HC Deb 21 April 1982 vol 22 cc395-402

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

12.25 am
Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)

I shall not delay the House for long because we are already in the early hours of Thursday morning. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject on the Adjournment.

I must declare an interest. My wife is a councillor on the Greater Manchester council and also a member of the police committee. Consequently, she is well aware of the attacks that have been made on our chief constable, Mr. Anderton. No one would doubt that he is controversial or that he has a strong personality, but he is an excellent chief constable who started as an ordinary constable and worked his way up through the ranks. He has become chief constable because of his great ability. He commands enormous loyalty from the police force for which he is responsible and he has the respect and admiration of the vast majority of the citizens of Greater Manchester. My wife feels so strongly about the attacks that have been made on the chief constable that she launched a petition supporting him and the Greater Manchester police. She has had no difficulty in getting people to sign the petition.

It is not only in Greater Manchester that we have this situation. Other areas of the country are also affected. We have the case of Lady Simey and the chief constable of Merseyside. There are also problems in London.

Not so long ago chief constables were the silent, invisible men in British public life. Today, they are very much in the front line of the highly political debate on law and order. No chief constable in his right mind wants to get involved in a political debate. Unfortunately, chief constables have been drawn into this matter by the new breed of Left-wing politician who is all too prevalent on police committees today.

I have been given a document from the "Campaign for Criminal Justice". The chairman of that organisation is the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). The document was sent to all Labour members of police authorities in July 1981. That was just after the county council elections when the Labour Party gained control of a large number of county councils and, consequently, police committees. The document states: The traditional view, expressed by successive Home Secretaries, is that the law does mean that chief constables are immune from control of policing policy, save that you can refuse to provide them with equipment or you can ultimately sack the chief constable. In fact you are, in our view, entitled to go much further. Under section 12(2) the chief constable must provide you with a report on 'such matters as may be specified in the requirement' (of the police authority) 'connected with the policing of the area'. That power is so general as to allow you to ask for any report on policy and to discuss it. After the discussion the chief constable may refuse to do as you wish but if the discussion takes place in public and your request is seen to be reasonable, he would have a difficult job in persisting. If there were a succession of disputes so that you lost confidence in the chief constable, you can sack him. We are urging you to adopt a more aggressive use of these powers. That is an interesting document, because it would appear to incite police committees to control chief constables by asking for continual reports connected with the policing of the area, thus preventing the chief constable from getting on with his job. This continual harassment of a chief constable by asking for continual reports could be used as a constant source of criticism of him and as a means of undermining his authority and responsiblility.

I do not believe that is a proper and correct interpretation of section 12(2) of the Police Act 1964. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that when he replies to the debate. There is also the suggestion that chief constables should be put on the spot by having discussions in public. That could constitute unfair pressure and be prejudicial to the public interest.

The document goes on to quote what it calls a new breed of assertive chief officers who spurn political control only to indulge in politics. That is a very sweeping allegation, and it should be substantiated by the people responsible for sending out this document. In any case, it is clear that the activities of Labour members of police committees, encouraged by the document, can only lead to chief officers being even more suspicious of political control and aware of the need to defend themselves against political attacks.

Finally, there is the dangerous suggestion that Labour councillors should choose to assert their powers and give first priority to community policing. No matter how valuable that may be, it is always put forward as the panacea for all the problems, but it ignores the fact that the problems are different from area to area. The problems in Devon and Cornwall are nothing like those in Central London, Merseyside or Greater Manchester. Therefore, it does not leave to the discretion of a chief constable his right to determine policies and to decide the priorities.

On BBC's "Question Time" last month, Mr. Ken Livingstone was one of the panel. He admitted openly that he was seeking nothing less than what he termed the operational control of the London police. This would no doubt ensure that Livingstone and his political cohorts had the legal right to refuse permission to the police to enter entire areas of London to deal with riots which might well have been fomented or even led by other politicians of the extreme Left, and London would then have its "no-go" areas.

Ken Livingstone has already launched a number of savage personal attacks on Sir Kenneth Newman, who recently was designated Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I find it amazing that these attacks should have been launched six months before Sir Kenneth takes up his new appointment, and I find it nauseating that he should be smeared by Mr. Livingstone with allegations of disgraceful police behaviour in Ulster during the time that he was chief constable there, but this seems to be the order of the day from the militants in the Labour Party.

I also have a leaflet that has been issued by the Liberal Party in the Manchester area. As with all Liberal pamphlets, there is an enormous emphasis on broken pavements, because the Liberals are very good at drawing attention to such matters, but the pamphlet also has a great deal to say about law and order. It quotes from Labour's militant parliamentary candidate for Liverpool, Wavertree, who is reported as saying: I don't want the police to protect capitalism; I want the police to be accountable to the Labour Movement. I want the police to be instruments of socialism. The name of the Labour candidate is Mr. Derek Hatton. I think that he has let the cat out of the bag. We now know the true aim of the far left towards the police.

I return to the subject of the chief constable of Greater Manchester. On 5 April, the hon. Member for York had an Adjournment debate, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State replied, on police accountability. The hon. Gentleman said: Therefore, the postion in Manchester at a recent meeting of the police authority is a little surprising. The chairman of the police authority asked the chief constable certain questions about a policing operation at Laurence Scott. He was told by the chief constable that he had no right to ask the questions. Under section 12, in my view the chief constable was without the law. In those circumstances, he was acting illegally."—[Official Report, 5 April 1982; Vol.21, c. 803.] I regret to say that the hon. Member for York got his facts wrong. As I said in my opening remarks, my wife is a member of the Greater Manchester council and of the police committee. She has kindly let me have a copy of the documents that were sent to members of the police committee. On 25 February, the clerk to the police authority wrote to the chief constable saying: The Chairman and Labour Members of the Police Committee have asked me to convey to you a request for the submission of a written report to the next meeting of the Police Committee on 5th March on the recent police operation at Laurence Scott and Electromotors Ltd., Openshaw. In a letter of 1 March, the chief constable said: I think you know perfectly well that there are considerable political overtones to the questions 'authorised', as you put it, by the Chairman of the Police Committee. He has acted only on behalf of the Labour Group which, in my opinion, within the context of Police Committee business, is, to put it bluntly, irregular. His duty is to the whole Police Authority and on this particular matter he has not yet consulted either the Magistrates or the political opposition. The dispute referred to was at the Laurence Scott factory and the problem at the time was that the Labour Party—this is the crux of the matter—accused the chief constable of over-reacting and having more policemen there than was necessary. One also has to take into account the fact that if there had been public disorder, if there had been personal injury and if there had been criminal damage, this would have had serious effects in the area. There would no doubt have been criticism of the chief constable for not having sufficient policemen there. He was therefore in a no-win situation.

To revert to the correspondence, I believe that the chief constable was right to act in the way that he did. He is answerable to the whole police committee which consists of Labour, Conservative and Liberal county councillors and magistrates. His purpose is not to serve the party that happens to control Greater Manchester at this time. There has been a great deal of publicity on the issue. There have been allegations about the high-handedness and arrogance of the chief constable. I believe that a wrong impression was given. I hope that I have tonight corrected the record. In Mr. Anderton we have in Greater Manchester a man of great ability who deserves 100 per cent. backing in his fight against crime.

People are far more concerned about tackling crimes of violence and burglaries than with the political machinations of the controlling Labour group on Greater Manchester council. The principal role of any chief constable is to maintain and uphold law and order in society. Sir Richard Mayne, who was the first commissioner in 1829, stated that the primary object of an efficient police force is the prevention of crime, the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crimes are committed. To these ends all the efforts of the police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity and the absence of crime will prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained. In attaining these objects, a great deal depends on the approval and co-operation of the public. This is dependent on the degree of esteem and respect in which the public hold the police. I believe that we have the best police force in the world and that the police in this country do a difficult and, at times, dangerous job. They are entitled to maximum support.

That brings me back to the question of police authorities. Their duties and responsibilities are to maintain an adequate and efficient police force in their areas and to ensure that the money voted is wisely spent. Their job should be to work with the chief constable and the police force and not to spend their time sniping. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will stress the high calibre of our chief constables and police forces and his abhorrence of militant Left Wingers, who seek to control the police for their own political ends.

12.37 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) for offering us this opportunity once again to consider the powers and the position of chief constables. I am particularly glad to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) who, as the House knows, has special knowledge of the police service deriving from his long service in the Liverpool city police and before that, in the Royal Military Police. That is a special knowledge and experience from which the House derives much benefit.

It is a tradition in this country that the authority of the police should rest as far as possible on the broad basis of the consent and active co-operation of all law-abiding people and not on the possession of special powers that set them apart from the ordinary citizen. But, of course, there are some duties which, if they are to be entrusted to the police and adequately performed by them, do require the grant of special powers.

The powers of the police in enforcing the law derive from their status as holders of the office of constable. As holders of this office, chief constables have no greater powers in enforcing the law than do other members of their forces. Since these powers are original to all constables and not delegated, the chief constable may not order another constable to exercise them on his behalf in any particular case; he may only give general directions as to the circumstances in which their exercise is appropriate.

This was illustrated in a recent case. The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the Central Electricity Generating Board from a judgment of the Divisional Court refusing to direct the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall to instruct his police officers to remove persons obstructing the board's works. Lord Justice Lawton said that the application showed a misconception of the powers of chief constables. They commanded their forces, but they could not give an officer under their command an order to do acts that could lawfully be done only if the officer himself, with reasonable cause, suspected that a breach of the peace had occurred, or was imminently likely to occur or an arrestable offence had been committed. The chief constable could not give unqualified orders to his men to remove those who were obstructing the board's work. Any orders he gave would need to have qualifying words to the effect that those obstructing should be removed if, but only if, there was a breach of the peace or an imminent likelihood of one or an unlawful assembly formed.

This vividly illustrates the unique position that the police and chief constables within the police hold under our system of policing. It is a unique system. It is admired throughout the free world and it calls for great qualities of discretion and wisdom, especially from chief constables who have the duty to direct and control the police forces under them. It is the key to the system that political control is intended to be avoided. We succeed in avoiding political control over our police forces by this curious and unique, but successful, system whereby the chief constable has the discretion to command and direct his force and police authorities have their own separate powers under the Police Act. The Home Secretary, who has the overall responsibility, for which he in turn is accountable to Parliament, of promoting the efficiency of every police force in England and Wales, has his part to play in this diversified structure of control of policing in this country.

Accordingly, the immediate decision as to the exercise of police powers in an individual case is the sole responsibility of the particular officer concerned. General direction to his force, and the formulation of force policies within which his officers exercise individual discretion, are the responsibility of the chief constable. I gladly take up my hon. Friend's invitation to pay tribute to the high quality of those officers—and dedicated officers they are—who command our police forces.

As is the case with every discretionary power conferred by law, every act purporting to be in the exercise of the discretion conferred on constables or chief constables is subject to review by the civil courts. It is also, of course, equally subject to the criminal law.

This concept of individual and independent decision within an enabling framework of law is reflected in the chief constable's wider role—his statutory responsibility under the Police Act 1964 for directing and deploying his force.

The decision how and when to deploy his officers is one for the chief constable. The Royal Commission acknowledged the need for chief officers to be operationally independent. I said recently in the House on an occasion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale has already referred, and I repeat tonight, that under our system there is no room for political interference from central or from local government, whether it be from the Left wing, the Right wing or the Centre. That is of cardinal importance. Impartiality, which demands independence from political control, is fundamental to our policing arrangements.

Mr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)

I visited the Manchester police force 12 months ago and was very impressed by the quality of one of the finest chief constables in the country, Mr. Anderton. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it would be a breach of regulations for any police officer to be affiliated to any political party? In that fact we have the independent strength of the police service.

Mr. Mayhew

I am glad to acknowledge my hon. Friend's tribute to a distinguished chief constable, and certainly to endorse what he said about the impropriety of active political participation by a police officer.

Neither the police authority nor my right hon. Friend may direct a chief constable to institute proceedings in a particular case, direct him to deploy his force in a particular way, or direct him to desist from a particular operation.

But the chief constable is not making his decisions in a vacuum. In exercising his professional judgment he must act within the law and in addition must have regard to such guidance as my right hon. Friend may issue in the exercise of his own statutory responsibility to promote the efficiency of every police force in England and Wales. The national dimension to policing—the adoption of uniform standards and techniques—was identified by the Royal Commission in 1962 and has become increasingly important.

For example, there are statutory regulations on recruitment, which are supplemented by guidance on selection procedures. There is guidance that stems from the activities of the Police Advisory Board, such as its recent working party on the special constabulary. Guidance is also issued from time to time on such matters as crime prevention and on handling particular problems, such as juvenile delinquency. The results of research are also made available to chief constables.

Her Majesty's inspectors have an influential role in encouraging good practice. There are many different ways in which chief constables are made aware of, and are influenced by, national policies. Chief officers meet to discuss particular operational issues, and an individual chief constable will doubtless have regard to guidance formulated on such occasions.

No less important is the local dimension, which featured in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale. The chief constable is accountable to his police authority for his policies. This accountability ensures that the police keep in touch with the needs and wishes of the community. The chief constable looks to his police authority—containing elected representatives of the local community to the extent of two-thirds of its number, the remainder being local magistrates—for advice and guidance, because only with public support can the police be fully effective.

My right hon. Friend has consistently encouraged police authorities to provide a forum for discussion of general policing questions. A police authority may wish to discuss, for example, the local response to a particular crime problem or the effect of past operations. In this regard it may call for a report from the chief constable on matters connected with the policing of its area.

But the present arrangements will work satisfactorily only if police authorities and chief constables understand and respect each other's role and responsibilities. While we expect police authorities to take account of the chief constable's independence in enforcing the law—indeed, it is vital that they should do so and not seek to erode it—equally, chief constables should accept the police authority's legitimate concern in the overall policies and the overall cost of the force. We cannot legislate for good working relationships. But if this partnership is to work effectively to control crime and maintain a peaceful community, there must be mutual respect and confidence. That is what the public expect.

A wise chief constable—happily they are wise in this country—will not wish to confine his consultations to his police authority and will consult more widely. Lord Scarman's report highlighted the need for this, and my right hon. Friend wishes to see better arrangements generally made for a two-way flow of information and support between the police and the community. This will not inhibit operational decisions by chief constables. Rather, we believe, it will assist both the chief constable and the police authority in carrying out their statutory responsibilities.

It is not for me to comment on the police operations during the industrial dispute at the premises of Laurence Scott and Electro Motors Limited, Openshaw, to which my right hon. Friend has referred in respect of the unhappy differences that arose from it between the distinguished chief constable of the police force concerned and the police committee. Nor do I intend to comment on those differences. The deployment of his officers on those occasions was a matter for the chief constable alone. There, as elsewhere, the police had a duty to maintain the peace and to prevent criminal offences. The police do not take sides in industrial disputes. I understand that the chief constable is satisfied that the scale of the police operations was no greater than was necessary to ensure that his duty under the law was effectively discharged.

Nor do I intend to refer to the Labour Party document to which my hon. Friend referred. That document is a matter for the members of the Labour Party who drew it up. Reticence must not be taken to imply endorsement. A call for aggressiveness as an attitude to be adopted by the members of the police authority towards the chief constable seems to me regrettable advice in the context in which it was given.

The Government are satisfied that the statutory framework of the 1964 Act is sound. With a reasonable approach and mutual understanding it works well. The point in the document about sacking a chief constable could, indeed, give rise to misunderstanding. A police authority can dismiss a chief officer under the discipline code—that is for an offence—or call upon him to retire, only in the interests of efficiency. That power is subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and has never been invoked since the passing of the 1964 Act. The consideration would be the efficiency of the force in the long-term.

We should remember that vital to our system is the need for mutual understanding and a reasonable approach from both sides. The independence of chief constables from political control is fundamental and the dangers of undermining it are so obvious that I do not need to restate them here tonight. But chief constables do not operate in isolation. Their discretion is exercised within a framework of constraints compatible with the traditional principles of policing in this country: that the police must act with the full consent of the community; that police forces are locally based—drawn from the community but not apart from it; and that the Government, through my right hon. Friend, have a primary duty to maintain law and order. The Government believe that our constitutional arrangements for policing in this country are sound, and that we have a structure in which all parties can, and should, work together to promote full public support and enhance police effectiveness.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to One o'clock.