POLICE (COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 9 March 1977)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill)
I beg to move, That the Police (Withdrawn, Anonymous, &c. Complaints) Regulations 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved. These draft regulations are intended to provide for a part of the new complaints procedure which we are introducing under the Police Act 1976. They seek to do two things. First, they dispense with the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 and of Section 2(1) of the Police Act 1976 where a person who has made a complaint states in writing that he withdraws it or that he does not want any further action taken in regard to it. Secondly, they allow the Police Complaints Board, on the request of the chief officer concerned, to dispense with those same requirements where the complaint is anonymous, repetitious or incapable of investigation. I will go into these terms in more detail in just a moment.
The requirements that we are talking about here—the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 and of the Police Act 1976—are the requirement on a chief officer to record and have investigated any complaint by a member of the public against a member of his force, to refer it in certain circumstances to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of any criminal aspects of the case and to refer it to the Police Complaints Board for consideration of the disciplinary aspects.
I shall, if I may, deal first with the case where a complaint is withdrawn—that is covered in Draft Regulation Sand then move on to other types of complaint that are covered in Draft Regulation 4, because the two sorts of case are dealt with in significantly different ways.
It was generally agreed when we were discussing the Police Bill in Standing Committee last year, that it should not be necessary for the police to conduct a full investigation and refer the results to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Board where a complainant agrees to withdraw the complaint or decides that he does not after all wish there to be any 1572 further action. This may be because he decides that his complaint was not really justified or because he considers that he has made his point by simply drawing attention to the matter. Provision for this was made in Section 2(2)(b) and 6(1) (f) of the Act, and Draft Regulation 3 gives effect to the policy which we agreed was right, providing however the necessary safeguard for the public by ensuring that the withdrawal must be in writing.
Draft Regulation 3(1) deals with Section 49 of the 1964 Act and provides that a complaint need not be investigated there-under if the complainant withdraws his complaint or states that he does not wish any further steps to be taken. The withdrawal or statement must be in writing and be signed by or on behalf of the complainant.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
Can the Minister confirm that if a complaint is made orally, possibly by a complainant who is illiterate, none the less the withdrawal must be In writing?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I can confirm that, and it would be signed—as I have just said—on behalf of the complainant if he could not write.
Section 2 of the 1976 Act is dealt with by subsection (2)(b) of that section itself but Draft Regulation 3(2) provides, similarly, that a withdrawal or statement must be in writing if it is to have the effect of dispensing with the requirement of Section 2(1) relating to the submission of investigation reports to the Board.
None of this means that, where the chief officer—in practice the deputy chief constable—considers that an allegation made in a complaint is sufficiently serious to justify investigation, even though the complaint itself has been withdrawn, he is precluded from so doing. He can—and in such a case no doubt will—still arrange for the matter to be investigated but he will do so as an internal matter and there will be no reference to the Complaints Board.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
Can the hon. Lady tell us where the meaning or definition of the words "disapplies" in Section 3(2) can be found? It does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, the supplement to the OED, Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary or Webster's New International 1573 Dictionary. Has the word been invented by the Home Office tonight? Why does it not appear in the interpretation clause? Can the hon. Lady also tell us what is the significance of the comma that appears immediately before "disapplies"?

§ Dr. Summerskill
The comma is a misprint for which I apologise. I agree that the word "disapplies" does not appear in the interpretation clause. If I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman of the Home Office's definition of the word.
I turn now to the other part of these Draft Regulations. Draft Regulation 4 allows the Board to dispense with the requirements of Section 49 and of the 1976 Act in certain other circumstances. At the moment, because there is no independent element in the complaints procedure, the police feel bound to investigate every complaint in what may sometimes be an unnecessary amount of detail.
During the discussions last year in Standing Committee and in the House, there was a general feeling that both the police and the Complaints Board should be able to concentrate on the more serious and important complaints and that there should be some procedure which would allow complaints which for various reasons did not justify a full investigation to be disposed of more quickly.
However, it is not easy to translate that general agreement into a statutory provision. It was suggested that we ought to think in terms of a distinction between "trivial" and "serious" complaints. But not all apparently trivial complaints prove on investigation to be trivial, while some apparently serious complaints prove to have little substance. We felt nevertheless that there was scope for a shortened procedure and we sought the necessary regulation-making power in what is now Section 6(1)(g) of the 1976 Act.
In the Committee discussions, hon. Members suggested that anonymous and repetitious complaints were ones to which a shortened procedure should apply, and we have covered both of these in the Draft Regulations. The terms are defined in the schedule. A complaint is defined in paragraph 2 as anonymous if it does 1574 not give the complainant's name and address or, if he is complaining about behaviour towards someone else, that person's name and address and if it is not reasonably practicable to find out the name and address. Paragraph 3 defines a repetitious complaint as one that is substantially the same as a previous complaint which has already been dealt with under the new complaints procedure and that does not make any significant fresh allegations.
We have now added a further category the complaint where it is not reasonably practicable to complete the investigation. Examples might be where, although the letter containing the complaint bore a name and address, the address proved, upon inquiries being made, not to exist; or no one of that name was know there; or he or she had moved and could not be traced; or it might be possible to contact the complainant but he refused to make a statement or to give any assistance to the officer who was investigating the case.
We have also sought to deal with the situation where someone complains about something that has happened to a third party and the third party either states in writing that he does not want to support the complaint or refuses to give any assistance in the investigation. These are all situations which have in the past caused the police a lot of trouble because they have been obliged to pursue the complaints further than was really justified in order to prove that they have not neglected the matter.
What we now propose is that where the deputy chief constable is satisfied that a complaint falls into one of these categories specified in Regulation 4 he should be entitled, if he thinks it appropriate, to ask the Complaints Board to agree that no further action should be taken. He may be able to do this immediately if the complaint is anoymous. In the case of an apparently repetitious complaint someone will have to look at the file and compare it with the previous complaint. In other cases, consideration of a request to the Board will not arise until, for example, it has proved not to be reasonably practicable to trace or get in touch with the complainant or other preliminary inquiries have proved abortive.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Perhaps I may draw the hon. Lady's attention, and yours, 1575 Mr. Deputy Speaker, to column 900, 901 and 902 of the Official Report of the other place for Monday 7th March. The hon. Lady really need not make her speech, because word for word, precisely, it is all there, as it was read out in the other place. Of course, this shows a remarkable and good degree of consistency. However, I should have thought that the hon. Lady might conceivably have changed one comma or one word.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
She has.

§ Mr. Griffiths
The only word that the hon. Lady has uttered differently is the wretched word "disapply".

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am sorry that that is the only criticism of my speech that the hon. Gentleman can find to make. It was an extremely good speech that was made in the House of Lords, and I am sure that hon. Members of this House deserve just as good a speech.
The deputy chief constable would be required to give his reasons for assigning the complaint to the category in question and, where appropriate, to provide relevant evidence—for example, a copy of the previous complaint, an account of the efforts made to trace the person concerned, and so on.
When it received such a request, the Board would consider whether it agreed with the deputy chief constable's assessment. If it did, it would tell him so and no further action would be necessary on the part of the police, except to record in the complaints register that the matter was closed. It would be for the Complaints Board to inform the complainant of the outcome where he could be contacted.
The Board would not be allowed to reject the request without consulting the deputy chief constable. If, in the end, it did reject it, the complaint would then have to be pursued in the usual way and the report of the investigation would normally be referred to the Board in due course under Section 2(1) of the 1976 Act.
These Draft Regulations have been laid after the required statutory consultations with the Police Advisory Board, on which the various police and local authority organisations are represented. They are an integral part of the new procedures introduced by the 1976 Act and we in- 1576 tend that they should come into operation on the same day as the main provisions of the Act.
Hon. Members will have noted that the operative date is not specified in these Draft Regulations and that no Commencement Order to give effect to the relevant provisions of the 1976 Act has yet been made. The regulations have already been approved in another place. If they are also approved in this House, we hope to settle the date finally in consultation with the Police Advisory Board and the Police Complaints Board and we hope to make the necessary Commencement Order very shortly after that. Hon. Members should know, however, that we have in mind 1st June as the starting date. The new procedures will apply to complaints relating to conduct which occurred on or after that date. There will be no restrospection.
I should take this opportunity of mentioning that a number of other regulations have to be made to bring the new procedures into operation. These regulations will be made once the draft of the present regulations have been approved. They will, among other things give effect to the assurances given while the Bill was going through Parliament concerning the supply of a copy of a complaint to an officer about whom it was made, and the right of the Police Federation to use its funds to support defamation proceedings.
As I have said, the purpose of the present draft regulations is, first, to remove the withdrawn complaint from the ambit of the complaints procedure and, secondly, to allow the police and the Complaints Board to concentrate time and effort on the potentially serious complaints by enabling them to dispose more expeditiously of complaints which for certain specified reasons do not justify the full treatment.
I hope the House will agree that this is something which will be of benefit not only to the police but also to the public at large.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that a Minister's interpretation to the House of what words in legislation mean carries absolutely no weight in law whatever. I ask the hon. Lady what the word "disapplied" means. 1577 and where it can be found, so that the court interpreting it for the first time can do so with confidence.
It does not make the slightest difference if the Minister tells us that the Home Office thinks it means something, because that does not bind any court whatever. The Explanatory Note on page 5 of the instrument states: By virtue of Regulation 3, the requirements of section 49 of the Police Act 1964 (investigation of complaints) are dispensed with and section 2(1) of the Police Act 1976 (reference to the Police Complaints Board of reports) is disapplied where the complainant notifies the chief officer of police". If "disapplied" means "dispensed with" why are not those words "dispensed with" used? If it means something different, why does it not appear in the interpretation clause? It is not a word that appears in any work of reference and the research section of the Library is unable to find it. If the research section of the Library cannot find it, how can a court find it?
Paragraph 3(2) reads: shall have effect if, and only if, the complainant gives to the chief officer concerned such notification as is mentioned in paragraph (1)". Paragraph 1 of what? Paragraph 1 of this order reads: In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 6 of the Police Act 1976(a), and after consulting the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales in accordance with section 46(3) of the Police Act 1964(b)". That is the first paragraph in this order. Does it mean that? I do not think it can mean that because no notification is given in it. I think it was intended to mean, but did not say, "paragraph 1 of this section". But it does not say that. The regulations are defectively drafted. Or is it Regulation 3(1)? It does not in fact say so.
It appears that these regulations were drafted by some joker in the Home Office who delights in inventing horrible words and whose delight in so doing is so great that he does not competently do the rest of his job, which is to draft regulations which are meaningful.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Will the hon. Gentleman direct me to where in the regulations the word "disapplied" occurs? I can find it only in the Explanatory Note.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Regulation 3(2) reads: Subsection (2)(b) of section 2 of the Act of 1976 (which, disapplies the provisions of sub-section (1)". The hon. Gentleman would doubtless have noticed that if, as I did, he read the regulations before the debate. However, it looks as though he read only the Explanatory Note which appears at the end.
The House has no power to amend in-competently drafted Statutory Instruments. Therefore, all that the Minister can do is to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the incompetently drawn Statutory Instrument so that it can be re-presented competently drafted.
Indeed, I wonder whether the Minister had done anything other than read the Explanatory Note since she had to ask her PPS to go running to the Box to ask what "disapplies" means. I can only conclude that she had not read the regulations and was merely reading from the Lords Hansard, apparently regarding that as adequate for this debate. I recommend her to read the regulations produced by her Department before coming to the House to recommend that it should approve them.

§ Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has put me in a bit of a dilemma. In principle, the Opposition welcome any attempt to lighten the work load on the police service or to minimise the complaints sent to the Police Complaints Board. But, like my hon. Friend, I have some specific points to make on the regulations as drafted. My points are not unconnected with his reference to the words "disapplied" and "dispensed with" which seem to make the regulations thoroughly defective.
The faults that I find are principally in Regulation 3. I hope that the Minister will address her attention to that regulation at least. I dare say that some of my hon. Friends will have further points to make. There is ambiguity about Regulation 3 as drafted. In reality, for the point to be reached at which a complainant might wish to withdraw or to pursue no further his complaint—the two essential paragraphs of the regulation are paragraphs (1)(a) and (b)—an investigation must have been started.
1579 The procedure is that a complainant goes to the police station and his complaint is duly entered in the complaints book. The divisional commander sees the book with the complaint. Then either he, if it is the Metropolitan Police, or the deputy chief constable decides, in the light of the complaint entered in the complaints book, whether to start an investigation. If an investigation is started, that officer is bound to appoint an investigating officer, who interviews the complainant and asks "What is your complaint about?" The complainant then elaborates the complaint to the investigating officer. As a result of discussing the matter with the investigating officer, the complainant may decide that he does not want to proceed further or to withdraw the complaint. I believe that that happens in many cases. But an investigation has started.
In what sense is an investigation under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 dispensed with? The regulations refer to dispensing with or disapplying an investigation. But the investigation has started. Therefore, what is dispensed with? Is it the subsequent procedure under Section 49 leading up to a report being formally made, with the complaints procedure coming to a formal conclusion and a definitive report—that is Section 49(3) of the Police Act—or does it involve the necessity to refer to the DPP part of that provision? Obviously, something must be dispensed with.
Since the investigation has already begun, what is dispensed with under Regulation 3(1)? As I see it, the investigation which Regulation 3 allows the police to dispense with is irrevocably begun by the necessity of having an exchange between the complainant and the official police investigating officer. I hope that we may have a clear answer on that point.
The Minister said that reference to the DPP was not ruled out if an aspect of the case affecting the Director arose. We are relieved to hear that. It means dispensing with or disapplying the investigation procedure.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
It means something different from the words "dispensing with" in the explanatory note. Perhaps it means "discontinues". The difference is that if one dispenses with 1580 something, presumably one brings about a situation in which the process has not started. If one discontinues it, one acknowledges that it has started. Since they are two different situations, it is essential that we should know which of those two situations the Minister intends.

§ Mr. Alison
The form of words in Regulation 3(1) means that the requirement in Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 is dispensed with. What are the requirements? The requirements are that investigation should be carried out and a report made. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation. This is germane to a point which arises from Regulation 3(3), which says Where a complainant gives such notification as is mentioned in paragraph (1)"— that is to say, he does not want the complaint proceeded with or he withdraws it— and it relates to a complaint…". I then jump to paragraph (b): a copy of which has been sent to the Board in pursuance of subsection (1) (a) or 4 (a) of section 2 of the Act of 1976, the chief officer concerned shall cause a copy of the notification to be sent to the Board. Section 2 of the Police Act 1976 refers to cases where a chief officer of police receives the report of an investigation into a complaint under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. In other words, one can only get a report in the hands of the Police Complaints Board where a Section 49 investigations has been completed.
But Regulation 3(1) says that the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964—namely, that investigation should be carried out and completed, leading to the point of report—are dispensed with.
How can the Board get a report emerging from a Section 49 investigation when such an investigation has been dispensed with? It is a meaningless provision. The provision certainly seems to be contradictory and ambiguous. Does it mean that the investigation is allowed to come to a conclusion when a report emerges, in which case something can come into the hands of the Board under Regulation 3(1)(b)? One cannot have it both ways. Apparently, however, that is what the regulation appears to do. It is ambiguous 1581 and contradictory, and there is a fundamental defect in its drafting. There is little point in hoisting upon the police service a contradictory and ambiguous regulation. However, these are narrow points.
I turn to the wider aspects. The police service and the Police Federation in particular are in the news. The relevance of my general remarks arise from the statement issued by the Police Federation on Friday 4th March. It said: At its special meeting today the Joint Central Committee expressed its disgust and dismay at the Home Secretary's action. En view of this it has been decided: …to decline all further co-operation in the implementation of the Police Act 1976 relating to complaints".

§ Dr. Summerskill
Will the hon. Gentleman repeat where the statement was issued?

§ Mr. Alison
It was a statement issued to the Press by the Police Federation from its headquarters in Langley Road, Surbiton, last weekend.
The Federation has decided to decline all further co-operation in the implementation of the Police Act 1976 relating to complaints. That is a serious matter. Does the hon. Lady really believe that this cumbersome, bureaucratic, expensive bit of window-dressing apparatus, which the police resent and which the House voted against on Third Reading, will work without police good will and co-operation? It is extremely unlikely since the Federation has decided not to co-operate with the Police Act.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
The hon. Member is straying wide of the motion before the House. We are discussing what is in the regulations.

§ Mr. Alison
The point of my reference to the Police Federation's statement it that the Federation has publicly stated that it will not co-operate in the implementation of the regulations.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We are discussing what is in the regulations.

§ Mr. Alison
What is in the regulations is relevant to the non-co-operation of the Police Federation.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are discussing not only what is in the regulations but whether the House should approve them. The view of those who will have to operate the regulations is germane.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We are discussing the subject matter of the regulations —nothing else.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One always yields to your judgment, but we are being asked to approve the regulations for the purpose of their coming into effect. They can come into effect only if the police service implements them. The police service has clearly said that it will not implement them. That is a change from the position during the Committee stage, when it was willing to do so. A new situation has arisen, and the House cannot take a decision if it does not take into account that the police service—for better or worse, wisely or unwisely—will not co-operate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We are discussing the regulations, not the co-operation or non-co-operation of the police.

§ Mr. Alison
I shall try to restrict myself to what is in the regulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Under-Secretary can forecast dates for the further stages in the development of the regulations.
It is relevant to comment, in the context of what the hon. Lady has drawn to the attention of the House, that what she has said is meaningless and inapplicable if the Police Federation's declared hostility to the Act and the regulations is allowed to apply. The federation has said that the police will not co-operate with the regulations. To that extent, we are bound to make these comments on the forecast that the hon. Lady has made, because the Act and the regulations associated with it, although apparently the subject of definitive debate in the House, and apart from their serious flaws in drafting, are thrown into doubt by the federation's statement.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is the police view only of these regulations 1583 that is relevant and not the police view of anything else.

§ Mr. Alison
If that is what is in order, it is fair and unmistakable to say that the police view of the regulations is that they do not believe that they can effectively work because they will not work them. That is the meaning of the specific statement I have quoted. Apart from the drafting flaws, that raises a serious point for the hon. Lady to consider.
What is the point of bringing in regulations of this kind while allowing serious disharmony, loss of morale and disgruntlement in the police to exist to the point where they say that they will not cooperate in working them? The hon. Lady must take on board that the police service is at present in a very sour frame of mind. It is a great tragedy that that should be so.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1972 we were discussing another matter laying down certain guidelines not dissimilar from this example. Local councillors were told then that they had to carry out certain provisions from the central Government or else be subject to a housing commissioner and whatever else it might be. The hon. Gentleman will recall that 11 councillors of Clay Cross and other councillors elsewhere decided that it was not in their best interests to carry out that process. Can he now tell us whether he agrees with the Police Federation in the view it is taking about these regulations? Is he condoning its action?

§ Mr. Alison
As I understand it, the attitude of the Police Federation, in what it calls non-co-operation—I am not certain what the implications are—is that the police will follow the old-fashioned procedure of working to the letter of the law. If they work to the letter of the law of the regulations, which are in any case defectively drafted, the chaos that will rule and rage is beyond conception. As I understand it, they may find themselves forced to work to the letter of the law. I am not saying that they will do it—the Act has not been implemented yet—but that is a simple statement of their policy if they do not get a satisfactory statement from the Government. If they adopt the old-fashioned system of working to rule, the rules will have to 1584 be absolutely watertight if they are to work properly.

§ Mr. Skinner
At Clay Cross, they said precisely the same thing—that they wanted to carry out the law as it then stood. They made a clear specific judgment not to harass the housing commissioner, but the hon. Gentleman's Government sent in a housing commissioner.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I see no reference to Clay Cross in these regulations.

§ Mr. Skinner
I do.

§ Mr. Alison
If Clay Cross had been a matter of working to rule, it would probably have been very different for the ratepayers there. But we are not allowed to stray too far into that question.
There is a serious situation in the police service. If it is, as it were, to work to rule, the hon. Lady must make certain that the rules are 100 per cent. watertight to make them effective. These regulations are not effective as they stand.
I understand that the Police Federation announced at the weekend that the Home Secretary had been engaged in direct negotiations with it because he shared its view that the Police Council had broken down. Is it true that the Council is about to re-establish itself and that it is about to meet again under official auspices to handle the police service's claim? If so, it is difficult to know exactly what the Home Secretary's attitude towards the Council is. Does he continue to hold the view he expressed in the House on 27th January—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman relate what he is saying to the regulations?

§ Mr. Alison
Its relevance is that the police service is in a state of demoralisation at the way in which it has been handled by the Government. If it is driven to the point—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Be that as it may, we are discussing what has arisen as a result of the regulations before the House.

§ Mr. Alison
The demoralisation will be greatly increased by the clumsy, incomprehensible and contradictory drafting of the regulations. Add that to the existing demoralisation in the service, and one 1585 sees that this is not the psychological moment—

§ Mr. John Watkinson (Gloucestershire, West)
Order.

§ Mr. Alison
The hon. Gentleman is not Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government are ill advised to bring forward sloppily and clumsily drafted regulations when the police service is thoroughly demoralised and believes that the best way to secure progress in its pay claim is not fully to co-operate with the Government. I hope that on these grounds alone the hon. Lady will consider that it might well be necessary to take the regulations away, partly because they are defective and partly because they are an added straw on the camel's back that will demoralise the police service.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
The regulations appear before the House in response to things that were said in the Committee considering the Police Bill. They are a very appropriate response by the Government to the desire expressed in all parts of the Committee that the complaints procedure should not be over-burdened by anonymous and trivial complaints, although they proved difficult 'o define, or complaints which the complainant wished to have withdrawn.
If the regulations have technical defects they must be examined, but the purpose is clear. Those involved in the Committee found it an interesting experience. I was glad to have the Under-Secretary's assurance that she hopes to see the Act implemented later this year and the remaining regulations brought before the House, because the Committee got into an extraordinary state, and we nearly did not provide for regulations to come before the House at all. Because of a combination of hesitation by some of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends and the tribulations of Conservative Members, we might never have had a complaints procedure. Having failed to vote against Second Reading, the Conservatives voted against Third Reading, changing their minds practically in Committee. I was forced to the conclusion that if the Conservatives could avoid having a complaints procedure of any kind they would 1586 do so. I was relieved that we emerged from Committee with such a procedure.
There is no perfect way in which the regulations can be drawn, but it is important that we provide the means for an independent element in dealing with complaints against the police. As I said repeatedly in the early stages of the Act's passage, I am convinced that it is in the interests of the police as well as the community that this procedure should be introduced, with the modifications which the regulations embody. It is in the interests of the police for the community to see that complaints are handled properly within the police force and that wrongdoing is quickly spotted and rooted out, with no doubts about how these matters arc dealt with.
There is another side to the coin, and it shows precisely why I feel that the police must recognise the need for that independent element of investigation. I recognise, equally, that their confidence that the community is behind them must be maintained, and I therefore share much of the concern that the House expresses at the reaction of the police forces in the present situation and at the deep distress right through those forces at the way in which the pay claim has been handled. This is not the occasion on which to go into that there will be other opportunities. The relevance tonight, however, is this. Alongside our expectation of the police that they will abide by an independent complaints procedure, they have the expectation that they will receive the backing of the community in the difficult task they must perform according to exacting standards that this complaints procedure requires.
I do not believe that any policeman I know—certainly not in my constituency —will in any way seek to prevent complainants from making proper use of what the regulations lay down. It ill behoves the Conservatives to seek in some way to encourage the police not to implement the law of the land as passed by this House. That would be a ludicrous position for the Conservatives to adopt.
There is no statement before the House, and I shall be very surprised if, when such a statement is produced by the Police Federation, it carries the interpretation that has been placed upon it by some hon. Members. I believe that once the House decides that these regulations, 1587 together with the corpus of the Police Act, are the law of the land, the policemen I know will wish to see them complied with, whatever their personal views.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
I should make it plain at the outset that I know no police officer or senior official of the Police Federation who will ever do anything but carry out the will of Parliament as expressed in the law. This is the duty of the police. That is their oath of office. There need be no anxieties on that score—

§ Mr. Skinner
We shall see.

§ Mr. Griffiths
—in Clay Cross or anywhere else.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)
Does the hon. Member wish to declare an interest in this matter?

§ Mr. Griffiths
I am proud and delighted to declare an interest, but I had imagined that it was not unknown to hon. Members present that I have a connection with the Police Federation. I am obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention and I am glad to acknowledge it.
I reiterate simply that the police service of this country, which most of us would agree is the best in the world, will uphold the law in respect of the police service as in respect of everything else. But these regulations demonstrate above all else that the police alone among our fellow citizens—with the exception of the Army —are unique. They are the only ones of our fellow citizens who are, by decision of Parliament, to have complaints made against them in an institutionalised fashion with a Board the sole task of which will be to hear those complaints and, in certain circumstances, to dispose of them.
The police are unique, and the regulations underline their uniqueness. They are unique in all kinds of other ways. Therefore, they must expect that they are unique in respect of complaints. They have to live where they are told and work when they are told, including weekends and nights. They may not get into debt, they may not take in a lodger and they may not take an alternative job to make money on the side. They may not even grow a beard, except with their chief 1588 officer's permission, and then only on night duty.
The police are unique in the job they do. They are the only civilian body of our fellow citizens who are expected to place their bodies between the law-breaker and the law of the land. They willingly do all these things, but they get somewhat disturbed and surprised when they are treated as unique in all such matters as complaints, work, danger, anti-social hours and the wearing of numbers, Yet when it comes to dealing with pay and conditions they are not treated as unique at all.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order—

§ Mr. Griffiths
I shall not say any more about that.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If that is the situation, I will leave the matter where it is.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Those of us who sat through the most interesting Committee stage on the Bill know that there is a perfectly good reason why the regulations we are considering tonight are defective and otiose. They proceed in the first instance from a Bill that is defective and otiose. It cannot be at all surprising that a child is deformed when the parent is even more deformed.
If the matter were not so serious, it would be ludicrous. The first group of provisions deal with complaints which have been withdrawn. It is faintly preposterous that the House should be spending a good deal of time and generating a great deal of paper in order to tell the Board that it should not deal with a complaint when the complainant has already decided that he does not wish to proceed with it. This is so self-evident that when a person laying a complaint decides that he does not wish to proceed, that should be the end of the matter. But no, there is a very complex procedure in Regulation 3 of the draft Statutory Instrument which deals with what must happen when someone decides not to go ahead with a complaint. Many people will think that we have taken leave of our senses in imposing on the police and the Complaints Board this long-winded, expensive procedure for dealing with complaints that complainants do not wish to press.
1589 The next group of provisions deal with the actual steps that must be taken in dealing with anonymous complaints. The very nature of an anonymous complaint means that it should not be dealt with in the first place. How is the Complaints Board to deal with it? Who has made the complaint? The Board can hardly send for Mr. Anonymous to interrogate him about his complaint. To whom does a police officer go when he is sent to investigate an anonymous complaint? The officer complained against is known, but what is the objective in having the Board examine a complaint from someone it does not know?

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)
Is it not the case under the present and previous arrangements that if a chief constable receives an anonymous complaint about a constable he may feel it right to proceed with the investigation of that complaint, and that that system might be more offensive than these arrangements?

§ Mr. Griffiths
The hon. Member may surmise that and he might well be right. I do not know. We have to deal with the regulations before us tonight. The point I am making is that in any place other than the House of Commons people would think that we have taken leave of our senses when we elaborate procedures for dealing with complaints that a complainant does not wish to press and complaints that come from someone who remains anonymous.
Then we come to the question of repetitious complaints. I acknowledge that the hon. Lady has been helpful. This point was made and the Government have met it, and I welcome that part of the regulations.
But then I go on to the other kind of complaints, those that are incapable of investigation. What on earth are we doing spending our time in laying down elaborate procedures to enable the Complaints Board to deal with complaints that we ourselves say, by statute, are incapable of being investigated? It illustrates the absurdity of the procedure that we are setting up.
I suppose that it would not matter if the police service was so flush with resources, so overwhelmed with surplus 1590 manpower and so unpressed by crimes of violence that it could take on these things without any trouble. It could do a little work on the anonymous complaints. It could have some fun with them and could then get going on the complaints that were incapable of being investigated. Having had a good time with them, it could go on to the complaints that complainants had withdrawn.
Unfortunately, however, our police service is not in that position. It does not have spare resources and surplus manpower, or unpressured inspectors and sergeants. The police service is at the sharp end of the worst period of crimes of violence, bombing and theft for many years—and then we add to those burdens by producing this kind of rot. That is what it is—rot. If there is anything that the police service needs less at the moment than being lumbered with this whole new apparatus and all this kind of junk, I cannot imagine what it is.
The Police Federation simply states that because it has lost confidence in the Government—they are its words, not mine—it is not prepared to co-operate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was not a member of the Committee.

§ Mr. Skinner
I was on the Housing Finance Bill Committee.

§ Mr. Griffiths
Perhaps the hon. Member was, but he did not learn much.

§ Mr. Skinner
More than you did.

§ Mr. Griffiths
In fairness to the hon. Member and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that when this complaints procedure was originally proposed the Police Federation took the view that it was quite unnecessary. It was quite satisfied—as I think most of the public were satisfied—with the existing procedure.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the cases that have been dealt with recently—very distressing cases—would have occurred if a procedure of this sort had been in existence 10 years ago? Might not the complaints that were made anonymously have led to the searching out of the officers who have fallen foul of the law?

§ Mr. Griffiths
I do not believe that the situation would have been any different. I accept that in the police force there are bad hats. I accept that some policemen become "bent". The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is very naive if he believes that if this procedure had existed there would have been no pornography or corrupt practices. If he believes that, he is living in a different world.
The majority of men in the police service did not want this change. They strongly opposed it. As a result of the Government's forcing through this change, the service lost arguably the best police officer in Europe—Sir Robert Mark—who resigned because he was not prepared to work this system. He gave as his principal reason for retiring the fact that his advice on the matter of the complaints procedure had not been accepted.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That matter is not before the House at the moment.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I was merely trying to illustrate the fact that the police service did not think it necessary that the new procedure should be brought in. If the House brings it in, the police service will accept it and no doubt implement it, but the question of how the police will implement it is the key matter that we must consider.
The question before the House tonight is quite clear: should we or should we not put the regulations into effect? It is relevant to consider, although the police service will certainly obey and implement the law, whether it will do so with that degree of co-operation and enthusiasm that alone will make it work. Parliament is bound to take that into account.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the Police Federation's attitude to the regulations?

§ Mr. Griffiths
I was about to do that. In the case of Regulation 4, dealing with complaints which are repetitious and anonymous and incapable of investigation, it prefers the position this way to the way it was before the hon. Lady brought in the regulations. That is why I shall not vote against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hope that there is no question about that.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
Then what is the hon. Member saying?

§ Mr. Griffiths
The point I am making is that if the police are not prepared, as they are not prepared, to put their enthusiastic co-operation behind these regulations, they will not work. There is no question of their failing to obey the law, but they will certainly not apply to these regulations the degree of cooperation and enthusiasm which alone will make them work. That is the position today.
For the reasons you gave to my hon Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be wrong of me to pursue that matter any further. I merely state it as a fact that it will not be possible for these regullations to be made to work if the police, as they say, do not help in putting them into effect with the co-operation which is necessary.
I was staggered that the Under-Secretary should have to asked my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about the statement he read out about this matter. Her own officials have been down to the offices of the Police Federation to discuss this matter. I was present at the time. The statement made by the Federation was provided to her office. It is staggering that she should not even have known about it when she came to the House to commend the regulations.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I knew perfectly well of the existence of that statement. I was seeking clarification from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about whether it was some more recent statement than 4th March. I got the impression that it might have been issued only a few hours before the debate, such was the drama with which he announced it. It turned out that it was an old statement which appeared some days ago, on 4th March. It is now 9th March. 1 thought that there had been some development since, but I was wrong.

§ Mr. Griffiths
There have been many developments since. The Prime Minister has been involved as well as the Home Secretary, but apparently neither of them keeps the hon. Lady very well informed. The hon. Lady has said that there is no date for the coming into effect of the 1593 regulations—and I know why that it. It is because she cannot be certain that she will be able to bring the regulations into reality if she does not have the willing support of the police. Before we decide tonight, she must say how she will overcome that practical problem. With the help of the police the regulations will work. Without it they will not.

§ Mr. Hardy
In a sense the hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me in that I did not serve on the Committee, but I am interested in these matters. If the police do not co-operate in the application of the regulations, surely the hon. Gentleman's party will be placed in considerable embarrassment. It seems that one reason for the regulations being brought forward is to meet the request of his party.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I am happy to say that my party has not lost the confidence of the police, but I regret to say—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about my party and I must give him an answer. My party has not lost the confidence of the police, but the Government have lost their confidence.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I hope that we shall now return to the regulations we are discussing.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) to intervene.
When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it would work because the former Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a number of undertakings. The former right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stetchford, Mr. Roy Jenkins, said that there would be no double jeopardy. He said that the police could use their own funds to pursue for defamation those who made malicious complaints against them. Basically, the Government honoured those undertakings.
I pay full tribute to the previous Home Secretary's successor and the hon. Lady for having, in Committee and subsequently, sought to honour the undertakings that were given by the Government to the police service as the quid pro quo for accepting what it did not want, what it did not believe to be necessary 1594 and what it was convinced would add materially to the pressures and expense placed upon the service. That was the deal that was done. Where the Bill has come unstuck, however, is that due to events that I do not propose to mention now the important link of confidence has been shattered. It is for that reason that the police are saying that they will not co-operate fully in implementing the regulations. The House and the Complaints Board have to take that into account.
I was certainly the first Member—probably the only Member—to speak to Lord Plowden immediately the Prime Minister appointed him head of the Complaints Board. I discussed these matters with him. I congratuate Lord Plowden and his colleagues, and those still to be appointed, on their elevation. I wish them well.
I say to the hon. Lady—I hope that she will take this seriously—that we have brought into existence a new and expensive body that is headed by some distinguished people. It is essential that it should work and work well. If it does not, the public will be disappointed in the sense that they will not feel that the new complaints procedure has got off the ground and the police service will be demoralised. Therefore, it is essential that the hon. Lady should grasp the fact that she owes it to the Complaints Board, the public and the police, before she puts a date to the regulations to be certain that they will work.
In short, the hon. Lady—I rather suspect that it will be her right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister—must get alongside the police service and restore the links that have been broken. If that is not done, no amount of regulations will work and the country as well as the police service will be the worse for that.
I shall not oppose these regulations even though they are as defective and derelict as my hon. Friends have demonstrated. I think they are unnecessary and faintly preposterous, but I shall not oppose them. If the hon. Lady wants them to work, she and her officials must take the trouble to bring the representatives of the police service back into a relationship of confidence with the Government, which they have not yet done. They need to do so as a matter of urgency.

§ Dr. Summerskill
It is regrettable that the Opposition have given such a churlish reception to the regulations, considering that we have the Police Act firmly on the statute book as the will of Parliament and because the content of the regulations was specifically requested by a Standing Committee. We have done everything possible to meet the requests of the Standing Committee.
As to the further criticisms of the Bill and the claim that the police do not want the regulations, the Police Advisory Board—which has all three police organisations represented on it—has fully discussed the regulations. No representations have been made to the Government by the three police bodies, including the Police Federation, about the regulations. The debate is about the regulations. It is not about the Police Complaints Board. None of the police organisations has had any comment to make on the regulations.
I have, of course, seen the reports—to which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) referred—that the Federation has said that it will not cooperate in the implementation of the new procedure, but it certainly has not said this to the Home Secretary. We have had helpful consultations on the new procedures with the Federation and we are confident that this co-operation will continue and that the police are well aware that the Act and the regulations, when they come into operation, will be part of the law of the land.
With regard to the drafting criticisms, to which were hinged the points about police pay, a point was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who was worried about the word "disapplies". I had a feeling that he might perhaps have found a special or hybrid meaning of the word. The word has a common meaning to most people who would read it, if not to the hon. Gentleman. Section 2(2) of the Police Act 1976 describes circumstances where the provisions of Section 2(1) shall not apply, and this is what is meant by "disapply" in the provisions of Regulation 3(1) of the regulations now before us. In other words, "disapply" means the opposite of "apply".
I now come to the words "dispense with". These words echo Section 6(1)(f) 1596 and (g) of the Police Act 1976. It is the requirements under Section 49 of the 1964 Act that are dispensed with. Before an investigation is started or completed, withdrawal of the complaint makes it unnecessary to start or continue the investigation—but withdrawal may not take place until the investigation has been completed and the chief officer has received the investigation report. In such a case the requirement of Section 2 (1) that the report has to be sent back to the Complaints Board is dispensed with by the combined operation of Section 2(2)(b) and Regulation 3(2).
The answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash is that the complaint may be withdrawn at an early stage—for example, at the first interview of the complainant by the investigating officer. Further investigation is then dispensed with. Otherwise, under Section 49 completion of the investigations would be required. Complaints are sometimes withdrawn at a later stage—for example, when related criminal proceedings against the complainant are over. In such a case the Board may well have received a report as to the stage reached under Section 2(4) of the 1976 Act. A withdrawal after a full report under Section 2(1) has been sent to the Board is less likely. We have to provide for that eventuality in the regulations.

§ Mr. Alison
The hon. Lady will appreciate that the way the regulations have been drafted and the explanation she has given—for which I am most grateful, because it is enlightening and goes straight to the point—mean that there will be a powerful pull and incentive for the police to secure withdrawal or the discontinuance of a complaint before the point has been reached where investigations must be completed and a report drawn up. There is a powerful incentive for the police to persuade a complainant to withdraw. I do not know that this is entirely satisfactory.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I do not think we should anticipate such behaviour by the police. It would be extremely unpolice-like, and we did not draw up the regulations with that in mind.
These are the Committee's suggestions, and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has totally misunderstood the effect of the regulations. 1597 They will not add to the work of the police; they will enable the police and the Board not to do things that they would otherwise be required to do and which it is not sensible for them to do. The hon. Gentleman was implying that the police would be overloaded with unnecessary work.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned anonymous complaints. There is nothing in draft Regulation 4 to preclude the investigation of a complaint. There will be one of the inquiries in question if it is thought right in the circumstances. It is for the deputy-chief constable to decide whether he wishes to make a request to the Board. He would not be compelled to do so, but if he considers that the implications of an anonymous complaint are so serious that it should be fully investigated he can make a request.
The Opposition have made a great deal of fuss about these extremely desirable regulations that are an inherent part of the Police Act, and I earnestly ask the House to approve them.