at four o'clock but endeavouring to speak for half the night as well. I would add only a few words so that my hon. Friends and the occupants of both Front Benches may be able to take part in the debate. A review of establishments is necessary, because undoubtedly some forces are under strength and in some cases there is a high degree of wastage. Local demands vary, of course, and wastage must be looked at more closely. In this connection one is tempted to ask whether housing facilities are right, or whether, when he gets married, a police constable's wife thinks he can get a better house in civilian life, and whether the police house offered to her is attractive enough. Does the shortage of staff in some cases result from the excessively long hours of duty? I do not know. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will deal with these points when he replies.

Are canteen and messing arrangements at stations adequate? Are meals reasonable in price and in quantity? Paragraph 61 in page xviiiof the Select Committee's Report states: The provision of canteens is not uniform throughout the police service. Canteens are most needed in the larger urban forces where men are less likely to be able to return home for meals or snacks during their tour of duty. Paragraph 62 refers to the cost of running canteens of that kind when hours are irregular. Those who are interested in the subject should come here and talk to the Kitchen Committee, because with our hours very irregular and our numbers even more so, that Committee has turned a previous large loss into a small profit.

When the force is adequate and reasonable in number, are the allocations of duty quite correct? Are young and active policemen put upon routine duties which could easily be carried out by other people? One of the greatest assets and one of the greatest problems for the police is the modern motor car. Cars enable the police force to cover large areas in town or country with a very much smaller number of policemen than would be required if the duty had to be done on foot or on horse-back. It must be remembered, however, that the same facility is given to the criminal, who generally has a wide choice of vehicles because he chooses what he fancies from those which belong to other people.

Does the wastage of manpower occur in the enforcement of very minor regulations? Since the habit has grown up in London and in other towns of using the public streets as private garages, very difficult problems have arisen. Most of our main streets are reduced to one lane of traffic in each direction, and one is lucky if even that is not obstructed as well. Many side-streets are completely blocked. Fortunately, the practice of having a policeman waiting by a car and subsequently having to appear in court has been much simplified by recent legislation, but could we not release our more active policemen from this very necessary but somewhat onerous duty of dealing with parked cars?

In cities in the United States I have frequently seen employees of the city council or police force dealing with this nuisance of cars parked on the public streets. I have in mind one elderly man who went round on a motor bicycle, though I am not suggesting we should copy the practice as closely as that. These people place a ticket on the car and a fine has to be paid, or if objection is taken, a summons is issued. Would not this suggestion release fit and active young police officers for other and more onerous duties? At one and the same time this would enable us to deal effectively with a great nuisance and with potentially dangerous criminals. This work could be handled by retired police officers, or other elderly men of good character, the streets could be used for the purposes for which they were intended, and the movement of public and private transport would be speeded.

We are all delighted to learn from the Report that our police forces are in a sound state. I hope they will long continue to enjoy the confidence of the public.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. William Wells (Walsall, North)

On this side of the House we welcome the action taken by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) when he was fortunate in the Ballot and selected this skilfully drawn Motion as a topic for debate. He follows in a tradition which has asserted itself with some frequency during past months.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said there was a tendency to discuss police questions only when there was doubt, disquiet or anxiety or, as he put it, when some black sheep had drawn attention of an invidious kind to some aspect of police activity. Yet it would be wrong to attempt to conceal in any way the fact that in recent months there has been both a great deal of interest, which is good, and a certain amount of disquiet, which is bad, over a number of questions of police organisation and police activity.

On 25th April, 1958, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) sought to have discussed a Motion for inquiry into the personal powers, capacities and previous training which influence the selection and appointment of chief constables, and Mr. Speaker ruled the Motion out of order, on the ground of the limited responsibility of the Home Office for the police outside London.

The reasons which Mr. Speaker gave for ruling that Motion out of order accord with both the traditions of this House and the conventional relationship between the Home Office and the police, but none the less the Ruling, however well it accords with those traditions, is difficult to reconcile with the decision of the courts that police officers are servants of the State. There must in this matter be a conflict between constitutional conventions and judicial rulings, like those made by judges of such authority as Lord Blackburn and Mr. Justice McCardie. One day this conflict must be resolved one way or the other.

Just over two months ago there was a debate in another place on a Motion by Lord Winterton, who is so well known to those of us who were in this House some years ago, calling attention to the need for the appointment of a committee to inquire whether the statutory control of certain local authorities over provincial police forces is being properly exercised, whether the powers of the Home Office Inspector of Constabulary need to be strengthened and whether in the interests of efficiency it is desirable to amalgamate some of the smaller police forces with larger forces.

This call for an inquiry was supported by the Economist—a journal no doubt dear to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite because it supports them in their policy of creating unemployment—in its issue of 20th September last. In recent months there has been a considerable body of opinion which has been seeking to ventilate here and in another place important questions affecting the organisation of the police, and the Motions which have been debated, or have been sought to be debated, in the two Houses have attracted outside responsible support for a further inquiry into police questions.

Coming to the Motion before us, we on this side of the House would certainly associate ourselves with the hon. and learned Gentleman's expression of: …gratitude to all ranks of the police forces for their loyal and devoted service". We certainly should not quarrel with: …the hope that further consideration will be given to questions affecting recruiting and training for the several ranks in the police service and for the police cadets, the pooling of ancillary services between police and local authorities and the review of establishments. It may be that in other respects the Motion might have been differently phrased if it had come from this side of the House.

The main subject-matter of the Motion is to draw attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. It is important to recall in that connection that the subjects which the Select Committee discussed were not necessarily those which its members as individual Members of this House might have considered the most important. The Select Committee on Estimates has to consider Estimates.

It has necessary limitations, as the Finance Committees of this House do, in the sense that they are bound to consider questions of economy and efficiency, but to restrict themselves from dealing with questions of policy, except in so far as they come under review in the course of their proper investigations into efficiency and economy. I hope that the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken will forgive me if I do not follow them in their very interesting observations on a number of the detailed recommendations in the Report.

There is one respect in which, very properly, the Committee, in the course of its examinations, raised some major questions of policy. One of the three questions on which Earl Winterton in another place expressed himself as not being satisfied with the Government reply given him there was in relation to the Inspectorate of Constabulary. The Select Committee recommended in No. 9 of its recommendations that a chief inspector of constabulary should be appointed, and the reasons for that recommendation are set out in detail in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Report.

There were then four inspectors of constabulary, and, according to an Answer given by the Home Secretary to myself early in the week there are now five, and one woman assistant for the women police. These officials are hard worked, as they should be, but they also have responsibilities over certain limited spheres. They may approach problems from different points of view, and there is no co-ordination of their reports, and. therefore, no formulation of common standards.

The question of policy which the Select Committee's Report raises is whether, apart from this important question of the appointment of a chief inspector, it is adequate to have four or five inspectors and one woman assistant responsible for the inspection of the forces of the whole country. On this part of the Report, I wish to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State two questions. First, why have the Government rejected the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a chief inspector of constabulary? Secondly, and more generally, are the Government satisfied that the number of inspectors and the system of inspection are adequate? That necessarily entails that all that the inspectors can and do achieve is a few days each year with each force, and the question arises how an inspector can have sufficient knowledge of the day-to-day work of a force to judge whether or not the force is efficient.

I do not want to underline what was underlined in another place—the example of Brighton and how it could be, if the system of inspection is adequate, that a force such as existed at Brighton, with the disorders which had been going on for many years, could be passed year after year as being efficient. I do not want to emphasise it unduly, but it raises a somewhat disturbing question.

Perphaps I may sum up, without wishing, either on behalf of my party or even speaking for myself, to come to any fixed conclusions on the matter. There is evidence of informed public disquiet on three points. The first is the absence of democratic control over the police. In that connection, I regard with some doubt the hon. and learned Member's preference for the system of joint standing committee over the system of a watch committee, because in the watch committee there is at least some element of democratic control over the police. The second point on which there is some disquiet is the great width of the powers of the chief constable, and the third, as I have outlined in my speech, is the adequacy of the inspectorate.

We do not feel it right to express any view on whether this disquiet is justified, but public confidence in the police is of paramount importance. The organisation of the police throughout the country is based on a series of Statutes of the second quarter of the nineteenth century. There has been no comprehensive review of police organisation since 1919, and even then the Desborough Committee did not examine the fundamentals. Is not it time for a thorough examination of the whole structure to be undertaken to see whether now, in the second half of the twentieth century, it is up to date?

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch)

I had intended, if possible, to take the opportunity presented by the Motion to speak at some length on a subject which I have tried to bring before the House on several occasions. Unfortunately, I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department desires to reply at some length to the Motion, and I shall therefore have to content myself with making one or two points as quickly as possible.

I would draw to my hon. and learned Friend's attention the undoubted fact, at least for those who were present in another place to hear the debate raised by Lord Winterton, that had the noble Lord pressed his Motion to a Division the Government would have been very hard pressed indeed. It is my opinion that they would have been quite heavily defeated in another place. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to give consideration to the opinion which undoubtedly exists there.

I pass quickly to the question of standing joint committees. The county in which my constituency is situated has a county force which is therefore controlled by a standing joint committee and a chief constable. I do not think the people of the County of Essex would be particularly pleased if they knew—and I am sure that many of them do not know—of the very small powers which the standing joint committee can exercise over the chief constable should he be, as in my opinion he is, autocratic. I feel that if the public knew that their Member of Parliament cannot ask a Question in the House concerning the discipline of any member of the force and that the standing joint committee cannot force the chief constable to inquire into a matter of discipline or action by any member of the force, there would be even more disquiet than there is. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is very considerable disquiet, both in my constituency and in other constituencies which are so placed.

It is an extraordinary thing that, when a matter of great public importance arises, as it has on three occasions in the last two years in my constituency, if a letter is written to the secretary of the standing joint committee one receives the reply, "We cannot possibly deal with this. We have no authority". Another letter sent to the Home Secretary gets the same reply, "I have no authority". Any attempt to put a Question down in the House is not accepted, because the Home Secretary will say that he has no authority and neither has any other Minister. Therefore, it is plain that Members of Parliament with constituencies so situated are not able to represent their constituents as they should or in a manner which is possible to those more favourably placed in the Metropolitan area.

Some of us saw last night on the B.B.C. a film which dealt with the rehabilitation of a man after he left prison. He was continually being thrown out of job after job, or not being accepted for a job, because it was known that he had a police record. Only a few months ago a police officer in Essex, having seen a man in employment driving a van, thought fit to report to the employer that that employee had been in prison. Within three hours the employee was recalled from his work and sacked. Up to this moment I have not been able to bring an example of that sort before the House. It is very regrettable that a Member of Parliament should be debarred from bringing a matter of that importance before the House.

We are considering in Committee at the moment the Street Offences Bill. The Home Secretary has said that he will advise chief constables to accept the system whereby two warnings will be given. I ask the Home Secretary now, through the Joint Under-Secretary of State, what he proposes to do if the chief constable of any particular force refuses to act on his advice. Will he then say, "I have authority" or will he still say. "I have no authority"? If he sticks to saying, "I have no authority", will he then say that there must be two laws in the country in this matter, one for the Metropolitan area and one for county forces?

I had prepared copious notes on this matter, but in deference to the wishes of my hon. and learned Friend I will conclude now and ask him to give great consideration to the matters which have been brought before the House this afternoon.

3.44 p.m.

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

I am sure that the whole House would wish me to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) upon his initiative and wisdom in raising this important matter. The Government accept his Motion without hesitation. Indeed, we welcome it.

I should like to join with him in expressing gratitude to the police for the work which they do. There are indeed, as he said, occasional black sheep in every flock. They are to be found even in the law, and sometimes in the Church. Taking the police forces as a whole, we can rightly say that we are proud of them, we respect their integrity and efficiency and we are grateful to them. They have today great problems and many difficult tasks. They stick to their duty loyally and with determination.

The Select Committee did some useful work—and it was the first time that they had given attention to this matter—in examining mainly the expenditure and establishments of the police. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington had a good deal to say about this and it is on this that I also want mainly to concentrate. Before doing so, however, I must deal with several other points.

My hon. and learned Friend mentioned amalgamations. The Select Committee made no specific recommendation about this, but in paragraph 7 of the first observations put in by the Secretary of State, we find that my right hon. Friend, answering the Select Committee, said that he … has noted the view expressed by the Committee…that on purely financial grounds a further considerable reduction in the number of police forces is called for. It was never envisaged either when the Police Act, 1946, was passed, or when, subsequently, compulsory schemes were made, that amalgamations were likely to produce substantial financial savings. In a debate in another place, on 8th December last, on provincial police forces, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham said: The point is that the compulsory power can be used only where one of the counties or county boroughs concerned has a population of less than 100,000. But my right hon. Friend—and it would be true to say successive occupants of the office of Home Secretary—have never taken the view that there should be amalgamation for the sake of amalgamation. My noble Friend, Lord Chesham added: Local authorities are naturally jealous of their independence, and the view has been taken. I think rightly, that their police forces should not be amalgamated against their wishes unless there is a clear case for doing so on the grounds of public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th December, 1958; Vol. 213. No. 19, c. 37.] To that extent, I am able to agree with what my hon. and learned Friend said on that subject.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) referred to the use of special traffic wardens to assist the police, particularly in the parking of vehicles, and so on. I would refer him to the Adjournment debate of last Monday evening.

The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) tempted me to deal with a number of important and interesting matters that are far outside the terms of the Motion. I am sorry that I must disappoint him. I would point out, however, that his suggestions are highly controversial and would require legislation. I am entitled—

Mr. W. Wells

rose—

Mr. Renton

I did not interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Wells

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, because this is very important. I was not making any suggestions, except for an inquiry.

Mr. Renton

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the appointment of a chief inspector, with which the Select Committee concerned itself. It asked why we had not appointed a chief inspector from amongst the various inspectors we have. My right hon. Friend rejected the Select Committee's recommendation, because he thought it unnecessary for the co-ordination of the police, as the various inspectors are in close touch with each other, and with the Home Office. Moreover, the appointment of one of the present five inspectors—there were four—as chief inspector would, perhaps, take away some of the prestige from the others. We feel that it is best for them to continue to exchange views frequently, as they do, as equals, and to discuss their reports with the police division of the Home Office, and with my right hon. Friend.

The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North, indicated that besides inquiring into efficiency, which is their main purpose, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary exist for the purpose of advising my right hon. Friend whether the police forces are efficient enough to earn the 50 per cent, grant that they get from the Treasury—the taxpayer. That is their main task, and I do not think that it could be said that they have the further task of groping about and trying to discover latent corruption on those rare occasions when it may exist. Of course, if any kind of corruption were manifest, it would be a different matter.

As both the Select Committee and my hon. and learned Friend have pointed out, the question of police establishments is the key to the level of police expenditure. By far the greatest part of the expenditure goes on pay, allowances, uniform and equipment. The Select Committee was quite right to concentrate primarily on the question of strengths and establishments.

The next point to be borne in mind in this connection is that we do not have a national police force. Leaving aside the special case of the Metropolitan Police, what we have is a large number of local forces which are administered locally and the primary responsibility for settling their size is a local one. Under the Police Acts it rests with the police authority in the county or borough concerned to decide how many constables to appoint. This has been so ever since we had professional police forces in this country.

My right hon. Friend's power is a power of general approval of expenditure only. The police authority settles the size of the force and the Secretary of State decides whether he can approve the proposals, but he has no power to fix the establishment or to initiate changes in it. The Police Regulations make that abundantly clear. The emphasis in the Police Regulations—actually it is Regulation No. 1 of the 1952 Police Regulations—is on the appointment of an adequate number of constables for efficient policing.

My right hon. Friend—this links up again with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said—is fully advised by the inspectors of constabulary on these questions of establishment. They are able to consider the proposals of the police authority in the light of their own long experience and of the standard of policing obtaining in neighbouring authorities and, indeed, in the country generally.

It happens sometimes that my right hon. Friend, on the basis of this advice, finds himself unable to agree with the police authority that a particular increase in establishment is needed, or needed in full. May I say in parenthesis that I hope I shall be dealing with my hon. and learned Friend's four main questions in the course of my remarks. In reaching a decision, my right hon. Friend has to give weight to the local assessment of the position and he is reluctant to suggest to a police authority advised by the chief constable that the authority is at fault in its assessment of its own need. Naturally, however, my right hon. Friend is able to do a great deal through the inspectors in giving guidance about the number of men that a particular area appears to need.

As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the Select Committee drew attention, in connection with establishments, to the increase which has taken place since 1938 and to the variations between different parts of the country. First, as to the increase since 1938, the figures are roughly these. There were 61,600 police in 1938 and 78,000 at the end of 1958. I am talking not of strengths but of establishments. That was an increase of 17,000. This increase in establishment is very great and it is only natural that the Select Committee should have drawn the attention of Parliament to it.

My right hon. Friend showed in his replies to the Select Committee, and especially in his first reply, why he considers that the increase is justified. The Select Committee itself recognised a number of reasons why we must have more police now. Not only has the population increased, but crime also has increased. Traffic has increased out of all expectation. Those are obvious developments. There are a number of other factors, too, especially the increase in size of the built-up areas.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington pointed out, it is in the built-up areas that we need to have the higher density of police. The rural parts of the country are policed under a system whereby the constable is responsible for covering his area for the whole of twenty-four hours. That is not to say that he is patrolling or in his office for the whole twenty-four hours but that the nature of the area is such that it can be adequately policed by a man who lives in it and is on call.

In a built-up area, the position is quite different. That has to be policed continuously throughout the twenty-four hours on a system of eight-hour shifts, or beats. Therefore, that needs three constables instead of one, and it follows that an extension of a built-up area often means trebling the demand on police manpower. That is a slight over-simplification, because it is sometimes possible to achieve a compensating saving of time by mechanisation and the use of wireless. The House will appreciate this growth of built-up areas is a most important factor necessitating an increase in establishments. My hon. and learned Friend asked what the trend was likely to be in the future, and I am bound to answer that we must take into account the likely future trends of development.

I now turn to the question of training for the higher ranks. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the problem of finding leaders for the future. As he said, this is a long-term problem which can be successfully solved only with the good will of all ranks in the service and the co-operation of police authorities and chief officers who are responsible for recruiting in the different forces. My right hon. Friend is devoting a great deal of personal attention to this subject. He believes—and I feel sure that he has the support of the House in this—that it is essential to the maintenance in future of the kind of police service we all wish to have to ensure that it is well led now and will continue to be so.

We should probably all like to see men of varying backgrounds coming to the service. The more diversified the material from which the future leaders are to be chosen, the better. But the point raised by the Select Committee is not only a matter of recruitment; it is also a question of training. Indeed, it may be that training, given enough likely future material, is the important point to concentrate upon.

In case there should be a misconception, I want to make it clear that there is no question of reviving the experiment which took place before the war in the Metropolitan Police, whereby there was direct entry into the higher ranks through the police college, at that time at Hendon. There is now only one way to enter the police service, and that is as a constable. I am sure that that is the right principle, so long as it produces enough men of good quality to provide the leaders of the future. While we insist upon a man starting at the bottom, however, we must ensure that there is available to him such training as will help to fit him to occupy the highest posts.

This leads me to say a few words about the police college of today. This college serves all the police forces in England and Wales. It was set up just over ten years ago, and the training it provides has the confidence of police forces throughout the country.

We have several systems of training within the police service, and I can honestly say that each of them is meeting the needs of today. I am only sorry that there is not enough time to develop this theme further.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates on the police in England and Wales; welcomes the observations and further observations of the Home Secretary thereon; expresses gratitude to all ranks of the police forces for their loyal and devoted service; and expresses the hope that further consideration will be given to questions affecting recruiting and training for the several ranks in the police service and for the police cadets, the pooling of ancillary services between police and local authorities and the review of establishments.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.