USE OF POLICE FEDERATION FUNDS (Hansard, 20 May 1976)

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
When a Minister makes so graceful an acceptance as on the last group of proposals, the least one can do in response is to move the next matter briefly. I again wish to declare an interest, because this clause specifically concerns the financial affairs of the Police Federation, with which I have a connection.
The point of the clause is to ensure that the Secretary of State carries out his undertaking that the Police Federation will be allowed to use its voluntary funds for the purpose of taking action against those who by their complaints defame individual police officers. Let me say why the Police Federation feels the need for these new powers.
At the point when a complaint is made against a police officer, he immediately suffers damage. Whether that complaint be justified or not, he at least starts to suffer. He suffers because in many cases he is suspended from duty. If that happens, in many cases he loses his overtime. He can no longer go on courses which may lead to his promotion, and in many other ways he suffers in his profession simply from being accused. Equally, his wife and children come under the finger of suspicion in their 1841 neighbourhood and suffer damage immediately from the point at which the accusation is made.
In nine cases out of ten the accusations against police officers are proved on the evidence to be malicious, vexatious, frivolous or unfounded. But in ten cases out of ten the police officer once he is accused suffers immediate damage. Therefore it must be right as a matter of justice that an officer who is shown to be wrongly accused but who is none the less damaged should be able to seek in the courts civil damages for any damage he can show he has suffered. That is the heart of the new clause.
I suspect that we shall be told that the clause as drafted is inadequate. But I shall be more than satisfied if the Minister says that before the Bill completes its final stages in Parliament—I am thinking particularly of the other place—draft regulations will be laid to amend the rules of the Police Federation to enable it to use voluntary funds for this purpose.
I put forward the clause to elicit from the Minister the assurance that the regulations will be suitably amended to embrace this purpose—and quickly.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
This is a necessary clause but it only scratches the surface of the problem. Actions for defamation are ruinously expensive. The clause would allow the Police Federation to use certain of its funds to maintain an action where it is believed that a police officer has been defamed maliciously. Nevertheless, the extent to which this clause could be used in practice would not be wide, because Police Federation funds are by no means unlimited and actions are unpredictable.
It would be a fair compromise if the Government, in introducing this much more draconian procedure, had accompanied it by a procedure whereby, if the Police Complaints Board found a complaint to be unfounded and made untruthfully and maliciously, there would then be an action for defamation brought at public expense.
I am disappointed that the Home Secretary did not think it right to achieve a balance of that kind by inserting a provision on these lines into the Bill. I point this out en passant unless it is thought that by accepting New Clause 8 1842 police officers will be protected from malicious complaints. They will not. The new clause provides only a tiny and inadequate remedy because the federation's funds are quite inadequate.
I wish to see the new clause accepted, but I do not see why subscriptions from police officers should have to be used for this purpose. I believe that it is the duty of the State, which is setting up this extraordinarily elaborate and expensive complaints procedure, to finance actions for defamation when the procedure shows that a complaint has been made maliciously.
Hon. Members may not know, but at a conference this morning members of the Police Federation threw out a recommendation that they should support the Bill. If the Home Secretary had thought it right, even at that late hour, to put down a new clause providing that public funds should be used to prosecute actions for defamation where there were malicious complaints, the feeling that the new procedure is slanted against police officers, rather than being impartial between complainant and the police officer complained against, would be much less likely to be a representative feeling throughout the police service.

§ Mr. Mikardo
The suggestion of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) goes a hit too far. I can envisage all sorts of problems of definition, including, for example, definition of the word "malicious".
As I crossed swords in a friendly way with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on an earlier clause, it is incumbent upon me to say that when this subject was considered in Committee some of my hon. Friends and I though that the hon. Member was on to a very fair point. I add my view to that of the hon. Member in expressing the hope that the Government will accept the new clause or make alternative arrangements to meet the point.

§ Dr. Summerskill
My hon. Friend gave an assurance in Committee that this matter would be dealt with by means of an amendment to the Police Federation Regulations 1969, after consultations with the federation. He also gave an undertaking that the necessary amending regulation would be laid before Parliament before the Police Bill came into force.
1843 The Police Federation Regulations are made under Section 44 of the Police Act 1964. Regulation 19 concerns the use of federation funds and sets out the areas in which they may be used in the interests of individual officers belonging to the federation.
We propose to amend the Regulations to enable the federation to use its funds to defray legal expenses incurred by a member in bringing an action for libel or slander in respect of a complaint made against an officer under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. I accordance with the Government's assurance given to the Committee, a draft amendment to these Regulations has already been sent to the federation. Consultations on it are in progress and will be completed as soon as possible.
There is no need for any legislation to enable the Regulations to be amended in the sense required. As I have explained, discussions are in train. There is no question of the undertaking to meet the federation's wishes on this point not being honoured.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State. She has met in full the undertaking given by the Secretary of State. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) for his support.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.