Commons Sitting of 4 May 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

  ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Householdreported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented on behalf of your House a gift of a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Antigua and Barbuda and assuring me that your House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me great pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

  BELIZE (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Householdreported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented on behalf of your House a gift of a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Belize and assuring me that your House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me great pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Economic Outlook
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the outlook for the Scottish economy.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): There is growing evidence that the world economy is beginning to recover and, together with the progress we have made in containing costs and improving competitiveness, this should improve the prospects for growth in the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Secretary of State step in and do something about the tragic and deteriorating unemployment situation in Scotland, with 4.000 jobs immediately threatened in Scottish shipbuilding, more than 2,000 in Scottish steel and at least another 1,000 in the Scottish coal industry? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman now say clearly whether he approves of MacGregor's daft plan to collaborate with the United States Steel Corporation to destroy at least another 2,000 jobs in the Scottish steel industry?
    Mr. Younger: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that unemployment is the most serious problem facing all Western European countries, including ourselves. All the industries to which he referred have particular problems, mainly related to lack of demand for the products which they produce. As he will be aware, the Government have been doing everything possible to help, including providing large sums of public money to help those industries through the recession.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that recent unemployment figures in Scotland have been somewhat more encouraging after a very difficult period towards the end of last year. The seasonally adjusted total has risen by only 400 since the beginning of the year, and the gap between Scottish and United Kingdom unemployment has narrowed from 1·8 to 1·6 percentage points in just two months.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Secretary of State subscribe to the view that if the Finance Bill is passed and there is no general election, one new oil field may be opened up every six weeks? That is a Government estimate, I would add, before the right hon. Gentleman puts his foot in it, which I would not want him to do as he is a very decent chap. It that happens, what effect will it have on the ordering of rigs, platforms and supply vessels?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Gentleman for his advice. He is correct in his view that the Budget changes affecting oil development have been welcomed throughout the oil industry. We expect that they will lead to a revival of orders for the platform construction yards. It is too early yet to say how many others, but undoubtedly the development of these fields is bound to produce many orders for Scottish yards.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to the west of

    215
    Scotland was firm Government policy? Will he give a progress report on whether there are any jobs in the pipeline?
    Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has this afternoon announced the full package of posts from his Department for dispersal to Glasgow. The total number currently in these units is 1,520, which is 120 more than the total of 1,400 included in the Government's dispersal plans announced on 26 July 1979. I am sure that this news will be warmly welcomed in Glasgow and in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: We are grateful for the announcement, which of course compares with the plan to transfer 7,000 jobs to Glasgow — a plan which the Government inherited in 1979 and subsequently abandoned. Is the Secretary of State aware that the three basic industries, steel, shipbuilding and coal, now face a serious crisis? Is it not a fact that, unless the Government accept the emergency programme for British Shipbuilders, the 9,000 redundancies already announced, which are being resisted by the unions, will have many thousands more added to them? Is it not therefore extremely urgent that we have a favourable response to the plans for British Shipbuilders which have been put to the Government? Is that not also true of the coal industry, because, again, unless there is emergency help for that industry, the threatened closure of the Cardowan colliery will be only the start of a further rundown of the Scottish coal industry, which will add to the disastrous toll of closures and redundancies that Scotland has suffered under this Government?
    Mr. Younger: The dispersal programme of 1,520 compares well with the grand total of nil that the right hon. Gentleman produced in six years in office when he was given every facility. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could not do it because the unions told him that he could not.
    Detailed questions on the steel and shipbuilding industries can be tabled to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but my own interest in this subject is extremely strong, and, as he will know, I saw representatives of the shipbuilding industry recently. I understand that in visiting Greenock the Leader of the Opposition gave an undertaking that he would keep the whole place in work whether or not there were any orders. That shows that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition thinks it extremely unlikely that he will win the election.

    Mr. Ken Murray
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his decision in the case of Ken Murray, senior officer at Low Moss prison, further to Mr. Murray's appeal against the caution which he received following his address to the Scottish Young Liberals' conference on 29 January.
    Mr. Younger: Mr. Murray twice requested an extension of the period of time allocated for the lodging of the details of his appeal against his governor's award of a caution. The appeal, which has now been received, is receiving careful consideration and it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman when I have reached my decision.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware, first, that this officer had received permission from his superiors to address the conference, and, secondly, that what he said in criticism of the Scottish prison system was not substantially different from the criticism contained in various reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons? Will he therefore encourage open debate on the future of our prison system?
    Mr. Younger: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that Officer Murray did ask for permission before making this speech, but the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the merits of the case, as it will come before me on appeal.

    Housing Dampness
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has so far been paid to housing authorities for remedial works against dampness; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake a Scottish house condition survey to determine the extent of the problems of dampness and condensation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The final allocations for 1983–84 enable all schemes in authorities' capital programmes to remedy dampness and condensation to be undertaken this year if authorities accord them priority, as I hope they will. In addition to the extra information now being collected from local authorities on dampness and condensation, the EC labour force survey has a special Scottish supplement on housing matters, which will provide very useful information at a national level. This door-to-door survey is now under way.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister recognise that his statement on 31 March about a multi-million pound allocation to fight dampness was grossly misleading? Does he agree that the promised £11 million is a deficit of £2·6 million when account is taken of the £13·6 million forfeited by 28 authorities under the housing expenditure limit system?
    Mr. Stewart: It is true that £13 million has been forfeited by local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be one of the first to urge them to change their policies. The £11·4 million figure is accurate and was made possible by the outstanding success of the Government's policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister accept that, as the survey which is being undertaken covers only one third of 1 per cent. of houses, or one house in 300, it is completely inadequate for the problems that have been unearthed by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in its investigations into dampness? Does he agree that, as a result of these revelations, we should have a social survey combined with a house condition survey of at least 5 per cent. of dwelling houses in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: We await the conclusions of the Select Committee with interest. The information in this new survey is to supplement the substantial information that we are collecting from local authorities. The size of the sample and the number of questions in the survey are larger than in the English national house condition survey.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to redefine dampness to include condensation caused by structural defects which are not the responsibility of the tenant? Does he also agree that there is a basic injustice in requiring tenants to meet the cost of such condensation when they have no control over it?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the difference between dampness and condensation. Dampness is essentially caused by external factors, whether rising or penetrating dampness, whereas condensation is caused by a combination of factors. We look forward to the conclusions of the Select Committee on this point.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept and will he admit that the £11 million of which he is talking is not new money and that to pretend that it is amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation? Would not a better way to tackle this crisis be to give back some of the f100 million that has been clawed out of local authorities' capital allocations because of their failure to meet unreasonable rent targets over the past three years? Specifically, does the right hon. Gentleman stand by the extraordinary claim by the Scottish Office that the pitifully inadequate funding made available will allow Glasgow district council, for example, to cover in full the cost of carrying through in one year its entire programme for the eradication of dampness and condensation?
    Mr. Stewart: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final question is yes. That is the figure in Glasgow's capital programme and check list.
    It is deplorable that local authorites should have forgone the £104 million in potential capital expenditure over the past two years and this year. However, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that Glasgow will not suffer penalties in 1983–84. The £11·4 million is extra money made available because of rising council house sales receipts. It did not come out of thin air. Only the Labour party thinks that resources come out of thin air.

    Departmental Information and Advice
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what priority he gives to publicising the work of his Department and to improving the availability of information and advice from his Department to the general public.
    Mr. Younger: I attach a high priority to informing the public of the facts regarding Government policy and am always ready to consider suggestions for improving this service.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad to hear that. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister for Consumer Affairs has caused considerable mischief and uncertainty among citizens advice bureaux recently? Citizens advice bureaux in Scotland deal with at least 120,000 inquiries from members of the public about functions which are the responsibility of the Scottish Office. Will the Secretary of State therefore take this opportunity to repudiate the threats and slurs that the Minister for Consumer Affairs, the hon. Members for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), has made against citizens advice bureaux? Does not this whole
    218
    episode make a strong case for citizens advice bureaux in Scotland being funded through the Scottish Office rather than through the Department of Trade?
    Mr. Younger: I do not think that any of those points arise out of this question, but I am glad to take the opportunity of applauding the excellent work done by the many citizens advice bureaux in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Are the citizens advice bureaux in Scotland to undergo a similar inquiry to that intended for England and Wales, given that a review was carried out, I understand, last year?
    Mr. Younger: I am not aware that a review was carried out last year, but, of course, citizens advice bureaux in Scotland will benefit from the inquiry that is going on.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the matters with which his Department deals need much better publicity? Is he aware, for example, that many people think that there have been cuts in resources to the National Health Service, although under this Government resources have been increased? Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people do not know that there is a better pupil-teacher ratio than ever in our schools and that more money is spent per pupil? If it were not for the fact that I do not want to try your patience further, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether many other things could be added to the list of items requiring more publicity.
    Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's great surprise that such obvious facts do not seem to be widely known — in particular, that there has been real growth in money for the NHS in the past four years. Not long ago a parliamentary candidate at a by-election was asked a question, to which he did not appear to know the answer, and he replied,"I am not sure of the answer to that, but it will be the Tory cuts." We do our best to put right such misinformation.

    Secondary Schools (Staffing)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what percentage the staffing levels in secondary schools in each region of Scotland are above those recommended in the publication "Secondary School Staffing" known as the Red Book.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The information requested is contained in the Scottish Education Department's statistical bulletin No. 1/B1/1983 of January 1983, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for sending me that copy, but will he confess that the statistics included in the information that he sent me show that some authorities are already above the recommended level above Red Book standards to deal with this major change? Will he now concede that the allowance that he has made is totally inadequate? Will he increase it, and increase the rate support grant to local authorities so that they can employ more secondary teachers to carry out those reforms, thus taking them out of the dole queue and putting them into the classrooms?
    Mr. Fletcher: We do not agree that the grant is insufficient. However, because of the reforms that have

    219
    been announced, we are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, increasing the allowance. The fact that some local authorities continue to staff their schools at above the average level—6·7 at present on Red Book standards—is no reason to suggest that other authorities, including Labour-controlled authorities, are failing in their duty to staff schools properly.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that Tayside region, which often attracts criticism from the Opposition, has a splendid record on Red Book standards? Its record on examination results is above average. It is a very good authority, which consistently applies the logic that the customer is always right.
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the use of resources, not the amount of money spent, that matters.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister concede that the support that he suggests for implementation of the Munn and Dunning reforms could, according to his own figures, result in some local authorities having their teaching levels cut if his argument is carried through to its logical conclusion? Does the Minister see that as a meaningful contribution towards the realisation of his ambitions for the Munn and Dunning reports? Does he think that he can carry the teaching unions and the respective local authorities with him if he imposes cuts at the same time as he asks for reforms to be realised?
    Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I do. We are increasing the allowance. The fact that some local authorities have an over-provision and are operating their staffing levels inefficiently does not justify the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He should bear in mind the increase to 5 or 6 per cent. above Red Book standards announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the fact that every day taken off the school year—to which we agreed—to allow teachers to prepare for the changes adds 0·5 per cent. to Red Book standards.

    Hyperbaric Oxygen Chamber, Glasgow
    Mrs. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if there is a hyperbaric oxygen chamber in Glasgow.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): There are two hyperbaric oxygen chambers in Glasgow, both located in the Western infirmary.
    Mrs. McElhone: Is it not true that, because of Government cuts, those machines are lying empty? Is the Minister aware that they could be used to help sufferers from multiple sclerosis? I understand that people suffering from multiple sclerosis have to travel to Dundee to use a machine.
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Lady obviously did not listen to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) about the money that we are putting into the Health Service. There is a growing interest in the use of hyperbaric oxygen chambers to treat multiple sclerosis, and I would welcome any proposal for a fully validated double blind trial of this form of treatment. It would not be wise to spend more money on equipment or to raise false hopes until we are sure that the treatment works.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that the first hyperbaric centre in Scotland should be set up in Aberdeen? As this Government have encouraged industrial, oil and health interests to co-operate in this sphere there, may we hope that Aberdeen will eventually give the lead in the whole area of hyperbaric medicine?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. We expect to receive specific proposals shortly from Grampian health board. A new consultant in hyperbaric medicine has recently been appointed there.
    Mr. McQuarrie: As the incidence of multiple sclerosis is increasing in the north of the country, will my hon. Friend consider providing aid for research into multiple sclerosis in the Grampian area?
    Mr. MacKay: I am interested in all possible aids and research projects connected with multiple sclerosis. Indeed, the Medical Research Council recently awarded £50,000 to Dr. Downie, consultant neurologist with the Grampian health board, as part of a national trial of a drug called Azathioprine for the treatment of that disease. Medical people regard that as the priority research area, rather than the hyperbaric research undertaken in the Grampian area.

    Kirkcaldy (Housing Development)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representation he has received against the relaxation of the provision of table 17 of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1981, in respect of Barratt Edinburgh Ltd. one-apartment flats, type studio solo, proposed to be built in Kirkcaldy district; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Because the building standards regulations do not cover flats specifically designed for one-person accommodation, the space requirements in respect of these flats have been relaxed. Representations have been made by Kirkcaldy district council.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that Kirkcaldy district council is bitterly opposed to these unjustified reductions in the standards of those houses, particularly the minimum basic standards? Although such houses may be acceptable in England, we in Scotland do not want rabbit hutches for living accommodation. Will the Minister at least remove relaxation for Kirkcaldy district council?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has missed the key point. When the space standards were drawn up, a demand for minimum living accommodation for single people only was not envisaged. It is wrong to penalise innovations that meet modern housing needs. Indeed, I understand that the flats are selling extremely well.
    Mr. Milian: Is there not a change of policy by the Government in this particular case, as similar proposals have been turned down in the past? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the wider question of the complete relaxation of space standards? Is he aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the district housing authorities and all the professional interests are bitterly opposed to such relaxation? The last thing that Scotland wants is many small, inadequate houses. We have enough of them already.
    Mr. Stewart: We have recently completed public consultation on our proposals to drop housing space standards on the basis that they are outdated restrictions on freedom of choice. A statement will be made after we have considered the responses and the advice of the Building Standards Advisory Committee. However, I would expect the right hon. Gentleman to be in favour of outdated restrictions on freedom of choice.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Minister confirm that there are no technical reasons for allowing the standards laid down by the House to be relaxed and that the Government have allowed them to be relaxed not only in Kirkcaldy, but in Dunfermline, Edinburgh and Dundee? Where else will that firm be allowed to build its hutches? Is it not true that it makes very big subscriptions to the Tory party and that that is why the Minister is allowing it to get away with murder?
    Mr. Stewart: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point is, "Not to my knowledge." The hon. Gentleman has raised this point before. Following his last hysterical outburst about Barratt, I understand that he was invited to see a studio solo and he refused.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is not true.
    Mr. Stewart: In any event, it is deplorable to make such unjustified attacks on a reputable company. The fact is that these houses are meeting a need.
    Mr. William Hamilton: I wish to give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek to raise a point of order at the end of Question Time.
    Later—
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister asserted that I had received an invitation from Barratt, the builders, to visit one of its houses. That is certainly not true within the past six months —(HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—although in the dim and distant past it might have issued a friendly invitation that I refused. I would refuse any subsequent invitation, too.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Why?
    Mr. Hamilton: Because these houses are hovels that are not fit to live in.

    Mallaig (Road Improvements)
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the improvements to the road to Mallaig to be completed.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I hope that the section into Mallaig itself can start next year, with completion in 1986. Draft road orders have been published for two further sections, but objections that have been lodged to these make any estimate of completion dates difficult.
    Mr. Johnston: I thank the Minister at least for doing his best at long last to give us a date. Has his Department given any thought to the consequential effect of a parallel railway line, because with large central Government expenditure on roads and no investment in the railways, we directly enable the bus companies considerably to undercut the railways as well as to provide a faster service? That is now happening on the Inverness to Edinburgh and Inverness to Glasgow routes.
    Mr. Stewart: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was interested in the road to Mallaig. As to the railways, the
    222
    options in the Serpell report are purely illustrative and are designed to stimulate debate. With regard to the road to Mallaig, we shall do our utmost to resolve the objections.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress being made with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants in Scotland.
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the average period being taken by Scottish local authorities to finalise the sale of houses to tenants who have applied to purchase their homes under the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) Act and the total number of applications outstanding at 30 March.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The average time taken by local authorities to process sales from application to completion was just under 13 months in respect of sales completed in the last three quarters of 1982. I regard that figure as unacceptable and in January my Department wrote to 19 authorities whose performances were giving most grounds for concern.
    Mr. Knox: Are the local authorities that are taking longest to complete council house sales predominantly Labour-controlled, and if so will my hon. Friend list them?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall not take up the time of the House by listing all 19 authorities. The information is publicly available and I shall send it to my hon. Friend. Most of the authorities concerned are Labour, but I am glad to say that most have given reassurances that they will speed up the process of sales. We are determined that the aspirations of tenants will not be needlessly frustrated.
    Mr. McQuarrie: As my hon. Friend said, the average time of 13 months is totally unacceptable. As well as getting in touch with the local authorities, mainly Labour, that are causing this delay, will my hon. Friend contact the Scottish Home and Health Department, because prison officers in Peterhead have been desperately trying to get their houses for 18 months? Will my hon. Friend take some action to ensure that those prison officers are able to purchase their houses, thereby saving money?
    Mr. Stewart: I note my hon. Friend's concern about the prison officers. We are doing everything that we can to finalise those sales, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that some of the problems encountered, particularly with regard to unmade roads, do not apply to local authorities. As to the local authorities, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that Banff and Buchan has agreed to take on an additional solicitor, on a temporary basis, to speed up sales.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to alter his strategy because he is dissatisfied with the sale of council houses in the sense that his right hon. Friend is responsible for encroachment into the Edinburgh planning area à la Swanston? How can the Minister justify the taking of such a decision that will blight Edinburgh's green belt?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear in his decision letter and said that further encroachment of the green belt surrounding Edinburgh should not be necessary. The position on council sales is

    223
    quite different. The Government believe that the aspirations of tens of thousands of Scottish families to own their own homes should be met.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the immediate and successful response to the shared ownership scheme? Will he look at the possibility of extending that scheme to council house tenants?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes. I am delighted at the success of shared ownership schemes and at the fact that certain legal difficulties appear to have been overcome. I have no doubt that there is considerable scope for a further extension of shared ownership in Scotland.
    Mr. Dewar: If home ownership rights for sitting tenants in rented property are of such enormous, almost theological, importance to the Government, will there be legislation to give similar rights to private tenants?
    Mr. Stewart: As the Labour party is apparently committed to nationalising more or less everything, it is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between public and private property rights. The hon. Gentleman, as an owner-occupier, is apparently obsessed with the desire to prevent tens of thousands of Scottish families from achieving their ambition of owner-occupation.

    Rating Valuation (Anomalies)
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received alleging anomalies in rating valuation in Scotland compared with England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I have received representations about a variety of Scottish businesses, from a number of sources. I have consulted the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council and will consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about possible remedies.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend give special attention to situations where the anomalies are particularly glaring, especially when there is competition north and south of the border? Does he recognise that there are anomalies in Scotland and that at the end of the day many of the problems stem from the different expenditure policies of local authorities?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. There is no doubt that many of the difficulties are caused by the unreasonable expenditure policies pursued by some Scottish authorities.
    Mr. George Robertson: The Minister and his right hon. Friend will be well aware that one of the most glaring anomalies now in the rating system is the valuation of race courses. Given that a major crisis is affecting the Scottish racing industry, especially the race courses at Ayr and Hamilton Park, what action are the Government taking urgently to make sure that racing in Scotland survives this crisis?
    Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The advisory council has specifically considered race courses. We are urgently considering the council's recommendations on that matter, together with others, and we shall reach a decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the undesirability of rating croft houses that are let to tourists as commercial premises? Will he also consider urgently the possibility of derating peat banks?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall look into both matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rateable value of a hotel bedroom in Scotland is about £400, whereas in England it is about £165? Is that not totally unfair and should not something urgently be done before we crucify the Scottish tourist industry?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend made that very point during Friday's debate on the Rating (Caravan Sites) (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill. That debate was completely ignored by the Opposition, which shows how much they really care about some of the anomalies.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I accept that anomalies exist inside the Scottish rating system, but does the Minister agree that rates are higher in Scotland because of the increased poundage forced on local authorities as a result of the Government's intention to reduce step by step the proportion of Scottish public expenditure?
    Mr. Stewart: The increased poundage is due to the excessive expenditure policies of many Scottish local authorities, but I accept that there is often a combination of valuation and poundage factors.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper outlining his future plans for dealing with the problems of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I have at present no intention of publishing such a White Paper, but I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. MacKenzie: That is exactly the reply that I expected, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply a few minutes ago about the dissemination of Government information, it is rather surprising that he is reticent about this. We were given to understand that, as inflation and interest rates came down, so would unemployment, but unemployment is going up. If the Secretary of State and his colleagues continue to decimate the Scottish steel industry we shall have no basic industry at all and we shall not be able to attract inward investment and jobs—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a time for speeches; it is a time for questions.
    Mr. Foulkes: Very good, though.
    Mr. Speaker: It might be. But we are in Question Time.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but it would not add anything to our knowledge to publish a White Paper, although it would enable me to point out several useful facts, such as that, whereas in the United Kingdom industrial production in the year ended 1982 had fallen by 0·1 per cent., in Scotland it rose by 2·5 per cent., and in the same period manufacturing production in the United Kingdom fell by 1·2 per cent. while it rose by 1·8 per cent. in Scotland.
    Mr. Ancram: Is not the soundest way to reduce unemployment in Scotland to attract and encourage new

    225
    industry? Is not the greatest disincentive to that, and thus the greatest blow to Scottish job prospects, the cynical practice of the Labour party in continuing to talk Scotland down and put those industries off?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and if I thought that overseas investors were paying close attention to what Labour Members said I would agree. However, they are much more likely to be worried about setting up in Scotland if there were any prospect of the Labour party getting into power and trying to tear us out of Europe. That would destroy thousands of jobs almost overnight and certainly prevent any new investment.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State take my advice and accept that there will shortly be an announcement that more than 700 jobs will become vacant at the Clydesdale steelworks? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) and myself are making strong representations to the Minister of State, Department of Employment with a view to the continuation of the short-time working payment supplement? Is he prepared to give a categoric assurance that he will add his weight to our solicitations to the Minister in an effort to save those jobs?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have seen deputations from those involved who have pressed the matter on my attention and I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about it.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment further on what he thinks the effect on unemployment in Scotland would be if the inept, inane and myopic policies of the Labour party to take Britain out of the EC were ever implemented?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the most significant fact is that we all know that there are many members of the Labour party who think the same as we do but who are not prepared to say so.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Secretary of State answer at least one question that he dodged earlier this afternoon? As we are faced with more than 4,000 redundancies in the Scottish shipbuilding industry, will the Government respond positively to British Shipbuilders' request for emergency aid, or will they simply stand idly by and allow its sections of the shipbuilding industry to collapse?
    Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the chairman of British Shipbuilders has to submit his proposals to my right hon. Friend and they then have to be considered carefully by the Government. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, when those proposals are considered in detail by the Government, I shall be taking part.

    Corporal Punishment
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to which education authorities have decided to ban corporal punishment.
    Mr. Younger: All but one of the Regional and Island councils in Scotland are moving towards elimination of corporal punishment in schools by the end of the 1983–84 school session.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend really think that the abandonment of corporal punishment
    226
    without any alternative measure will improve discipline in schools? Is he satisfied that the education authorities have had full consultations with teachers and parents?
    Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always stressed that the changes should be made in the closest consultation with the teachers and I advised local authorities to do so. I am confident, from what I have heard, that the problems are being satisfactorily dealt with. Although there are bound to be difficulties now and again, we should implement the policy in a steady and care fully calculated manner.
    Mr. Craigen: What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the staff time that is taken up with disciplinary matters nowadays? Is that not a factor that should be taken into account in Red Book standards plus?
    Mr. Younger: I have not made any calculation of any changes in staff time that this may involve, but obviously such a change of practice is bound to demand a certain amount of extra effort from teachers. However, as most of the teachers concerned support the policy, they will think that it is an advance in education.
    Mr. Corrie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem is that parental discipline is breaking down and teachers are being asked to do the jobs that parents are no longer doing? If parents want their children to be strapped at school, should not the headmaster have the freedom to do so?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says and I agree that parents should play their part in disciplining their children. That must be stressed at all times. As my hon. Friend will be aware, that is one of the advantages that I believe will come once the new parental involvement in schools, which has been so carefully stimulated by my hon. Friend and others, takes effect. It will be a good thing to have much closer parental involvement in disciplinary matters.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is it not irresponsible to require the ending of corporal punishment without adequate resources having been made available, when the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted this afternoon that there will be more work in the establishment of belt-free education in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: It probably would be irresponsible to make such changes with inadequate resources, but as the resources available are better than they have ever been, and as the money for school education is higher per pupil than it has ever been, the hon. Gentleman does not have much of a point.

    Agriculture (Community Aid)
    Mr. O'Neillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to discuss European Community aid for Scottish agriculture.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble Friend the Minister of State often have discussions with the president and other union representatives on a wide range of matters.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that there is a deep sense of disappointment as a result of the Government's failure to give adequate support to the Provan report,

    227
    which already has the support of many sections of the Community, not least the Community Parliament? Will he reconsider this question in the light of the disappointment that has already been expressed by those affected in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: The Commission has acknowledged that it is its responsibility to put forward the structure proposals for a plan to help the most disadvantaged areas of the Community. If and when the Commission comes forward with proposals affecting the Highlands and Islands, we shall consider them carefully. It ill-becomes a member of the Labour party, which would take us out of the EC and deprive us of any possibility of Community aid, to suggest that we have been found wanting in our support of any EC project.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Did not the European Commission say that, if the Government were prepared to respond, it could produce a proposal within six weeks?
    Mr. MacKay: That remains to be seen when the Commission produces the proposals. We have made it clear all along that we await proposals from it. It has to make the proposals, but in any case there is no money in the EC for any such schemes until 1984.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the weaknesses of the so-called Provan report was, first, that it did not detail how the money was to be spent, and, secondly, that it excluded the highland areas of Perthshire, Angus and North Tayside?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend raises one of the problems about giving aid to specially disadvantaged areas defined in broad geographic terms. The National Farmers Union is well aware of that problem and, if and when the proposal comes from the EC, one would expect that to be one of the problems that will be discussed between us.

    Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of bed weeks lost because of remedial building work at the Royal hospital for sick children, Glasgow; and when he expects this work to be completed.
    Mr. John MacKay: In the period from February 1978 to the end of March this year a total of 14,238 bed weeks have been lost. All remedial work is now virtually complete and the hospital is expected to be back in full use shortly.
    Mr. Carmichael: Is the Minister aware that I have never considered this saga to be a party political matter, but much more a bureaucratic one? I have continually asked that there should be a public inquiry. If the Minister finds, as I think that he will, that the legal process is far too long, will he institute a public inquiry into the background of the hospital and, perhaps through that, find out a great deal more about the conditions in the building industry in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: I recognise that the hon. Member has taken a continuing and long interest in the Royal hospital for sick children, and he may be the prospective candidate for the seat that encompasses that hospital, which may be of interest to at least one right hon. Member. I think that the hon. Member knows that counsel has always advised
    228
    us that holding a public inquiry could prejudice the board's legal position in seeking restitution, and as considerable sums of money are involved in the disputation between the board and the builders, it is in the interest of the taxpayer and the Health Service that we do not do anything that might damage our position in our efforts to get some of the money back.
    Mr. McQuarrie rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and, to be fair, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and allow two minutes extra at the end of questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful for the reply that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael). However, may I ask him to answer the last part of the question? When does he expect the work to be completed, because, as he is well aware, the hospital has suffered for many years while being built, to the detriment of the staff employed in the hospital?
    Mr. MacKay: When I visited the hospital a few months ago, the last of the scaffolding was coming down. Only a few small jobs remained to be done and none of those will prevent the hospital from coming into full use.
    Mr. Millan: As the hon. Gentleman said that a large sum of money was involved, how does he intend to pursue compensation?
    Mr. MacKay: The route is the normal route of a statement of claim and arbitration against the original main contractors, Costain Construction Ltd. That was submitted to the appointed architect in March 1980 and much detailed work and preparation have been done since then. I expect that formal hearings will start early next year.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Advocates-depute
    Mr. Ancramasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is satisfied that the time of advocates-depute is used as efficiently as possible.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): Yes. There are 12 advocates-depute, that number having remained constant since April 1981. Since then their work load has markedly increased with no deterioration in the service provided by them and I am satisfied that their time is used as efficiently as possible.
    Mr. Ancram: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. May I ask whether he has ever calculated the amount of time spent by advocates-depute in preparing cases and attending at the High Court for trials that do not take place owing to last-minute pleas of guilty? Is he satisfied that the procedure cannot be altered, where appropriate, so that pleas of guilty can be heard at an earlier stage, thereby saving the time of advocates-depute and public money?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot make detailed calculations on this, but a great deal of time is wasted. In view of the timetables introduced by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, giving 29 clear days from the time that the indictment has to be served for the trial,

    229
    there are considerable opportunities for those instructed for the defence to look into the matter and to take their client's instructions and, if they want to, as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear, discuss the case with the prosecution.
    Mr. Dewar: Has the Solicitor-General noted the recent Appeal Court decision that allowed, or upheld, an extension of the 110-day rule when the extension was required because the Crown had taken a calculated risk, as it was described, by putting down the trial right at the end of the 110-day period? Is that a practice of which the Solicitor-General approves? Does it reflect difficulties in the administration and a shortage of advocates-depute, and does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the widespread concern that this decision has undermined safeguards surrounding the 110-day rule put into the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not concerned about that. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read what the Lord Justice-General had to say about it, he will see that he said that the critical factor was the expected duration of the case ahead of the one that went on appeal. That was expected to last for one and a half days, but lasted for five. In those circumstances, the Lord Justice-General made it clear that there had been no lack of due diligence on the part of the prosecution and accordingly allowed the case. It is our intention, as far as possible, always to temper the 110-day rule. If the hon. Gentleman looks through the judgment, he will see that the Lord Justice-General made it clear that only in exceptional circumstances would extension be permitted.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I appreciate that a convicted prisoner charged with another offence is not covered by the 110-day rule. However, will the Solicitor-General accept that for the prisoner awaiting trial in those circumstances, when 110 days have long since passed and he has not been brought to trial, it is a difficult time? The prisoner is entitled to justice as much as anybody else, as he is innocent of the charge until proved guilty.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The 110-day rule in Scotland means that we have a tighter timetable to bring people to trial in criminal prosecutions than anywhere else in the world. It is only in exceptional circumstances that any extension is allowed. Apart from the 110-day rule, as hon. Members will know, the other timetable provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act make it even more difficult for the Crown to step out of the timetable.

    Criminal Prosecutions
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many criminal prosecutions were awaiting trial in Scotland at the latest available date.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On 22 April 1983 there were 21,592 criminal trials pending.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree, in the light of the reply that he gave to an earlier question, that there is deep concern about this matter, because if justice is to be seen to be done, it is in the interests of justice that people are brought to trial quickly, and that this is not helped by those who change their plea when they appear, having held up the court
    230
    proceedings and brought people, at great cost, to answer trial questions in trials that do not take place? What will be done about this?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a matter of considerable concern, as it wastes not only the time of the court but of witnesses, jurors and the police. A recent survey has shown that, on the day of the trial, in between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of cases there is a change to a plea of guilty. That is a high proportion and it is causing considerable difficulties. I can only repeat the invitation that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already given, to the effect that if those acting for the defence wish to discuss cases with procurator fiscals before the trial diet, they are welcome to do so.
    Mr. Maxton: How do the figures for the number of those awaiting trial compare with those for 1979? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the figures would probable show a rising wave of crime in Scotland, which shows in turn that, despite the extra police powers and the extra policemen, the Government's policy on law and order in Scotland has failed?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not accept that. As to the powers to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he claimed that, once introduced, they would lead to a massive breakdown in the relationship between the police and the public in Scotland. As he knows, particularly in relation to the power of search, that has not happened, and the power has proved to be a valuable instrument used by the police in the protection of the public.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, as many police forces have now been brought up to strength, a person can be charged for a second offence similar to the first one before the first one has been brought to trial, and that where this arises the law can be brought into disrepute? Will my hon. and learned Friend take special action to ensure that in such cases the first case is brought to trial as a matter of urgency?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Whenever someone is brought before the court for an offence and charged and convicted, if there has been earlier offence of the same character it is in the interests of everyone that that is known to the court when passing sentence.

    Consultants and Specialists
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether prosecutions are still being considered following complaints against consultants and specialists alleged to have been misappropriating equipment and other resources which are the property of the National Health Service for their own material gain within their private practice.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, Sir. One such case is being considered by Crown counsel at present.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that it is now over a year since I first raised the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee, and that six months have passed since I sent to the Lord Advocate prima facie evidence to the effect that five consultants within the Forth valley health board area had been breaking the law in this regard? Is it not a deplorable case of double standards, in that a hospital worker can be

    231
    sacked for allegedly stealing a couple of apples from the hospital canteen while highly paid consultants seem to get away with stealing the equivalent of about £1,500 from the National Health Service?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I consider it wholly improper to make any comment on a case where investigations into alleged criminal activities are under way. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not have the same scruples. However, the matter has been considered by the procurator fiscal, who sent a lengthy report to Crown counsel, who are now considering it. I shall certainly advise the hon. Gentleman once a decision has been taken.
    Mr. Lambie: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bring the House up to date about what is happening in the investigation into the irregularities being practised by some consultants in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not understand the question. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman some six months ago giving him the decision by Crown counsel in that respect.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I now propose to allow the two minutes extra that I promised earlier.

    Procurator Fiscal Service
    Mr. Dewarasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present, staffing levels in the procurator fiscal service.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. An increase in staffing levels is required and it is expected that legal staff will be increased by 2·5 per cent. in the year 1983–84 and other staff by 3 per cent.
    Mr. Dewar: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that certain district councils which have the statutory duty to organise the district courts are worried and disturbed by the habit of cancelling courts because the fiscal service cannot service them? That leads to disruption and to an extension of the time that accused persons have to wait for trial. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look sympathetically at this problem to see whether anything can be done to help overcome the difficulties?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, I am very much aware of the problems, particularly in Glasgow. Last Friday I went to Glasgow district court to see the difficulties for myself. The problems are that two administrations are trying to co-ordinate the system. This is certainly a difficulty, but I hope that as a result of the procurator fiscal at Glasgow working with the district councils, given their administrative problems, the worst problems will be resolved.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that many of these staffing problems in the procurator fiscal's office and in the sheriff courts go back to the Government's appalling handling of the Civil Service dispute two years ago? If it is all right for the Government to encourage district councils to appoint more people to deal with the sale of council houses, is it not time that we had an adequate number of civil servants to deal with the problems in those departments?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The problems that were caused by the strikes in the Scottish courts have now effectively passed through the system. However, there are difficulties in staffing levels and, as I have already said, there is to be a modest increase in the staff provided.

Derating of Reed Cultivation (Scotland)
3.33 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove reed cultivation from the payment of rates in Scotland.
I want to make it clear at the outset that there is no question of a massive loss of revenue for Scottish local authorities. At present, there is only one place in Scotland where reed cultivation is rated. It is at Errol on the north bank of the river Tay in my constituency.
The two local authorities that are involved, Tayside region and Perth and Kinross district council, support me in my efforts to have reed cultivation at Errol de-rated. They do so because they recognise that the small company that is engaged in reed cultivation will go out of business if it is forced to pay rates for this year and previous years.
The sums involved are minute, compared with the vast amounts that are collected by the authorities. Nevertheless, they are massive in terms of the margins, prices and turnover of the company, Reedways of Errol. The rate demands cover the periods 1980–81, 1981–82 and 1982–83. Payment of the outstanding rates will force the company out of business, and nine craft jobs will vanish. It is in no way the fault of Reedways that this matter has taken so long to be resolved.
I first wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who at that time was Minister of State, Scottish Office. In my letter of 18 November 1981, I pointed out that the rates being levied on the reed beds which the company cultivated would completely wipe out the company's profits, and would mean that in future the company that supplied the reed for thatching and other old craft industries which had been restored to Tayside would face unfair competition from Hungary, and that consequently the company Reedways would be unable to pass on the rates cost in a price increase to its customers. I also drew attention to the fact that reed cultivation in England was not subject to rates. Sadly, the regional assessor for Tayside was not impressed, and continued to press for rates to be levied on Reedways.
Eventually, the case for the regional assessor, who claimed that reed bed cultivation was not an agricultural activity and consequently should not be derated, was heard before a tribunal, and later at an appeal before the lands
234
courts. The case for the regional assessor was upheld, and reed bed cultivation in Scotland on the banks of the river Tay became the only activity of this kind in the United Kingdom to be subject to rates.
During the whole sad saga, I pressed Ministers, until, on 21 October 1982, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the noble Lord Mansfield, accepted that reed bed management, cultivation and production fell within the terms of the farm capital grants system. It is my view that if that decision had been available to the lands court when the appeal was heard, it is very likely that that court would have decided that reed bed cultivation was an agricultural activity and therefore should be derated. Sadly, my noble Friend's decision was not made until after the appeal was heard, and the information was not available to the court at the time it was sitting.
The problem facing myself and the company was how to alter the situation before the rates payment requirement forced it out of business. I pressed Ministers to introduce an amendment to the Valuation and Rating Act (Scotland) 1965 to include reed bed management in the definition of agriculture, and asked that the effect should be retrospective. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has been very helpful and sympathetic, and I believe that he accepts the justice of the case for an amendment. Sadly, he cannot give an assurance to do so before 1985.
Th company cannot survive if it is forced to pay the outstanding rates bill. That is why I ask leave of the House to introduce my Bill. Action is called for now, not in 1985, and I look to the House to help me to change this ghastly and unrealistic situation before another ancient craft is lost to Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Myles, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. George Foulkes and Mr. John Corrie.

Derating of Reed Cultivation (Scotland)
  DERATING OF REED CULTIVATION (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to remove reed cultivation from the payment of rates in Scotland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

Orders of the Day
Police and Criminal Evidence Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on new clause proposed [3 May] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on Recommittal).

New Clause 10

CONSTITUTION OF POLICE AUTHORITY

'1. The following section shall be substituted for section 2 of the Police Act 1964:

"2.—(1) The police authority for a police area consisting of a county, including the Greater London Council area, shall be a committee of the council of the county constituted in accordance with the provisions of this section, to be known as the police committee.

(2) The police committee for a police area shall consist of such number of members of the council or the county or Greater London Council as they may determine.

(3) The quorum of a police committee shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the council.

(4) Section 102(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to a committee appointed under this section as it applies to a committee appointed under that section.

(5) Any proceedings by or against a committee appointed under this section shall be brought by or against the clerk of the council or town clerk as representing that committee".

2. The following section shall be substituted for section 4 of the Police Act 1946:

"4.—(1) The police force maintained for a police area under section 1 of this Act shall be under the direction and control of the police authority who shall secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area, and to exercise for that purpose the powers conferred on a police authority by this Act.

The police authority shall prepare and publish a law enforcement policy for its area which lays down the policing practices and methods to be adopted and the proposed allocation of resources.

(2) The police authority for every such police area shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and to regulations made under Part II of this Act, appoint the chief constable of the police force maintained by that authority and all other officers of the level of inspector and above, and determine the number of persons in each rank in that force which is to constitute the establishment of the force.

(3) The police authority for any such police area may, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, provide and maintain such buildings, structures and premises, and make such alterations in any buildings, structures or premises already provided as may be required for police purposes of the area.

(4) The police authority for any such police area may, subject to any regulation under Part II of this Act provide and maintain such vehicles, apparatus, clothing and other equipment as may be required for police purposes of the area.

(5) A combined police authority may, if so authorised by the combination scheme, make arrangements with any constituent authority for the use by the combined police authority of the services of officers of the constituent authority and the making of contracts and payments on behalf of the combined police authority by the constituent authority.".

3. Section 5(1) and 7(2) of the Police Act 1964 shall cease to have effect.

4. Section 12(3) of the Police Act 1964 shall be amended to leave out "ought not to be disclosed, or is not needed for the discharge of the function of the Police Authority" and substitute "cannot be disclosed or is sub judice".'.—[Mr. Dubs.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we are also discussing the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause 10, in line 5, at end insert
'together with a number of magistrates equal to not less than one third of the total membership of that authority.'.

New Clause 11

POLICE AUTHORITY SUPERVISION OF POWERS

'(1) It shall be the duty of the police authority constituted under the Police Act 1964 to monitor the exercise of powers given to the police under this Act.

(2) In the proper exercise of the duty under Clause 1 the authority shall call for regular reports from the chief constable about the use of the powers by the members of his force and the number of complaints arising from their actions.

(3) Where the committee consider it appropriate they shall refer any disputed use of the powers to a sub-committee to investigate.

Amendment (b), in line 9, at end insert
'provided that one third of those present shall be magistrates.'.
Amendment (c), in line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.
Amendment (d), in line 25, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 27.

(4) If the sub-committee are of the view that any officer has abused the powers granted under this Act, it shall refer the case to the chief constable to take disciplinary action against the officer.'.

Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause 11, in line 4, leave out from 'constable' to end of line 5.
Amendment (c), in line 6, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
New clause 25—Accountability of the Metropolitan Police—
'(1) The Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the activities of his force; and such a report shall be considered by a Select Committee of Members of Parliament representing constituencies within the Metropolitan Police District.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament proposals for a Metropolitan Police authority which shall include representatives of the Greater London Council, the London Borough Councils and such other local authorities as lie within the Metropolitan Police District; provided that such proposals shall not be laid until the local authorities mentioned above have been elected by a method of proportional representation.
(3) Such proposals shall include provisions to ensure that such an authority shall be responsible for the policing of the Metropolitan Police District and shall for that purpose:

(a) maintain the Metropolitan Police as an adequate and efficient police force;

(b) determine, from time to time, the general policy and operational strategy of the Metropolitan Police;

(c) act as the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police.

(4) The Commissioner of the Police may object to or request the deferral of the discussion at a meeting of the Authority of particular police operations if he considers that such discussion would prejudice the effectiveness of his force and if the chairman of the Authority is not prepared to accede to such objection or request the Commissioner may appeal to the Home Secretary who shall have the power to reverse the decision of the chairman of the Authority.'.
3.39 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: A little less than 10 hours ago, the Home Secretary told a less than crowded House why he could not accept the new clause, which seeks a radical alteration in the government of the police. I regret that his speech was not made at a more acceptable hour, for, while I disagreed fundamentally with many of the conclusions to which he came, I appreciated the thoughtful and, if I may say so without offence, moderate way in which he considered the issue and sought to rebut the points that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr Lyon) and associated Members made. Not for him the strident slogans employed by the chairman of the Conservative party when he addressed his mind to the subject last Friday.
I believe that the Home Secretary accepts that the argument in which we are now engaged about police responsibility and powers is a genuine and honest disagreement about how to make the police more effective. From our exchanges across the Floor of the House, I know that he accepts that the mutual aim of all parties is the greater success of the police forces of the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary believes that the radical plan embodied in my hon. Friend's new clause will not achieve that aim, and he argued that case with some force this morning. The alternative solution to the problems now facing the police has not worked in the way that the Home Secretary continues to insist that it will one day and in the way in which he insisted it would at the time of the general election. The philosophy of extra police with extra powers
238
at its best coincided with and at its worst produced the highest crime rate ever recorded and the worst clean-up rate that many police forces have been required to report.
I want to discuss the new clause in the light of the necessity to combat crime more successfully and in the light of our practical insistence that changing the way that the police are governed and controlled will make a material contribution to that.
As I have said before, I believe that the way to improve prevention and detection of crime is essentially a Labour party issue. The people who have suffered most over the past four years from the increase in crime have been the people I call, without embarrassment or apology, "our people". The muggings have taken place in the inner cities and the soulless housing estates. The break-ins which have caused the most distress, pain and anguish have been those to the houses of the poor and unemployed families, and the people whose gas meters have been broken and whose few savings stolen are the people whom it is the Opposition's duty to protect. It is our special duty to see how their protection can be improved and how the police can do a more effective job on their behalf.
I support the new clause, not least because I believe that the radical reorganisation of the police that it proposes will make their task of protecting those families in most need of protection more successful and more likely to achieve the aim that we all seek.
Describing that practical intention is in no way to minimise the issue of principle involved in the new clause. It seems axiomatic that the police forces of the United Kingdom, spending vast amounts of public money and influencing all our lives directly and crucially, should be subject to some control other than their own. At the moment they are, in effect, subject to no control. It is, in part, what defenders of the present system regard as the glory of the present law that the police are not under any control, are a power unto themselves, are not influenced by any political pressures and cannot be put under pressure from the electorate. That is often argued as the strength of their position.
I believe it to be their weakness and I put it in simple, mundane terms. Had the police been under the control of police authorities of elected men and women in the way that education, housing and public health are under the control of committees, I believe that the pressure each May on the councillors who eventually control the police would have been such that the police would have been required to perform in a way that was nearer to the wishes of the people and more likely to protect their interests.
3.45 pm
I make no apology for wanting to see electors turning up at councillors' surgeries on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings to say, for example, "Unless you get more policemen back on the beat and unless we see policemen on our street corners instead of an occasional sudden arrrival in a fast motor car, do not expect us to vote for you next time." That is what they say about housing, education and health. It seems to me to be a practical necessity, as well as democratically healthy.
At the moment the police are under no control other than their own. They are subject to no statutory authority and chief constables will say openly and frankly that their

239
simple duty is to run the police forces under the law. Learned Members will tell me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that an obligation simply to run police foces under the law is no special obligation at all. We are all required to discharge our daily duties under the law. There should be an Act of Parliament which delineates exactly the responsibilities and duties of chief police officers and which of the policy decisions should not be properly left to them but should be given to the democratically elected representatives of the people. That does not flow from the Police Act 1964. That Act requires local authority police committees to be responsible for little more than the funding of the police within their area. It requires them to ensure the efficient organisation of a police force. In practice, that means obtaining the necessary precept from the rates to pay the bills that a police force requires. It does not give police committees any control over even the widest concept of policy.
I have learnt during my three years of Opposition responsibility for the subject, that the ingenious manipulation of the Police Act 1964 enables a determined police committee to exercise some influence over the performance of the police within its area. That ambiguous power exists only if the police committee finds the small print and manipulates its powers to raise money and provide the money necessary for the continued effective existence of the force. It is a wholly undesirable way for elected men and women to exercise their authority. It leads inevitably to every kind of controversy as it led to controversy in Liverpool one and a half years ago. The House will recall that at that time in Liverpool the chief constable refused the police committee information to which it thought it was rightfully entitled. The police committee said that until the information was provided it would not authorise payment for specific items of equipment. That was resolved by what, I suppose, amounts to a compromise. It was a most unhealthy compromise which reflected no credit on the chief constable and did a great disservice to the reputation of the police and the police committee in the area.
Police committees should be given specific powers over the general policy of the police within their area. They should be given those powers in the knowledge that, as things stand today, they have absolutely no authority over individual chief police officers unless those chief police officers are responsible for a direct and gross breach of their obligations. The idea that the average police committee as now constituted can deflect, let alone determine, police policy is a myth which some people are prepared to perpetuate but which the Conservative party, I assume, wishes to explode as it believes that the power should be left to chief police officers alone.
For the reasons that I have given, I believe that a major change is necessary. Such a change would be accomplished by the new clause.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman after missing the beginning of his speech. Does he agree that the police authority can and does hire the chief police officer and can also, with the consent of the Home Secretary, fire the chief police officer? Is not that considerable influence?
Mr. Hattersley: I forgive the hon. Gentleman for interrupting me and even for arriving late, but I cannot so
240
easily forgive him for ignoring one of my last sentences before he interrupted. I said that only when there is the grossest and most extreme breach of obligations can a police committee influence the policy of a chief police officer. If the chief officer commits a gross misdemeanour, the police authority or the police committee can recommend dismissal. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and I are the only Members of the House to have been members of a watch committee when a chief police officer was actually dismissed for criminal offences. I make two points about that. First, it is such an unusual and traumatic event that the idea that that power could be used as a general lever for policy is sheer fantasy.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: It is like the hydrogen bomb.
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is right. It is perhaps slightly different, in that the object of the hydrogen bomb is that it should never be used, whereas this power may be used but only in such extreme circumstances that the kind of influence that I wish to see could never be exercised through the knowledge that the police committee held that power over the chief officer's head. What is needed is not an ultimate deterrent but a general day-to-day right to influence and determine policy. That certainly does not exist at present. At present, as every chief officer in the country will freely admit—I exclude for the moment the Metropolitan police—the running of the police force is in the hands of the chief officer alone.
I do not understand a democratic theory or indeed any theory which suggests that it is right for each of the police forces of this country with their immense powers and spending patterns to be under the control of a single man, no matter how wise or virtuous he may be. I believe, as I suspect the Home Secretary believes, that the chief constables of this country are a mixed bag. As a general rule, those about whom we hear the least are probably the best. Whether they are the most or least wise or virtuous, however, I cannot construct a theory — I shall be interested to see whether anyone tries to construct one today—to the effect that a single individual should have the unchecked and unchallenged right to determine police policy in his area.
The British police force is the only institution in which we have gone back on democracy over the past 50 years. Before 1964, there were at least the watch committees. Their powers were certainly not so great as those that we propose or those that we wish to see, but they had some power over police policy until it was taken away from them nearly 20 years ago. That decision to remove powers from the elected representatives marked the beginning of the decline in police status in this country, the beginning of the feeling that the police no longer belonged to the people and the beginning of the fear that the police were a power unto themselves which the people could no longer influence.
That feeling was reinforced by the events of the following five years, with the mechanisation of the police force, the removal of constables from the beat and the introduction of complicated systems which kept the police in constant touch with headquarters but often cut them off from the people among whom they walked. The theoretical and constitutional breach between the police and the people, however, occurred when the elected police

241
committees were abandoned and replaced by the strange conglomerations of county council members and unelected justices of the peace.
In my view confidence in the police will not be restored until democratic control is restored. There are two reasons for that. First, the electors of this country are much wiser to principles than national politicians sometimes imagine. Labour voters realise that the police are not under their direct control. They also recognise the more direct and material fact that in many cases the police are not operating as the voters would wish. The electors make the connection between those two aspects. They make the point that they are not satisfied but that they have no way to express their dissatisfaction. Until there is a means of expressing that dissatisfaction, confidence will continue to deteriorate.
I have said before and I say again that the case for the new clause is a matter not just of practical application but of principle. The Home Secretary or the Minister of State may care to comment on the following hypothesis regarding the constitutional proprieties of the independence of action that the police now have in the hands and form of their chief officers. The House will recall all too well that a year and a half ago, after the Brixton riots, the Home Secretary allowed police forces which chose to do so to equip themselves with CS gas, baton rounds, armoured personnel carriers and water cannon. There can be no doubt that a force which chooses so to equip itself is either changing its character or risking such a change. Indeed, the chief officers of some forces which chose not to obtain such items have stated that they did not prepare themselves in that way because obtaining CS gas and baton rounds, training in their operation and the contemplation of their use would be to recreate or change the nature of the police force in the area.
If that is so, how can it possibly be justifiable for one man to decide whether a police force is to change its character?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman again, but the facts are very different from the picture that he gives. A number of police authorities have refused to allow their chief officers to use funds to purchase certain equipment which the chief officers believe is necessary. That shows that the police authorities have significant powers and that the chief constable must discuss with the police authority what he wishes to do.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I am not sure whether he had arrived when I said that the only way in which a police committee, which is not an authority, could influence police policy was by threatening to withhold finds for specific items. Nevertheless, he is quite wrong to suggest that decisions on the items that I have described lie in the hands of the police committees rather than the chief officers.
The Home Secretary was kind enough to answer a question from me some months ago. In his reply, he tabulated the forces that had taken advantage of the new equipment that he had permitted them to obtain. I discovered that in some cases the pattern of re-equipment was very strange and seemed to bear no relation to what might be regarded as the level of threat in the area. As I said in Committee, all the chief officers to whom I spoke stated that the decision whether to purchase was certainly
242
theirs. Certain wise and prudent chief constables—I constantly cite the example, perhaps to his embarrassment, of Sir Philip Knights, the admirable chief constable of the west Midlands—regard it as right to go to the police committee and to ask its advice on such items. Nevertheless, if Sir Philip were asked whether he was obliged to do that, his answer would certainly be that, although he regarded it as the sensible and courteous thing to do, he was well aware that the decision was his and his alone. I do not know of any argument that justifies an individual changing the character of a police force. No matter how wise or virtuous the individual is, it is wrong that such a power should reside in him rather than in the people as a whole.
4 pm
The argument about the democratic control of the police is based on the fear that if the provisions that are incorporated in new clause 10 are brought into operation, the police committees would play a day-to-day part in the operational decisions of the police forces, but the new clause does not allow police committees to interfere in matters that are properly described as "operational". Sometimes the line between operational and strategic decisions is blurred. If a police committee decided to equip its area with CS gas—no one believes that the chairman of the operational sub-committee would be on the streets telling the police officers to fire canisters in one direction rather than another—the duty of the committee would be to leave the operation to the individual officers. The committee would have the duty to ensure that individual officers were discharging the policy properly and sensibly. There is no assurance that, at present, police committees can perform that task.
The second criticism against the Opposition's scheme is that the police committees, with their political prejudices and bias, would interfere in the decision to prosecute, which is the most sensitive of all police decisions. All hon. Members will have heard jokes in their youth — depending on where they lived — about gentlemen returning from golf clubs at lunch time in the home counties not being prosecuted for drunkenness as distinct from miners returning from clubs in Yorkshire and Derbyshire not being prosecuted in their areas. I have never considered either libel to be true. Furthermore, I have never considered that that was the position in the Saturday night mining areas, from which I come, or the counties from which the Home Secretary springs. I think that he is a county figure rather than a townie like me.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I agree with that.
Mr. Hattersley: I have no doubt that the Home Secretary accepts that description with pleasure and pride. From whichever social area we come, I have never considered that the allegations of bias were justified. If some members of the public and perhaps some hon. Members still harbour that fear, the proposal for the creation of an independent prosecution service, which removes prosecutions from the police and from the police committees, should put that fear wholly aside. In most areas, police committees would operate prudently, sensibly, wisely and moderately.
The objection to the creation of such police authorities has centred on the creation of a police authority for London. I wish to deal with that subject in detail. I have

243
fallen into the trap for the past 25 minutes—the Home Secretary fell into the same pothole during the latter stages of the Committee stage — of talking about police committees and police authorities as though they were interchangeable terms. Outside London, police committees exist but have no authority. London has a police authority in the shape of the Home Secretary who, theoretically, possesses the power to exercise some control. On the Government Benches there is an absolute determination that a Home Secretary shall remain the police authority for London. If the House is to discuss that topic, it should do so in terms of reality rather than fantasy.
Nobody who has watched the Home Secretary or previous Home Secretaries in the House can believe that they are in reality anything like a police authority for London or, conceivably, can be a police authority for London. I congratulate the Home Secretary on the courtesies that he has shown to the House in general, and especially to London Members of Parliament, in having constant discussions with them and in promoting a dialogue between them and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. However, that is not a substitute for a police authority.
A police authority is an individual institution that controls policy. The Home Secretary has never claimed to be that. He has constantly claimed to be something quite different. He has refused to answer questions on the organisation and performance of the Metropolitan Police. He has insisted that issue after issue is a matter for the Commissioner rather than for him. I have gladly reciprocated that view. I did not hold the Home Secretary responsible for the Brixton riots or the implications of operation Countryman.
After the incident of the intrusion into the palace—I have told the Home Secretary about this both privately and publicly—the Daily Express telephoned me on the hour every hour for about three days, inviting me to demand the Home Secretary's resignation. My answer was that such a demand would be absurd because the idea that the Home Secretary was responsible for that break-in was wholly preposterous. The idea that the Home Secretary, who is a busy Minister and someone approximate to the deputy Prime Minister, should control the Metropolitan police is preposterous. The idea that the House could influence the Metropolitan police because of his control is even more preposterous. I wish there to be a genuine democratic authority of Londoners who are responsible for the London police.
I now wish to make a political point. The weekend speeches, the handouts and the broadcasts of the Conservative party show that it does not want the London police to pass into the hands of the Greater London council. I concede that if the democratic system proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for York is introduced in other parts of the country, the control of the police will fall into the hands of county authorities. I have feelings on that subject very similar to those that the Home Secretary has about the GLC. In the home counties the police authorities will be Conservative-controlled and will do many things of which I disapprove. But that is called democracy. That is the price we pay for letting people vote about their future and destiny.
It is wrong and wholly demeaning for the chairman of the Conservative party to tour the country, as he did last
244
Thursday, saying that the real objection to democratically controlled police forces is that some would fall into the hands of the Labour party. I trust that the people who read that speech will recall that for 150 years the Conservative party has been saying that some issues are too important to be left to the ordinary people, are too sensitive and difficult to be subject to democracy, must be run by the wise, the detached, the educated and the exalted and must not be subject to the democratic process. The last refuges of the argument that some issues are too important for the people to control, are the police forces of this country. The Opposition consider that to be a wholly unhealthy principle and a wholly disastrous practice.
Mr. John Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend think that Members of Parliament should have a part to play in the control of the police?
Mr. Hattersley: There are many models of how the police authority for London should be constructed. My hon. Friend asked a general question and I answer it in one particular because it is the area of most controversy, and he is a distinguished London Member.
The Greater London council has published a consultative document with some of the models included in it. I at least conceive of the possibility of Members of Parliament being involved. As I said in Committee, they must be invited to become involved in the consultative committees that the Home Secretary has set up. But my instinct is that they should consist of elected councillors of one sort or another. The police service should be integrated into the other duties performed by elected councillors. It is foolish of us to believe that the accelerating crime rate is not connected with the condition of housing, the level of amenities, the availability of education and all the other things that local authorities provide. Unless the police are integrated into that general swathe of local authority services, we shall not allow them to perform their task successfully.
Sir Raymond Gower: Does the right hon. Gentleman conceive the answerability of the Home Secretary to the House as a form of democracy, or does he reject that entirely?
Mr. Hattersley: That is not the case now, and I cannot see how it might be in future. I urge the hon. Gentleman to accept that the idea that there is democratic control of the Metropolitan police because we can occasionally ask the Home Secretary questions—some of which are ruled out of order, some of which he says he cannot answer, some of which he does not answer and a few of which he answers inadequately — is a flimsy definition of democracy. The Commissioner of police for the Metropolis, whom I regard as an extremely powerful and important man and, in many ways, a figure who will improve the performance of the Metropolitan police in every particular, will not pretend that he is under the control of the House. He will say that, as is the case with other police forces, the ultimate authority rests with him. That position has caused so many problems for the police during the past 20 years.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and I share the experience of having served, albeit some years ago, on the Sheffield watch committee? Having now moved to the lusher pastures of the Metropolis, I have about 1,000 times more

245
chance of enforcing some sort of accountability over the chief constable of Sheffield than I have over the Commissioner by my occasional right to stand up on Thursdays and ask questions of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend should know me well enough to know that I would not miss the old man's opportunity to reminisce about past battles. I have already told the House that my hon. Friend and I served together in Sheffield 20 years ago, when a chief officer was dismissed. We were then working under the powers of the old watch committees, which had greater powers than the present police committees. I draw from that historical fact the extraordinary conclusion that it is only in the police force that democracy has been set back. It is the only institution in our national life where there is less democracy now than there was 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago.
4.15 pm
I end on the practical point with which I tried to begin — that because of the theoretical failures of the constitution and governance of the police, there have been practical failures that have affected police performance and status. The police are now far more detached from the people they serve than they have ever been. That is partly the result of factors that cannot simply be put down to the constitution of police committees. It is partly the result of mechanisation, greater mobility and the improved methods of internal communication introduced to the police service in the middle and late 60s. It is partly because of the new demands on operational procedures and the desire to make the police what is crudely called more cost-effective — which means turning up at the scene of the crime quickly rather than being about on the streets giving confidence to law-abiding citizens, deterring those who wish to commit crime and obtaining criminal evidence to convict those who do so.
The absence of police in the community is directly attributable to the whole swathe of events typified by the abandonment of any democratic control whatsoever. I promise the House, and I assure the Home Secretary, that a new Labour Government will introduce such a scheme. It may be that we cannot carry the excellently drafted new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for York this afternoon, but the demand to make the police more a part of the community that they serve is irresistible. If that is not obtained in this Parliament, it will be obtained in the next. But if it is not obtained in the next, it will inevitably come about because that is what the people whom the police serve want, and that is what they will get.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Opposition have consistently argued that the real weakness of the Bill is that, although it provides greater powers for the police, there is no greater control over the way in which they exercise those powers. In Committee I argued on a number of occasions that a minority of police—I suggested that it might be a substantial minority—abuse their power from time to time. Since the Committee stage, Lord Salmon has ventured the guess that about one-third of the police force abuse their power. Coming from him, with all his experience of police activity, that is an interesting assessment of the position.
The issue to which we must address ourselves is whether the Government have actually built into the Bill proper controls to match the extra powers that they are giving to the police. We do not believe that they have.
246
Even the controls suggested by the Royal Commission have been watered down. The suggestions that it put forward were largely that, in the exercise of his power, a police officer should note in his notebook exactly why he used the power. As we know what happens to policemen's notebooks in relation to confessions, that does not appear to be a careful system of control.
The control advocated by the Opposition is threefold. First, the whole police force should be within the democratic control of local councillors and, therefore, much more accountable to the electorate whom they serve. Secondly, within that overall control there should be more minute control by a public prosecution system in which the prosecutor has overall control of the way in which officers go about their investigations. Thirdly, the judge at a trial should have an opportunity—indeed, a duty—to keep out any evidence obtained in violation of the rules under the legislation.
We cannot discuss the second and third systems of control because the amendments have not been selected. Our major area of discussion of control is the police authority. By the rather quixotic choice of the Home Secretary in beginning this debate in the early hours, we have already had the arguments against the case put by him, and also by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on behalf of the Police Federation.
The most interesting aspect of those two speeches was how far we had come during the past five years. Five years ago, for a police authority to say to its chief constable that it had any control over his policy, let alone his operational activity, would have received the reply—from every chief constable in the country—that that was a matter for him. In many cases, the police authorities were not even allowed to ask questions.
When the Labour party began this campaign, every police authority in the country had that kind of story put to it by chief officers. It was only when some police authorities, such as Liverpool, began to explore what could be done within their existing powers that any kind of pressure began to be put upon chief officers. The argument now, as put by the Home Secretary this morning, is not that we are asking for political control—which is what chief officers have been arguing about for the last two years—because, as he rightly recognised, every power over the public is political. It is bound to be. It is exercised by politicians at national or local level. Indeed, as my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, every kind of public authority is accountable to the politicians. Therefore, to say that this is political control is to say nothing at all. The issue, as the Home Secretary said, is whether we should control or simply consult.
I am in favour of greater consultation between the police and the community and between the police and the local authority. I welcome the changes that the Home Secretary has introduced in the Bill in relation to that matter. In the final analysis, however, consultation is not a means of accountability if the chief officer says, "I have listened to what you have said, but I do not intend to do what you ask."
The decision-making power of the chief officer is crucial to the way in which the police are organised in his area. As my right hon. Friend said, it is absurd that 44 men decide how we are policed when in this country, above all others, policing depends upon the consent of the community, and the consent of the community is best

247
evinced by the pressure that the local community can put upon its councillors through elections. It is for that reason that we believe that this is a way not of cutting down the exercise of power by the police, but of enabling the police to make more effective use of their power, so that the public get better, not worse, policing. It is because we believe that strongly that we are pressing this reform.
Why is it wrong for politicians at local level to exercise control? Some time ago I was in Lancashire talking to the then chief constable of that area, Mr. Albert Laugharne, who is now the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police. We were discussing the system of community policing that he had instituted at Skelmersdale. He told me about the kind of problems that he had to face in bringing about that change, which has immensely improved the policing of that area.
One of the things that he had to do was to decide the priorities for his men. He decided that far too many men in Lancashire were involved in traffic control and far too few in dealing with the problems of burglary and criminal damage. He therefore took a conscious decision to move more men from traffic control to the community policing role.
I thought that was an excellent decision, but it was a decision taken by him personally. It is impossible to believe that a decision such as that could not have been taken more appropriately by local authority councillors giving effect to their view of what the policy should be. That kind of decision has to be taken by somebody. The only issue is whether it should be taken by the chief officer alone or by locally elected councillors.
The virtue of the second method is that, if the community does not like the decision, it can get rid of the councillors; but it cannot get rid of the chief officer. It is for that reason that it has a pull on the kind of overall policy decision that is made for the region.
I would go further than my right hon. Friend. It is impossible to draw a line between overall and operational policy. If one pulls a number of men out of traffic control and puts them into community policing, one will affect the way in which traffic control is exercised in that area. Speeding will not be monitored in the same sort of way. In that sense, the day-to-day activity of the police relating to speeding will be affected. If one pulls people out of the control of pornography to deal with burglary, there will not be the same exercise of control over individual acts of pornography.
Therefore, one cannot make the distinction. One can say that, once the policy has been laid down by the local authority, it is up to the officers — as, indeed, with every other exercise of local power—to work out how to apply it in detail. No local authority councillor will get himself involved in that kind of detail once he has made the policy.
Sir Raymond Gower: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. If so, I apologise to him in advance. He seemed to imply that if there were this kind of control a locality would get the kind of police administration that it wanted. Carrying that argument to its logical conclusion, police administration would differ all over the country, according to what people wanted. — [HON. MEMBERS: "It already does."] It would differ even more, because the hon. Gentleman wanted it to be as the locality wanted.
248
Does he not think that that is undesirable and that, as far as possible, we should seek to achieve, within the broad law of this country, equality of police administration all over the country?
Mr. Lyon: No; and, as my hon. Friends have just indicated, that does not happen now. There is not the same kind of policing with an officer like Chief Constable Alderson as with an officer like Chief Constable Anderton. The reason is obvious. It is because they control their police and allocate their resources in different ways. Therefore, one does not get the same kind of policing throughout the country anyway, and one would not want to.
I think that in certain areas of this country tight control of pornography is wanted by the community and is desirable, whereas in other areas it is not so important. It is for the local community to decide how that should happen. I accept, however, that there must be some kind of overall general policy.
There are two ways in which that is exercisable. First, under any system, the Home Secretary will have some kind of reserve power. He does at the moment because there is always the right of appeal to him. I assume that when we implement this reform, that right will be made more obvious, in the sense that if there is a dispute between a chief officer and the local authority he will have access to the Home Secretary.
Secondly, the prosecution policy will not be implemented by the local authority police committee. The Royal Commission, in my view, made a serious mistake in recommending that the local authority police committee should control the public prosecutor. Almost everybody is agreed that that is a bad system, and we have rightly moved away from it. The public prosecutor should be under the control of the Attorney-General. Thus, the day-to-day prosecutions will be carried out by somebody outside the control of the local authority. In that sense the argument often used by chief officers against this reform, that local politicians would decide to prosecute some people and not to prosecute others, has gone for ever.
4.30 pm
I do not think that there is any real danger in the proposed scheme. I agree that after an election political parties, which may be unacceptable to one side of the House or the other, will control the police authority. Some will place greater reliance on the policing in their area than others. It is manifestly clear that policing is more of a political issue in areas such as Manchester and Liverpool than in Norfolk or Sussex, for example, because the issue has not arisen in those latter areas, whereas it is a burning issue in Liverpool and Manchester.
The SDP's attitude is typical of its approach to keeping politics out of politics. When any issue of public service becomes controversial, it is inevitably political. When I speak to constituents on their doorsteps they sometimes say, "Mr. Lyon, I do wish that you could keep politics out of education. I wish that we could keep politics out of housing." We could keep politics out of housing or education as long as no one had any deep feelings about those issues. Where there are deep feelings and differences over policy, the issues are bound to be political. That is true of policing as it is of education.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As a practising lawyer, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with

249
me that there is a distinction between the political element of a law which is passed by the House, which is a political law in some respects, and the way in which the law is enforced. It is vital that the way in which the laws of the land are enforced should not become a political issue. The House has always agreed on that in the past, and it would be a tragedy if we were to reverse that approach now.
Mr. Lyon: The issue of community policing is political. It may not be party political, but it is political. It is about the way in which the police do their job. Are they to do it in a way that is acceptable to the community or in a reactive way, which is now increasingly unacceptable to the community? That is political. If the parties were to join forces on that issue, it would become party political. The mere fact of saying that these issues will all be decided by the chief constable does not make them any less political or party political. In Manchester the overall issue is immensely party political, even though the decision-making is still with the chief officer.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's general thesis, but will he acknowledge that the SDP is concerned about party political control with party objectives in mind, including the operation and control of the police?
Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have argued consistently since they came into existence that which is a mere obsession in their minds. We are in the present mess largely because their leader, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), took decisions when he was Home Secretary which greatly undermined the relationship between the police and the community. I could say that that was a party political decision. It was a political decision that was taken by a politician. I am sure that at the time the right hon. Gentleman thought that he was doing his best for the community, but he was wrong. As we all know, politicians can be wrong. The only difference between a politician and a chief constable being wrong is that the electorate can get rid of the politician.
The lot of the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) came into existence to try to get rid of my lot. They will have the opportunity at the next election.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: Very true.
Mr. Lyon: However, the electorate cannot get rid of a chief constable in that way.
The argument that the hon. Member for Thornaby has advanced would be more effective if every police officer were a servant of the police authority. In its consultation document, the police committee of the Greater London Council has argued that the constable should be an agent or servant of the police committee. I disagree with that, and I do not think that that is inconsistent with my argument. It is possible for a social worker to say that his professional ethics mean that he cannot accept a decision made by the social work committee of the local authority and that he will exercise his right to apply his ethics in the proper way. I think that most social work committees would accept that that is desirable.
It is possible for the policy and control of the police to be in the hands of a police committee and still allow a constable the right, as a constable, to decide whether an offence has been committed and someone should be charged. It may be the policy of the police authority not
250
to spend too much time on pornography investigations and to spend more time on burglary inquiries. However, if an officer comes across evidence of an offence against the obscene publications legislation, he is entitled to take action in accordance with his duties as a constable, and he is not to be subject to the fiat of the police authority.
That is the safeguard that the hon. Member for Thornaby was talking about. If there is corruption in the police authority and if the authority says, "For our own party political interests we do not think that you should exercise any control over Mr. X because he is a friend of ours," any constable is entitled to say that his duty to the force means that he must enforce the law as it stands.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that the authority should have responsibility for appointing officers much lower down the line than it has the power to do now? Is that not opening the door to putting pressure upon senior police officers—pressure of the very sort to which he is objecting now?
Mr. Lyon: Yes. I am suggesting that such a scheme would increase the control of the authority over the police, especially the senior police. This is nothing new. The old watch committees had this power and it was taken away from them. The county authorities did not have the power which was enjoyed by the old city authorities. By that means alone, the city authorities had greater control over their police forces than the county authorities. That power has caused some to say that the old watch committees comprised a better system than the present one.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend accept that local councillors appoint their chief education officers and deputy education officers and determine the general education policy and the resources that will be allocated to it? Does he further accept that the majority of councillors on any council appoint the headmasters, deputy headmasters and teachers for the schools for which their council has responsibility? Surely no one would suggest that in Britain overall—there may be problems in some areas—there is any semblance of political education controlled by one side of the House or the other.
Mr. Lyon: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has advanced the real argument for accepting the new clause. The fact remains that electorates can get rid of councillors if they do not like them. It is interesting that the 1962 Royal Commission was set up when the Labour council in Nottingham wanted to control its chief constable. The Labour council lost the election because of the dispute and the chief constable was vindicated by the electorate's decision. That can happen in an area where an issue becomes so important that it is regarded as crucial in the local area. I do not want to go back into recent history, but that has been seen in areas in central London.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman is making the point clearly, but he is addressing himself to topics on which there can be an objective view. Will he turn his attention to occasions when there is discretion on politically sensitive matters, where, for example, a recommendation has to be made as to whether a demonstration should be banned on racist grounds? Surely in that area it will be difficult to give any sort of influence to politicians as opposed to the chief constable.
Mr. Lyon: The local authority will be better equipped than the chief constable to deal with such problems. In the final analysis, whether the National Front is allowed to march is decided by the Home Secretary. That is a wholly political decision. It is not within the power of the chief constable alone to decide that, whereas he may make decisions on other matters.
I think it was the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds who said that democracies are overturned by dictatorships when somebody gets control of the police. Surely, the control of the armed forces is more pertinent to the dictatorship of a minority. The reason why it is not dangerous to go down this road is that the Government control the armed forces.
When last year the commander of a submarine saw the General Belgrano in his sights, before he could fire a torpedo, he had to contact London so that the admiral of the fleet could consult the politicians who were having a drink at Chequers. The politicians took the decision. If national politicians can decide whether we go to war, surely local authority politicians can decide whether the police may use CS gas or plastic bullets. These decisions are within their competence. For that reason, we should pass the new clause.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support new clauses 10 and 11. The major element in new clause 10 is that magistrates will not be members of police authorities and police authorities will have effective power to take decisions about general policing. New clause 11 will ensure that police authorities have powers to monitor the working of the legislation. The House should pass both new clauses. I do not intend to refer to new clause 25 because it deals specifically with the problems of Greater London, which I do not feel entitled to discuss.
At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) suggested that new clause 10 was an attack on the police. He suggested that the danger to democracy came from the possibility that police authorities might at some time be controlled by the extreme Right or the extreme Left. He ought to have included the extreme Centre. If we look back over the past 20 years, we see that it was the extreme Centre, in the form of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who did more damage to the British police force than any other individual by his reorganisation in 1964, when he took away much of the democratic accountability of watch committees and made the police authorities responsible to the counties.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: The Police Act 1964 was not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. He was not Home Secretary at the time.
Mr. Bennett: He was the one who took away the power of the police. When it came to the police complaints procedure, he was the one who pushed through the 1976 legislation, which was totally cosmetic and did nothing to solve the basic problems. It simply took away much of the credibility of the police. Because the legislation was so ineffectual, it has led to campaigning for more effective legislation. If we are trying to identify those who have done damage to police authorities, we should realise that they come from the Right, the Left and the extreme Centre.
The threat to democracy comes from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, and possibly the Police Federation,
252
when he says that general police policy is too important to allow democratic decisions to be made on it. We must have confidence that the people will not elect extremists. The people must have the opportunity to choose. If they elect those who make stupid decisions, that is too bad. We cannot have a body that is above democratic accountability and somehow represents the great and the good. That was the action of the despotic monarchs of the 16th and 17th centuries, who believed that they had the incarnation of wisdom and that other people should not share in decision-making.
4.45 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has debated police matters over many years, and I know that he would not want to misrepresent my views. May I make it clear to him and to the House that the police must be politically accountable? There must be political control of general policing policies. Where we stray into the area of what ultimately is the police state is if the politician gets his hands on the day-to-day operational decisions of the police, which must reflect the law and not the tide of politics.
Mr. Bennett: I accept the general outline of that. The difficulty arises when we come to decisions on day-to-day policing. I can give several instances where chief constables have behaved almost as little dictators, when they ought to have been accountable to the general public and when it might have been ideal for each individual to participate, at a public meeting, in decision-making. Because that is not practical, we must have representative democracy. There ought to be a public decision-making process, not just because the decision should be made by the people at large, but because the debate about the process might improve the system.
Much ill feeling was caused in Greater Manchester by a sudden change of policy on after-hours drinking. I do not approve of after-hours drinking, nor do many people in Greater Manchester. Over a long period it had been recognised that where there was no nuisance, violence or fighting because of after-hours drinking, the police devote few resources to it. It was fairly well known that because of the shift system operated by the police, quite a proportion of off-duty police officers were inclined to take a long time drinking up their beer. There were few problems about after-hours drinking.
Then there was a sudden decision by the chief constable that more time and resources should be allocated to enforcing the drinking laws. There were a series of raids by the police, which caused embarrassment to other police officers and much concern. I do not argue that that decision should not have been made, but it would have been better if it had been subject to public debate in the first instance. Everyone would have known what was happening. People would have decided whether they wanted more resources to be used to tighten up the enforcement of drinking laws or whether they preferred more to be done about combating violence and mugging. There should have been public debate about that decision.
Another instance was the fuss over Easter about whether Greater Manchester police should be armed. If a report had been prepared by the chief constable setting out the problems in Greater Manchester and explaining what he was hoping to achieve, the police authority would have had an opportunity to debate it, as would the general

253
public, and the result might have improved policing in Greater Manchester rather than making it the subject of much newspaper comment throughout the country, with little being done to improve the situation.
Clearly there was a problem, particularly in relation to the number of crimes involving firearms in the furtherance of robbery, and there was a strong argument for getting more public co-operation. A balanced report from the chief constable to a police authority which had genuine powers could have dealt with all the problems involved in that context, taking particularly into account the amount of cash that is still transferred in Greater Manchester. That occurs in a form that encourages people to commit holdups, using firearms. Much could have been done in the area by way of effective debate to reduce the opportunities for armed offences by reducing the amount of cash moved about in the city.
People should debate the consequences of what is occurring around them; for example, the amount of cash handled by post offices because of the number of people out of work and the increasing number of pensioners drawing benefits. People should debate, for example, whether it would be more effective to arm the police in an effort to catch the robbers, or whether, by paying people in other ways — for instance by cheque — we could reduce the amount of cash that is handled and so remove many of the opportunities for crime, and thereby remove the risk of people being shot at.
Equally, there should be more discussion about the availability of firearms. More could be done by declaring an amnesty to get firearms handed in. That again is an area where there should be public debate, with the opportunity for the police authority and the police to point out that too many firearms are held illegally and that using more resources to get them handed in might be a more effective way of dealing with the problem. Those are all instances where informed debate, with the decisions eventually being taken by the police authority, would improve policing rather than put the police at any additional risk.
In that context, if we pass the Bill, it must be monitored effectively, which brings to mind the earlier provisions about stop and search. It will be important to have the opportunity to debate locally the attitude of the police to their stop-and-search powers. There is much concern in Greater Manchester lest those powers are used in certain inner city areas, for example Moss Side, and not in many of the leafier suburbs, such as Hazel Grove. If a decision on that is taken by local people in such a way that the whole issue can be debated locally, so be it. But if it is a decision taken by the chief constable or police officers only, it will bring the police into disrepute. There are many other issues — such as the use, frequency and consequences of using road blocks—that need adequate debate.
I have outlined various areas in which the Greater Manchester police should be more accountable to the community. There has been developing, with less publicity, a system for police committees, lay visitors, to see what is going on in police stations. That is a worthwhile development which is happening with the full co-operation of the chief constable, but it is a sphere in which there should be more public debate. Indeed, it should not be permissive, with the approval of the chief constable. The police authority should itself have the power to encourage such visits. It seems odd that the authority should have responsibility for the fabric of the
254
police, and a theoretical responsibility for the policing of the area, yet only with the permission of the chief constable can it establish a system of visiting police stations.
Such visits can lay at rest the fears that many people have about what goes on in police stations. Lay visitors —and, through them, the community—can be assured that most of what goes on is wholly admirable, with police officers dealing with difficult circumstances, and that the stories one reads relate only to isolated incidents which are not typical of the activities of the police. It is important that we have a democratically accountable police force, that the Bill is supplemented with controls and that part of those controls include more accountability to police authorities. That is why I support the proposed new clause.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I shall comment on some of the interesting points that have been made in the debate and in particular look at the consequences of the official Opposition proposals. Although we have heard from some Labour Members about the desirability of having more democratic control over police authorities, we have not heard much about what is happening at present and what the full consequences of their proposals might be.
In many parts of the country outside London—and outside in some, but not all, urban areas—there is no difficulty with the police and there is a harmonious relationship between them and the community, with little cause for complaint. That is the case in many urban areas, but particularly in rural areas. Speaking as a Member from a constituency many miles from London, I would suggest that the debate on the police is governed too much by what goes on in the Metropolitan police, where the record has been particularly bad and has tended to over-influence attitudes towards the police elsewhere. Those of us who come from the provinces do not see the corruption and other difficulties that obviously cause great concern in the metropolitan area.
Mr. John Tilley: As a Member for a north-eastern constituency, the hon. Gentleman must remember the fuss there was about Liddel Towers. That was not a London-oriented problem.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: That was an individual case. I am talking about the day-to-day relationship between the police and the community and I am making what I believe to be the valid point that in many areas that relationsip is harmonious and that the community and the police have little cause for complaint; I feel that as a provincial Member I should make that point.
My colleagues and I are not satisfied with the present position in relation to the control of the police and have made various proposals for increasing their accountability and for improving the relationship between the police and the community. We welcome the proposal, which the Government have included in the Bill, for the statutory provision of liaison committees. That is a Scarman recommendation which we fully support, although it is a pity that it has been included in the Bill in a way which does not lay down the responsibility of those liaison committees more clearly.
In addition, we should like to see police authorities using their existing powers to a greater extent than they tend to at present. Although the Police Act 1964 may not have such strong powers as the previous legislation, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.

255
Hattersley) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out, nevertheless, it gives police authorities the power to demand of chief constables various facts and information and gives them the right to discuss the strategy that a police force is pursuing. The police authorities, as presently constituted, do not sufficiently use those powers. I hope that the message will go out from the Home Office and from the House that the existing authorities should use those powers to a much greater extent.
5 pm
We want reform of the police authorities to make them more representative. We are not satisfied with the present constitution of those authorities. The nub of our argument is that the control of many a police authority is not representative of the community of the area. Under the present system, authorities in various parts of the country are being run by minorities which are not representative of the community that they are supposed to serve. The turnout in local elections is small and under our present first-past-the-post voting system, a small minority of the electorate can decide who controls the local authority. Therefore, a police authority may be in the hands of people who represent only 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of a community. It is not good enough that 80 per cent. of the community whose views are not being represented by those people should have actions and policies foisted upon them which they do not support. We want more representative local authorities and therefore we want proportional representation introduced at local council level to stop some of the extreme developments in local council chambers, particularly in recent times, and to bring about more representative local authorities. We also wish to see the removal of a source of considerable concern in many areas — one-party control for decade after decade, which has led to corruption in local government in many parts of the country.
There is no doubt that in many parts of the country there has been—the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) just mentioned the Durham police force—what I can only describe as an unhealthy relationship between the police authority and the police force. There has been a great deal of publicity about the relationship between chief constables and police committees — for example, in Lancashire—and great controversy over that relationship. In response to earlier comments—I shall wish to deal with the relationship between elected representatives and members of the force and whether party political influence is important—I would point out that this issue extends also into other areas of local authority service. In many areas — the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) appeared to refute this — education authorities are partisan and are run in a party political way. Appointments are made in a party political way. Head teachers are appointed on a party political basis. Boards of governors in my constituency — local people who have been governors of local schools—were swept aside and party political appointments made irrespective of the wishes of the parents of the children at the schools and the communities in which they were situated. That is the party political control to which we are totally opposed and which we do not wish to see introduced for the police service. That is the type of party political control that we wish to stop.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not Liverpool, where the Liberals are in control, one of the worst areas of the country for this type of dogmatic local government?
Mr. Wrigglesworth: The Liberal party is not in control in Liverpool. It governs with the consent of other parties. It does not have an overall majority. The worst instances have been in those areas which have been under single-party control for a long time. That applies to both Conservative and Labour administrations.
London has been the cause of greatest concern with regard to the relationship between the police authority and the police and whether local authorities should have control over the police. London has been the cockpit for demands for greater accountability. On the one hand, there is the greatest evidence of corruption among the Metropolitan police which has led to a lack of trust in a wide section of the community—tremendous damage has been done to the standing of the police service by the minority of police officers who have caused such problems in the Metropolitan force and in one or two other forces over recent years — but on the other hand, London is where we have seen the most vicious and concerted attacks —mainly politically motivated—on the police. We are back to the old problem whereby the Conservative party concedes no fault in the police service while for some Members on the Labour Benches—not all Members—the police service can do no right. That is only too evident in the Labour party at present and has been the case over recent years.
When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook describes the democratic control that he wishes to see over the police service in London, I wish he would address his mind to what has been happening in Labour-controlled authorities in London over recent years. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would stand up and tell us where he stands with regard to the activities of the GLC, of Lambeth and of other local authorities in London. The right hon. Gentleman is good at describing the broad brush position but does he support, for instance, the activities of the police monitoring committees in London? The monitoring committees in different parts of London are basically antipolice.
Mr. Mikardo: Not all.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: Not all, but a large number of them are. Those committees are being funded by the Labour-controlled GLC which has given £500,000 to such organisations, many of which have been set up to attack the police, and £90,000 is going to virulently anti-police magazines which make the most vicious attacks on the police service. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not said much to condemn that. Indeed, in his speech he semed to condone it by saying that it does not matter who controls these local authorities and that we should accept that that is the way it must be.
Mr. Christopher Price: That is democracy.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: If that is democracy, it is not the sort of democracy that the majority of people in London want. If we had a system of voting which allowed the opinions and the desires of the electorate to be truly represented in the council chamber, we would not have the likes of Mr. Livingstone. We saw what happened with the GLC. Mr. McIntosh was elected as leader of the GLC, but

257
he has now been kicked upstairs by the Labour party. He was elected as leader of the GLC but had not been there more than five minutes before Mr. Livingstone took over.
Mr. Price rose—
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should let us know where he stands with regard to the activities of these monitoring committees. Does he support the activities in which the GLC has been involved? Is that the type of police control and accountability which he wishes to see and which he is advocating at the moment?
Mr. Price: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) who is a former Labour-voting constituent of mine.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my hon. Friend sure about that?
Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman told me that he was voting for me, but I am not absolutely certain. Perhaps he will confirm it in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about democracy. Is he really saying that his version of democracy is that when people he likes are elected, it is an acceptable form of democracy, but that when people he dislikes are elected, it is an unacceptable form of democracy? Is he further saying that the hung councils that we have seen, such as that for the city of Liverpool which has been run by this Jones character for the past 10 years, are an acceptable form of local government, and that a system that at least produces a stable form of local government is unacceptable?
Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is satisfied with a situation in which a group of people who represent only a tiny majority of the electorate, can have—like the GLC and borough councillors—vast powers — [Interruption.] — and the Government —[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman should be allowed to make his speech in his own way and should address the Chair, please.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman is happy that government—whether in Whitehall or in our town halls—should be representative of fewer than one third of the electorate and even as few as 15 per cent. of the electorate, he has a very funny view of democracy. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I voted for him. I got out not only of the Labour party but also of his constituency. He may like to ponder whether I was dissatisfied with him or with the Labour party.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with his own democratic credentials, as he was elected as a Member of Parliament for one party and now represents another?
Mr. Wrigglesworth rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the new clause.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had their way, the party Whip would be in control of everything. If the party label was taken away, the hon. Gentleman would give up his seat. If that is the sort of party democracy he wants, which is one step
258
towards eastern European democracy, he is welcome to it. If not, he had better support the sort of parliamentary democracy that Britain has had for many years.
The activities of Left-wing activists in the police voluntary committees and on local councils in the London area have done great damage to the campaign for greater police accountability. That is one of the most damaging aspects of the vicious attacks that they make on the police. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) illustrated the way in which such committees were unwilling to open a dialogue with the police, even though the police had been knocking on the door asking for it. It is deplorable that, when the police make great efforts to open a dialogue with the ethnic communities and with other groups within the community, they are attacked and find that their efforts to build up relationships, particularly with the ethnic communities, are undermined. I should like to know the official Labour party's view on the activities of such Labour party groups.
In London, there is a newspaper called the Labour Herald, which is run by two leading members of the Labour party and their supporters in the London area. I have a copy with me, and it shows one of the most scandalous cartoons about the police that I have ever seen. It is entitled, "Presenting your community relations expert", and pictures two objectionable looking figures, who are supposed to be policemen, wearing big boots, swastikas, truncheons, visors and guns. The title is, "Hand-picked at Hendon". One of the policemen is supposed to be the raw recruit, and the other is the polished expert, with "SPG" over his head. Behind them there are slogans on the wall saying, 'Coons out. Wogs out. Whites rule, OK."
Those are the activities of Labour party members and of a Labour party organisation in London. I want to know where the official Labour party stands on the activities of Labour party members who make vicious attacks on the police. I should have thought it highly likely that the attack was illegal under the Race Relations Act. I am surprised that the Labour Front Bench has not spent more time deploring such activity, which will make it impossible to have good police—community relations. When that sort of thing has the official imprint of the Labour party on it, it makes it that much more difficult for people in the community to have confidence in the police.
5.15 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I have not seen the cartoon, so I am not prepared to comment at this stage. However, this subject was extensively discussed in Committee and was voted on in the form outlined in the new clause, so ably spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). When that vote was taken, the alliance was represented — as it usually was in Committee—by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt), but the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who is now waxing so indignant, was not present and took no part in it. Surely after the Committee has spent four months debating such points, it is an abuse for the hon. Member for Thornaby to put such matters before the House at the last moment, when he failed to attend many of the Committee's sittings. If the hon. Gentleman wanted such matters to be debated properly, he should have emulated the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West and attended the Committee.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: It is staggering that, although the hon. Gentleman attended the Committee's sittings for three months, together with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his colleagues, they did not take the opportunity — just as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has not done now—to refute the activities of the Labour-controlled GLC and of all those Labour-controlled councils in the London area That are behind demands for accountability, but for a very different sort of accountability from that pressed for by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the hon. Member for York and others.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not prepared to stand up to such people and he is giving those who wish to use the police for party political purposes an opportunity to get in and to take control of the police. I do not believe that the people of London want that, or that people in any other part of the country want it. The worst thing is that those of us who want more accountability and who want to reform police authorities find that our efforts to promote that campaign are being pushed back by the activities of such people. They do great damage to the cause of greater accountability.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is also pretty good at re-writing history, judging by his comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). When he talked about the reforms that my right hon. Friend introduced, he seemed to forget that they were hard fought not only in the House but in the Home Office. Those reforms were the first step towards an independent system of investigating the police, to which we are committed. It seems to be forgotten that the then Home Secretary was so determined to push through those reforms that the Commissioner for the Metropolitan police resigned in protest. At that time, Labour Members were very happy to support that legislation in the Lobby—[Interruption.] It would not have got through if Labour Members had not supported it.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that, I believe, five Labour Back Benchers were on the Committee on that Bill and that they, with the Conservative Opposition, adjourned the Committee for three weeks to try to obtain a Bill that would meet the basic requirements of the police and of those who had complaints? Unfortunately, the then Home Secretary, in his usual arrogant way, was not even prepared to meet those Back Benchers. As he was thinking about his trip to Brussels, he preferred to push through a very ineffectual measure and we had a choice of supporting it or getting nothing at all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are digressing; hon. Members should now relate their remarks to the new clause.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before I press on, I wonder whether the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East now that he has seen the cartoon, will refute it.
Mr. Snape: I realise that it may place an imposition on the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to do something fairly unusual for him and his hon. Friends and to wait until I wind up. I guarantee that I shall then give my personal opinion on that cartoon.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: Has the hon. Gentleman first to obtain his instructions from the political boss?
Mr. Snape: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would concede that in the days when he was a member of the Labour party, I would not take instructions from anyone before expressing a personal opinion, and I have no intention of doing so now.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: We look forward with great anticipation to what the hon. Gentleman will say.
Our new clause 25 makes several proposals that we believe will improve the policing of London and help to make the police in London more accountable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has said, we propose a Select Committee drawn from London Members to which the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police force would be accountable. I know that a number of London Members see the necessity for a role in police accountability and wish to make some contribution to the policing of London. We believe that a Select Committee would provide such an opportunity.
That Select Committee would provide a useful forum for debating police strategy. It would also be able to cross-examine the Home Secretary and the Commissioner on the activities of the Metropolitan police. It would provide a focus for debate in key issues of the day as well as some of the more controversial aspects of the policing of London that arise from time to time. Such a Select Committee would provide a powerful forum for public debate about the policing of London, and it would afford Members of Parliament a tremendous input.
The new clause also suggests that there should be a Metropolitan police authority—not the GLC, I hasten to add — drawn from local authority representatives in London, but with the caveat that at local authority level we wish to see the introduction of a system of proportional representation before such an authority is established.
The new clause also provides for a continuing interest and influence by the Home Secretary. In reality, there is dual control of the police throughout the country, because the Home Office, through its inspectors, circulars, money and so on has a considerable influence on the activities of our police forces. It is right that the Home Secretary should have a continuing role in the policing of London, which is so intertwined with national Government.
The role of the police in London is not just confined to the security of Buckingham palace or the Diplomatic Service. They must cope with all the consequences of having Government here in London. It is therefore right for the Home Secretary to have a continuing role, even though we suggest a Metropolitan police authority.
As hon. Members will realise, we want greater accountability, but there must be a radical reform of the whole system of local government before that comes about. It is essential that the police are seen to be administering their activities impartially. We do not believe that the Labour party's proposals would continue the impartiality that has existed in the vast majority of police forces, and, therefore, we shall not support new clause 10.
Mr. Tilley: Like the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), . I shall concentrate on the policing of

261
London, because that is an important aspect of the new clauses, and the change in London would be much more radical than in the provincial police authorities.
Labour Members believe that it is practical and feasible for a locally elected police authority in London to have ultimate control of police operations without having any say in actions involving arrest. That is an important distinction. We feel that such a change is needed because of the considerable decline in recent years in public confidence in the police in London.
Another reason for such a change is that of taxation without representation. Londoners paid well over £300 million last year for their police service, yet had no say at all through the local authority system in how the police were controlled. During that time Londoners experienced a high level of crime, a low clear-up rate and a bad police-community record. There have been some recent improvements, but in general there is still a great gap between local police and their communities. In our view, the police should be a public service and as such should be accountable to the community of which they are part and which they serve.
I reiterate the point already made about the role of the Home Secretary. It is not that the Home Secretary has been lax in his role as police authority for London, rather that the Home Secretary as police authority for London is a constitutional fiction, bearing in mind his other responsibilities. The job of Home Secretary is big enough for anyone. The present incumbent is also deputy Prime Minister and has many responsibilities outside those connected with the Home Office. Therefore, he cannot conceivably have enough time in a week, however many hours he works, effectively to oversee the Metropolitan police or to give a sufficient account of what is happening to hon. Members.
I give two examples. In clause 67, which sets up the consultative committees, the police authority in every other part of the country will rightly have the difficult political job of establishing local consultative structures that adequately represent the views of locally elected councillors and community groups and organisations, particularly from the ethnic minorities.
5.30 pm
In London that job goes not to the police authority but to the Commissioner—effectively, the chief constable. To someone who has been involved in the delicate and protracted negotiations on consultative committees, that seems to be a major failing in the Bill which reflects the fact that the Home Secretary, in his alleged role of police authority for London, has insufficient time to carry out all the necessary detailed political negotiations. The evidence for what I am saying lies in the Bill.
Let me give a personal example as well. Hon. Members may remember that on the second day of the first Brixton riots in April 1981 there were photographs of alleged policemen in plain clothes carrying pick-axe handles. That photograph became the subject of a complaint which went through the normal procedures. It took until January of this year for that complaint to he dealt with by the Director of Public Prosecutions and then under the disciplinary powers of the police. When the results were made public in January, it was possible for hon. Members and anyone else who was interested to ask wider questions about that
262
incident. Because the matter had been sub judice when it was being considered by the complaints board, it had not been possible to ask such questions previously.
On 15 January I wrote to the Home Secretary asking some of those wider questions. How was it that pick-axe handles were available in Brixton police station? Are they still available? On what occasions are they issued? Are the officers involved who were reprimanded still working in the borough? They were all perfectly reasonable questions which I, as a Member of this House, was entitled to ask about something that happened in my constituency. I asked those questions on 15 January and I am still waling for an answer, although I have pressed the Home Office ever since.
That suggests to me that there is an insufficient system of accountability through the Home Secretary to hon. Members about such issues. I know that the Home Secretary would deal with any matter expeditiously if he could. I know how efficient his private office is. But, because of the system, relatively simple questions asked by an hon. Member on 15 January have still not been answered by the police authority for London nearly five months later.
Those are two examples of why we feel that the Home Secretary should not be the police authority for London. His is a fictional role and we want to change it into a real one with a locally elected police authority for London based on democratic control.
London is different, not because of the strange suggestions made by the hon. Member for Thornaby about the special nature of policing the capital city, but simply because of the historical accident that the London police force was created before any local authority was set up for London. Elsewhere in Britian, police forces were set up either at the same time as or after the local authority. When the politicians of those days were living for the first time round in a period of Victorian values, they came to the obvious conclusion that a local police force should be controlled by and accountable to the local authority.
London remains an anachronism because of an historical accident. The new clauses say that that anachronism must be put right quickly. There would, of course, still be national policing functions, but it is perfectly possible for there to be some sort of national police agency, perhaps controlled by the Home Office or by a consortium of police authorities, which would cover the whole of Britain, but which could be split, providing a police force for London.
At the moment we have another even older historical anachronism, in that there is a separate police force for the City of London. We want that to be amalgamated into one police force, which could then operate throughout the capital. We could also easily solve all the problems of boundaries.
There have been some welcome changes of attitude in the statements issued by Sir Kenneth Newman, the new Commissioner. Particularly welcome is his belief that the police should get closer to the community and that, given the low clear-up rate, there should be greater emphasis on prevention rather than detection. However, I and other hon. Members have had interviews with Sir Kenneth, and if one examines closely what he has done so far one sees that he may have had some major changes in attitude but there have been no major changes of organisation in the Metropolitan police. There has been no major

263
decentralisation from Scotland Yard, only a reshuffle of powers between deputy assistant commissioners and district commanders.
Just as the Home Secretary is not in effective control of the Metropolitan police, so there are grave doubts whether the central bureaucracy of Scotland Yard is in effective control of the 25,000-strong force in London. While the central bureaucracy at the yard can make policy, there are grave doubts whether it is able to monitor those policies or put them into practice on the ground. Therefore, decentralisation is an important aspect of our approach, which is enshrined in the clause.
There will have to be much greater local consultation. As hon. Members will know, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), I have been involved in the first tentative efforts to set up a consultative structure in Lambeth. We have made some progress, but one lesson that we have learnt is that while consultation at borough level is important, it is no substitute for accountability. It is complementary to accountability, but there must be, first, control of the London police force by those elected by Londoners, and, secondly, consultation at local level, involving local borough councillors and community leaders, in order to create a consultative group which can both influence the local commander in discussion and feed through the views, demands and needs of the local community into the formulation of London police policy.
There is a need for change because of the lack of public confidence in the police. We do not say that there is no confidence among the London public — that would be nonsense—but we are saying that there is nowhere near enough. That problem was highlighted during the riots, and it has been highlighted again since then by the media and this House, although many London Members were well aware of the problems before that. Even though there have been no riots on such a scale in the past 18 months, it would be wrong for those hon. Members who do not represent London constituencies to get the impression that all is right. There is still a grave doubt.
Hon. Members have mentioned the position in Hackney, which is representative of that in many inner London areas. Because a young black man was found shot in a police station, many hundreds, indeed thousands, of people were willing to assume that there may well have been foul play on the part of the police. That shows the suspicion, fear and distrust that still exists in the black and white communities in the inner city areas. It is no good saying that people should not mistrust the police, but should trust them. It is up to hon. Members to find out whether there are ways in which we can ensure, not merely that we do not have riots for a few months, but that we build on a much surer basis of public confidence in the police.
I acknowledge that the Metropolitan police have made efforts since 1981. They have learnt from what happened in the riots and from some of the comments. They are making some effort to win public support and to find new ways of preventing and detecting crime. To pick out one particular item, the extension of the length of training of police recruits, and the improvement in the quality of training are welcome. However, in welcoming that, we have to recognise that it is not enough. The fundamental constitutional relationship between the public and police
264
in London has to be based on something more permanent than the improvement of training and public relations. The people of London have to be made to feel that they are ultimately in control of the police in London. That change will transform public confidence and is at the centre of our new clauses.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I follow the hon. Member for Lambeth, South (Mr. Tilley) as a London Member who believes that all London Members, if they are honest, would tell the House that policing in London is not as it should be. The figures for the increase in crime over the past year alone, and particularly in the past three years, are considerable. In any aspect of recorded crime, any resident of any London borough will say if he is honest that the rates are alarming.
I began considering these new clauses with those who were brave enough to be here at 3 am this morning, went away at 6 am and have now come back at 3 pm to further consider—
Miss Jo Richardson: We get used to it.
Mr. Hughes: I gather that one does.
There are three options before us. The Government wish the Home Secretary to continue as the police authority for London. The official Opposition wish members of the GLC to be the police authority of London, and the alliance wishes to progress to a police authority elected from borough and GLC councils. A democratically elected police authority would take over the control and responsibility for London police when those councils are elected in a way that reflects the views of the electorate.
It is no good the established parties simply saying that it is only natural for the minority parties to complain: those elected on a minority vote are not representative. I remind hon. Members that I am happy that unlike many hon. Members, I have the support in the area that I represent of 58 per cent. of the electorate, whereas the borough council in my borough has only 44 per cent. support and is therefore a minority. The minority is seeking to take responsibility from the person who at the moment administers policing in the borough.
The Greater London council is also not a majority administration and is not likely to become so. The alliance therefore has a realistic and sensible approach. I have some experience of looking at opinion polls, and recent ones show that Londoners do not want the GLC to take over responsibility for the police. Therefore, let us proceed by two easy stages. Let us establish a Select Committee of London Members to whom the Home Secretary can be accountable—[Interruption.] It appears that those who have been here longer than I think that that would be a constitutional abnormality. The Home Secretary will report to the Select Committee, which would press him, and question him for the information that it is often difficult to discover. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central gave us an example of how one can write to a busy Home Secretary who will do his best to reply as quickly as possible, but who often cannot. Because of the numerous and sometimes amazing responsibilities that his Department assumes, from hackney carriages to broadcasting, not surprisingly the Home Secretary is unable, through no fault of his own, to give London policing the time and responsibility that it deserves.

265
5.45 pm
There are thus three options—the GLC, the Home Secretary or a phased progression to representative, accountable local government. New clause 25 is a clear statement of the alliance position, and we would wish it to be passed by the House later on. It will bring about he government of the police and police responsibility that other local authorities already have. The senior officers and the commanders of those forces are quite happy with the arrangement. The changes would bring about an attitude that is different from that which we have today. It would be not an anti-police attitude or a pro-police attitude but one that will enable the authorities to tell the police off when they deserve to be told off and will support the police when they are doing a good job.
M division, the division looking after the borough of Southwark, deserves credit for the high clear-up rate of murders until recently. There have been three recent murders, which I understand have not yet been solved, but until then all murders were solved and the division is to be congratulated on working to make sure that is done. On the other hand, the same division is not to be congratulated for sending round, at 9 pm on the new year's eve before last, 20 officers to investigate a complaint about a youngster of 16. I was in the block of flats at the time, and the policemen came in as if they were about to arrest an armed gang of about 60 people, not one 16-year-old. The division deserves to be told off also because, when one tries to telephone Tower bridge police station one can wait 20 minutes without obtaining a reply.
We need a police authority that is willing to stick its neck out and criticise the police on occasions, but we also need a community police force that is effective, locally based and responsible to the community.
It is interesting—I shall no doubt be corrected if I am wrong—that the attitude of certain hon. Members, particularly those in the official Opposition, is not even to talk to the police.
Mr. Mikardo: Rubbish.
Mr. Hughes: I said "certain" hon. Members. As far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), once selected as a candidate and certainly until the by-election at which she was returned to the House, had not spoken once to the local district commander. How she could then take it upon herself to criticise the local police when she had not discussed matters with them, I cannot see. I do not know whether she has spoken to the commander since then, but I have not heard whether she has.
Mr. Tilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not out of order for one hon. Member to attack another without having told her that he would make this attack? I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) had known that such a personal attack was to be made upon her, she would have made every effort to be here.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not out of order, but it is against the conventions of the House.
Mr. Hughes: I prefaced my speech by saying that I would no doubt be corrected if I were wrong, and I am happy to be so. If hon. Members feel that that is not sufficient, I shall upon leaving the Chamber leave a note for the hon. Member for Peckham, asking her to join the debate.
Mr. Tilley: I should like to help the hon. Member. This is not a point of order, but it is a convention that when one is about to attack a fellow Member in the Chamber, directly and personally, one informs them in advance, not afterwards, so that the hon. Member concerned can be here. My hon. Friend could then answer what I believe to be the unsubstantiated slur that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is making against her.
Mr. Hughes: I have heard it said that hon. Members who are to be referred to should be informed beforehand. I apologise, as this was a convention that I should not have broken. However, one is not told about these things, There are no clear rules whereby those who arrive here can make sure that they do not break any conventions.
I shall continue with the point that I was putting, because it is a point of substance. It is all too easy for people to attack the police without having discussed the issues with them. It is all too easy for minorities who are vociferous in their attacks on the police, while other minorities who have equally strong and important views are silent. Those minorities too should be represented , that is why we seek to make the police authority for the Greater London area a more accountable authority.
The other capital cities of this kingdom—Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Belfast—are in many ways no different from this capital city. Of course, in London there are national responsibilities, including diplomatic protection and protection of the royal family, which should remain a direct governmental responsibility. However, in parts of this city and Greater London there are people who are rarely affected by the matters of state that go on in our central city streets. People on the outskirts of London, whether in Croydon, Orpington or Tower Hamlets, or even out on the western fringes, often feel that they have little to do with national events. Therefore, they want their policing to be local and community-based.
We want accountability because people in ordinary associations of community interest want it. I had a letter only the other day, as did the Home Secretary, from a tenants association in Bermondsey, which complained that it had heard a rumour that Tower bridge police station was to be closed. It expressed its concern in this way:
"After all, we are the ratepayers and help to pay the salaries of the Metropolitan police, and local organisations should be consulted in this serious matter and their opinions voiced"'.
As a result of its representations, I have managed to organise a meeting at which the police tonight will present their case for the closure of Tower bridge police station, and where the community will be able to express its view.
Let me take the case of a totally different part of the political spectrum, the Southwark Black People's Association, which is concerned that there is no accountability. It, too, deserves to have its voice heard, and it should be able to put issues to the local police force and police commanders.
It is always difficult to find out the facts and figures, because they are not always readily available. Let me give an example. When I went to speak to the local police only a week or two ago to seek figures to justify a proposal to close one of the three police stations in north Southwark, I was told that the figures could not be relied upon, because it depended on which station the officers who made arrests reported back to and into which station's record books those offences were logged, and that therefore the geography of the offences was not accurately

267
reflected in that part of the division. I was told that sometimes errors were made, for instance, in the logging of local police stations' code numbers on papers.
Although there is now a code of standard of statistics, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has just produced the statistics over the past three years as a standard code, it is none the less clear that the figures and the reasons are difficult to obtain for the ordinary man and woman in the street. All that is happening in our borough, where we pay £6 million for our policing. As was said earlier, that surely entitles us to have a say in how policing is carried out in a borough where only 16 per cent. of crimes are cleared up. No one could persuade me that the present standard of policing should be allowed to continue, with a low clear-up rate—the lowest clear-up rate of any metropolitan authority in the land—with escalating crime, going up in double-figure increases every year, and with considerable concern and alarm among all groups.
I commend to the House a proposal that will make the police force in Greater London accountable to a responsible police authority—as police authorities are, by and large, in the rest of the country. That should be done as soon as possible. I urge the House to support the new clause in the interests of the Londoners who want local policing, community policing and accountable policing, and above all in the interests of Londoners who deserve better policing. It is not an anti-police measure. It is one that will allow the police and the public together to make sure that we have a safer and happier city.
Mr. Mikardo: Out of my almost infinite mercy and loving kindness, I shall refrain from commenting on the speech to which we have just listened. When the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) began, I thought that he was seeking a place in the "Guinness Book of Records" as the Member who could drop most clangers in a single speech. I refrain from commenting on what he said, because any honest comment on it would provide naught for his comfort.
Those of us who served on the Standing Committee received memorandums, letters, documents and research reports from large numbers of people and organisations of many kinds. I doubt whether any previous Bill has resulted in so much written matter being directed at members of the Standing Committee. In the early hours of this morning there was considerable reference to and quotation from some of those valuable documents, as most of them were. One becomes a little inured, a little case-hardened, to all the submissions that are made and the stuff that one has to read. However, I almost jumped out of my skin when I read one of the documents. It came from the Association of County Councils.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Association of County Councils is by no means the most rabid red revolutionary institution in British society. One could scarcely think of anything which is more representative of a pillar of the establishment. It sent us a memorandum advocating democratic control—some of us would call it political control—of police forces. It criticised and condemned the Government's resistance to that proposal in language that was far more vitriolic than I would dream of using about Her Majesty's Ministers. The language was rough and tough. It talked about the obsessive resistance of Ministers to any element of democratic control. It found
268
the Government's attitudes ignorant and incomprehensible. I would not be as rude as that about the Home Secretary. Imagine all this from the Association of County Councils! When I read it, I could hear ringing in my ears the voice of a rural dean uttering four-letter obscenities in a loud voice in his own cathedral. It was quite startling. With that—and it was not the only piece of evidence from "respectable" sources — it is nonsense for some people, including some Conservative Back Benchers, to pretend that the demand for democratic accountability of the police is a manifestation of political extremism and that only the extremists are interested in anything of that kind.
Democracy, like liberty, is a word in whose name many crimes are committed. People bandy it around in all sorts of strange ways. One hon. Member this afternoon lectured us about the meaning of democracy. He was elected for one party and decided to join another. He did not democratically ask his constituents who had elected him on one ticket whether they still wanted him on a different ticket. He stayed on and drew his money under false pretences. If the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) does not agree with that, I will refer to Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann who had the honesty to return to his electors and ask them if they still wanted him on a different ticket. That hon. Gentleman purports to get up and lecture the rest of us about democracy. If that is not brass neck, I do not know what is.
6 pm
Another theory about democracy that was put forward was that no institution that is elected by anything other than a majority of the electors has any right to exercise power or to make any decisions. The remedy for that put forward by two hon. Members was that we should have proportional representation at local level. Anyone who knows anything about the arithmetic of elections knows that the inevitable effect of proportional representation is to ensure that the incidence of minority government is greater than under the present electoral system. Those hon. Members do not tell us who should take the decisions. However, they say that to deal with this intractable problem we should change the electoral system to ensure that all local authorities are elected on minority votes. Did anyone ever hear such rubbish? It is nonsense.
The other way in which the word "democracy" is abused, especially in the subject that we are now discussing, is by attaching the word "political" as a pejorative label. When people approve of a democratic measure, they call it "democratic control" of so-and-so. When they do not want it, they call it "political control". They use the word "political" as a slur.
I understand music-hall comedians sneering, making cracks and seeking cheap laughs about politicians. I understand it even more clearly when it is done in Fleet street by newspaper proprietors and editors. One of the standard tools of their trade is to decry politicians. I am not worried about the fact that most of our newspapers are anti-Labour. It is a cross that we must bear. I am worried that most of them are anti-Parliament. The reason for that is simple. They decry hon. Members as party politicians and party hacks because they want their readers to take their political views not from politicians but from newspapermen.
It is merely an extension of the doctrine preached by Beaverbrook — that a newspaper is an instrument of political power. The idea is to get millions of readers for

269
a newspaper and con them into believing that there is something wrong with Parliament and politicians. It is then thought that the bemused reader will say, "Where do we go for salvation? We read leading articles in the daily papers." I understand the word "political" being used as a smear by music-hall comedians and Fleet street editors, but I cannot understand it being used as a smear by professional politicians.
Why are all those Conservative Members, who say that it is wrong to have political influence and political control of this, that and the other, offering themselves as candidates at the next general election? Why do they want to be here? What do they come here for, except to exercise political influence? There is nothing wrong with party political influence on decisions that affect our lives. I find it staggering that there should be a general denigration of politics by politicians when it suits them and is concentrated on particular issues.
I suppose that it is arguable that the one institution—it is hard to be dogmatic about this, as I could be wrong and people could have different views — that most directly affects the material welfare of the citizen is Her Majesty's Treasury. No one ever objects to it being controlled by a party politician. We are all affected more by decisions about tax, economic planning or lack of planning than by decisions about policing. No one objects to a party politician — I certainly do not — being in charge of that activity that controls so much of our life. No one objects much to the members of local authorities who have been elected as politicians on party tickets being in charge of the other activities that affect the welfare of the citizen—the house in which he lives, the rent he pays, the road on which he travels to work, the bus in which he rides to work, the school to which his kids go and the park in which they play. No one objects to all those elements in his welfare being controlled by party politicians, but suddenly there is something different about the police.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who talks a great deal of sense and produces many original ideas but who occasionally slips into a piece of arrant nonsense, argued that the police were different when someone was talking about the other elements of local government. I mentioned the borough surveyor. He said that the police are different. They are. It is self-evident. It is what Mr. Punch would call a glimpse of the obvious. A chief constable is different from a borough surveyor, but a borough surveyor is also different from a chief constable and a chief education officer. A chief education officer is different from a community health physician. The police are different from others because others are different from the police.
The only thing that gives the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds the inestimable advantage of being different from me is the fact that I am different from him. So what is all this nonsense about the police being different? A chief constable is a specialist — a technologist in a particular branch of knowledge and experience. I cannot be a chief constable because it involves knowing a great many things that I do not know. The same applies to a borough surveyor, a chief education officer or a community health physician. If those other experts and possessors of specialist expertise can be supervised by committees of laymen, just as in the last resort we laymen in this place supervise the specialists in the Civil Service and in the armed forces, because we believe that ultimately
270
their activities should be geared to the needs and desires of the community, which only laymen can interpret, why should not the same apply to chief constables?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman asks the question, so I will try to answer it. The difference is this. Every executive, whether he be an educator, a borough engineer or whatever, has a specific sectoral responsibility covered by statutes from this House or from his local authority. A police constable, however, is the ultimate generalist. He has responsibility not for any specific area of the law, but for the total fabric of the law, and the constitution on which our democracy is based. It is that broad responsibility for the framework of the law that distinguishes the constable from any other officer of the state.
Mr. Mikardo: I do not accept that argument for one moment. In making it, however, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real difference between us. I wish the police to be of the community. The hon. Gentleman wants them to be separate from the community. That is what the new clause is about. Should a policeman feel himself to be part of the community in the same way as the bod in the house next door who may be a carpenter, a bricklayer or a doctor and certainly in the same way as any other servant of the community, or should he feel that he is suigeneris, as the hon. Gentleman wishes? That is what the argument is all about. The hon. Gentleman's answer is no answer at all. He says that the difference is that the constable is responsible for maintaining the law, but every citizen is responsible for that. The police have a special responsibility for seeking to prevent breaches of the law and bringing those who break the law to account for their actions. That is fair enough, but they are not different from the rest of us in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
This brings us back yet again to the central point, that the incidence of crime will be reduced and the proportion of criminals brought to book will be increased only through a partnership between the police and the community. All our energies should be directed towards creating that partnership. Two things, above all, would contribute to that. The first is the accountability that we are now discussing. The second I mention only in passing as we shall deal with it later in our proceedings— a system of accountability by the police for their occasional misdeeds that is governed by people other than policemen.
6.15 pm
The accountability of the police and an independent system of investigating allegations of abuse by the police, taken together, would recreate the partnership that existed between the people and the police of this country in my boyhood, but which in the past half century—not just in the past few years—has been lost. Those two measures would go a very long way towards achieving the necessary partnership. People feel that they are distant and different from the police because the police insist on being different from them. A bridge must be built. There is a real problem, although the severity of the problem varies from police force to police force.
The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was right to say that there is more dissatisfaction with the police in London than in any other part of the country. I wonder whether it is mere coincidence that London, the only area in which the democratically elected local representatives have no say at all about policing, has the

271
worst and least successful policing and the police force with the lowest reputation among the community as a whole?
I believe that the proposal in the new clause is bound to come. I suspect that if I could catch the Minister of State one night in that moment between waking and sleeping when a man is closest to his conscience and his eternal soul I would discover that he is personally not very enthusiastic about resisting our proposal. Notwithstanding those who resist it, whether unenthusiastically like the hon. and learned Gentleman or more enthusiastically like some of his hon. and unlearned Friends, this measure will eventually be introduced. The extension and dispersion of our democratic concepts and processes are in the stream of history and are bound to come. I hope that will be sooner rather than later, because the sooner it comes the more effective our policing will be and the happier the relationship between the police and the public, making this country an even nicer place than it now is.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was quite right to say that the proposal in the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) would, in spirit if not in detail, inevitably become a feature of our law. Less than 10 years ago, the police were not an issue. Few people were concerned to debate these matters and few were anxious about police powers and accountability or about democratic control over police forces. Those subjects were rarely, if ever, discussed. If they were discussed, it was at fringe meetings of half-a-dozen people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will know.
The police have become an extremely controversial political issue. Their powers and the control that public authorities exercise over them, or should exercise over them, have followed from several changes that have taken place in the way in which the police relate to the public following the reorganisation of police forces, the reduction in their number, leading to an increase in their size, their resources and the power of individual police forces and of their chief constables. This gives them a higher profile and makes the public more aware of them.
Other incidents have brought the police to the public's attention, such as the well-publicised cases of alleged abuse of police powers or where the public have been unable to obtain a satisfactory account of what the police were supposed to have done. It does not matter whether we are talking about the Liddel Towers case in the northeast, the Jimmy Kelly case on Merseyside or the Blair Peach case in London. It does not matter who was right or who was wrong on those occasions. It does not matter whether the police were culpable of those deaths and other injuries. What mattered at the time to the parents, the relatives and those involved was the seeming impossibility of making the police publicly and openly accountable for their actions.
I know the deep effect that the Jimmy Kelly case had on Merseyside. People who were unthinkingly and, quite properly, blindly loyal to the police and never believed ill of them, who always believed that whatever the police said was right and whatever they did was appropriate, suddenly became extremely worried about aspects of that case. More importantly, they were worried about how the case
272
demonstrated their inability as individual citizens to exercise any type of control, still less any political or public accountability, over the actions of their police force.
The demand for public accountability arises in part from the greater profile of many police forces vis-a-vis members of the public. The public are anxious about the new tactical forces, the special patrol groups, the tactical response units and the greater degree of policing of public marches and demonstrations. Whatever the origins and causes for complaint, I do not in any way subscribe to the belief that the police are to blame. Nevertheless, the police inevitably have been brought into greater and, indeed, sometimes physical contact with otherwise law-abiding, decent and hardworking members of the community who, having complaints, have not been able to process them or be confident that they have been properly processed, independently monitored and checked.
Some of our more vociferous chief constables have high profiles. The chief constables who have caught the media's attention—whether it be the chief constable of Greater Manchester or, to a lesser degree, the chief constable of my own county of Merseyside—are the least articulate, thoughtful and informed of our chief constables. There is no doubt that the high profile of some chief constables adopted by the media and some of their more provocative remarks—most notably those by the chief constable of the Greater Manchester force—have led to a greater demand for more public accountability and control over those forces. That demand, which has grown dramatically and enormously in the past decade, has been fuelled by the more blatantly unreasonable decisions, dictatorial attitudes and dogmatic statements of some chief constables.
There is now a substantial body of moderate and informed opinion among many decent and sensible people — not political extremists or Left-wing revolutionaries or subversives—who believe that it is necessary and appropriate to exercise greater democratic accountability and public control over police forces. They recognise that individual chief officers—there are 44 in England and Wales — hold enormous powers. They have the responsibility for disbursing enormous amounts of money, controlling much highly expensive, if not well-trained, manpower, and other physical public assets and resources. The individuals who possess that power are out on their own. No other public individual or public authority possesses such enormous power over policy and resources without, at the same time, being subject to some accountability to other organisations or individuals.
Enormous variations in the policing of different parts of the country arise from the powers possessed by chief constables. Figures from certain areas show different cautioning rates of juveniles who are alleged to have committed offences. In some areas it is a matter of policy, determined by the chief constable, that juveniles who are alleged to have committed one, two or three offences, are automatically cautioned for their offence if they admit guilt and their parents agree. In other force areas there is no cautioning system and a juvenile of the same age who has committed the same type of offence may be dragged through a juvenile court and the entire criminal justice system.
Similar variations exist in some areas in the attitude taken under the old Vagrancy Act 1824 to the offence of sus. In some metropolitan areas a great attempt is made

273
to enforce the provisions of that legislation. The same predilection is not in evidence in Merseyside. There is an enormous proclivity by the chief constable of Manchester to harass drinking clubs—I do not argue whether that is right or wrong — and homosexual men. The same predilections are not exhibited by chief constables in other parts of the country. Other variations have been cited by my hon. Friends of some chief constables deciding to use public funds to purchase CS gas or plastic bullets. Other chief constables make just as considered, deliberate and conscious decisions not to obtain those weapons.
I do not suggest or pretend that there is not a case for different policing policies in different areas. Of course there is. The policing methods appropriate to Greater Manchester, to Merseyside or to London are entirely different from those appropriate to the Thames valley or to Devon and Cornwall. The policing policy must fit the community in which the police officers operate. The point is that those decisions are presently made by one man, but they should be made by the elected representatives of the community in which the police work, and of whom nominally they are the servants. I do not dispute that there may be need for, and good reasons for, variations in cautioning practice or attitudes towards drinking clubs, pornography, homosexuality or Left-wing street-corner books and newspaper sellers, but I dispute that those decisions should be taken, indefensibly, by one individual who is not accountable for his actions.
For those reasons, among others, there is a demand that a chief constable should be subject to the control of the democratically elected representatives of his county on policing policy.
6.30 pm
I accept that a fine line can be drawn between what is policy and what is operational. A local authority should have the right to lay down general policy, to allocate resources and to decide on community-type policing rather than panda-type policing. Such matters of principle and policy should be decided by locally elected representatives. A fine line can be drawn between that and some day-to-day operational decisions that are, quite properly, the province of the chief constable.
The same fine line and the same need to arrive at a balance exist in all our public affairs. They exist between the Home Secretary and his officials. The Home Secretary determines the broad lines of policy, but does not sign every letter written by a clerk in his Department. Currently, a locally elected council determines the priority that it gives to education as opposed to, perhaps, social services. It determines the structure — the theological input—that the educational system will have, subject to national legislation and constraints. But that does not mean that it interferes, or that it would be proper for it to do so, in the day-to-day syllabus or running of the schools.
If we manage throughout our whole democratic structure, both nationally and locally, to straddle that fine balance between setting the policy, determining the priorities and allocating the resources, without at the same time doing the professionals' jobs—we do it in housing, education, social services, health services and in Government — we can do that equally well and successfully with the police.
It is anomalous that such a highly contentious area of our community as policing, which directly affects the livelihoods of all our constituents, has for so long not been
274
subject to proper democratic control and accountability. Chief constables determine the kind of policing that they will have in their areas, and, in effect, it was the atmosphere and the ethos of the policing that largely led to the problems in Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side. I do not subscribe to the view that the riots were caused by unemployment. That was a contributory factor, but the major factor in my area was the distance that had developed between the police and the local community because of the type and tenor of the policing imposed.
I, like my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), want the police to be effective. As I said last night, I want the police to be successful in creating a society that is law abiding. I want them to protect my constituents from burglars and rapists. The belief that has been expressed time and again in the various contributions of Opposition Members is that our police force will be effective only if it possesses and maintains the confidence of the public whom it is policing. The best way to obtain and sustain such confidence is for the police to be seen to be the servant rather than the master of the public—and to be seen to be under proper democratic control and accountability.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I go further down that road than the hon. Gentleman might suppose, but will he accept one central dilemma? If the police become the servant of the political majority, they can put at risk their other duty of upholding the fabric of the law that maintains the rights of the minority. The police have to maintain that crucial balance.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I understand the hon. Gentleman's fear, but it is wholly misplaced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, when Conservative Members use the word "political" they do so in a derogatory sense. What we mean by politics in this country is a description of the way in which we take decisions. That is politics. It is synonymous with democracy—it is democracy. If some hon. Members say that they want to take education, housing and the police out of politics, they are in effect saying that they should be subject, not to democratic decision-making, but to some authoritative decision-making individual. Politics is democracy, and that is the way we make our decisions in Britain. It is not for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds or anyone else to say that there is something dirty and disreputable in political decision or political control.
If we are to restore the confidence that the public once had in their police force, we must take steps to prevent the police becoming distant from, separate from and regarded as alien to the public whom they serve. I do not suggest that that has already happened, but we are in danger of that happening in certain areas. Those areas may not be in the majority, but they do exist — some not far from my constituency — where there is a danger of the police being perceived to be a separate, distant and alien force. Once that happens, as we have already seen in isolated incidents, we will be in serious difficulties. I do not want that to happen. We cannot afford to let it happen. One way to fight it is to try to ensure that the police are properly seen to be part of, integrated into and subject to the control of the people whom they are policing.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Is it not: a curious attitude that it is all right for the armed forces to

275
be subject to party political control—the control of the Government of the day, a party Government—but quite wrong for the police to be subject to it?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It is even worse than that. People taking the opposite view to us would prefer the enormous resources and manpower of the Merseyside constabulary to be subject to the single control of Mr. Ken Oxford, or in Greater Manchester to the single control Of Mr. Anderton, yet the latter does not give a good account of himself in the public arena. He does not give me a great deal of confidence in his intellectual capacity, his analytical ability or his powers of judgment, yet I am being asked to allow that man, and others like him, to exercise independently the enormous power in his possession. I regret that I cannot agree to that request. I do not agree to it in principle, because it is wrong to give any individual in such an important and sensitive position that sort of power. I cannot agree to it given the personalities and incompetence of some of the chief officers in charge of our police forces.
For those and the other reasons that I have adduced in support of the new clause, I believe that if we do not now take the decision to put our police forces under proper democratic accountability we shall miss an important opportunity to restore the credibility of our police forces and the confidence of the public in them. We want to look forward to a period of greater co-operation between the police and the public and, through that co-operation, a greater success rate in detecting crime and dealing with criminal offences.
What worries me more is that if we do not take this opportunity, we are storing up even more trouble for the future. This demand for greater public political accountability of police forces to democratically elected representatives, be they national or local, county or district council, will not go away. The head of steam that is behind it now is irresistible and will gather momentum. There will be more controversies and disputes and our police forces will become more isolated and separated from the people they are serving. Down that road lies calamity. We can avoid at least some of it by accepting the new clause.
Mr. John Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) was speaking about the differences in prosecution and cautioning policy as between one police authority and another. That brings to mind the campaign which some of us led in London against the use of the sus law by the Metropolitan police. I think that a democratically accountable authority might have influenced two things while we still had the sus law. One was the decision to use that law, because in London that certainly alienated a large part of the population. It was not the only cause, but it helped to deepen the rift between the black community, in particular, and the police force. The good sense, advice and wisdom of a democratically accountable authority might have persuaded the Metropolitan police that the use of that law was an unwise form of prosecution.
Secondly, the Metropolitan police employed a policy whereby, whenever somebody was suspected or was about to be charged under the sus law, that person would be charged forthwith and not be cautioned. There were very few examples of juveniles being cautioned for an offence under the Vagrancy Act 1824. Normally they were
276
prosecuted. That led to criminalisation and was a contributory factor in the development of the gulf between the black community, in particular, and the police force.
That is just one example of ways in which an elected authority might have used its wisdom and common sense to influence the policy of the Metropolitan police to good effect. There are dozens of examples of the way in which the police allowed a gulf to develop between themselves and the community.
In my constituency the explosion took place in April 1981. That was the most traumatic shock that any constituency or borough could experience, with places being burnt down and people behaving in a most extraordinary way—looting, assaulting, burning and so on. I found that one of the most distressing experiences of my life.
At the same time, however, there was a sense—I did not share it—of elation and exhilaration in the middle of that riot. One of the causes was frustration about the way in which the police behaved and about the control which the community had over it. The exhilaration, the elation and the burning were a substitute for democratic control. People were taking to the streets because they were unable to assert their point of view in a democratically elected forum.
The relations between the police and the public and the build-up of frustration over many years meant that police-community relations were the cause of a rupture instead of the preservation of tranquillity. I recognise that there were other causes, such as the lack of adequate training, institutional attitudes—which are very difficult to change—misjudgments, and a degree of arrogance. I am sure, however, that one of the causes of the breakdown of relations which took place in 1981—not just in my constituency but throughout much of the country—was frustration at the inability to get things changed by argument and persuasion and through a powerful body being democratically accountable.
6.45 pm
There has certainly been a dramatic change in the attitude of the police since those events of 1981 and the Scarman inquiry.
I believe that one of the greatest obstacles to democratic accountability in these clauses is the Home Secretary. The present Home Secretary has shown a greater willingness to talk to Members of Parliament, listen to public bodies and put his weight behind change than almost any Home Secretary within my experience. In that sense I am praising him. However, in another sense he has been an obstacle. Despite his attitude and the co-operation that he has afforded, I do not believe that it is right that the single person of this or any Home Secretary should be the police authority for London, in particular.
There have been vast improvements. I think that they have come about because of the weight that the Home Secretary has put behind them. For example, in my constituency, there has been greater responsiveness and a change of attitude, not least because the Home Secretary would not permit otherwise. There has been successful consultation.
I recall a recent occasion when the local authority was engaged in evictions from a number of squatted houses which were well known to be selling drugs in the constituency. A very large force of police was in attendance at the invitation not of the local authority but

277
of the Sheriff of London. There was an outbreak of violence. It was inevitable with such a large number of police in the very place where a riot had started only a year earlier.
As a result of the existence of a police-community consultative committee, the frustration and anger were taken into a council chamber, not on to the streets. It was remarkable that people were able to argue across a table. In some cases there were the most outrageous accusations against the leader of the Lambeth council and the local commander, but they were made across a table, not on the streets. The police were willing to be held accountable for that operation, but in fact they had very little to answer for. It was an excellent example of the way in which democratising the process of explaining one's actions took tension off the streets and into a committee room at the town hall, thereby avoiding another catastrophe.
I do not believe that consultation is a substitute for accountability. I know some local authorities democratically control institutions but do not necessarily consult all the people that they represent. The fact that a body is democratically elected does not mean that it is always willing to consult. It gets possessive about its province and is not always prepared to listen to others. Democratic bodies can be as arrogant as undemocratic bodies. Therefore, the fact that there is democratic control does not remove the need for consultation, particularly the informal, open consultation that we have in Lambeth with the police-community consultative committee.
Consultation has worked well in Lambeth and was established with such ease partly because of the efforts that were put into it by elected representatives—I include my fellow Members of Parliament in Lambeth, and local councillors—and the support of the police authority. The consultation committee in Lambeth is aware that it has the police authority behind it.
If the enthusiasm of the Home Secretary were to diminish, or if there were to be a Home Secretary less keen on these matters than the present incumbent, the consultation process could break down. I do not believe for one moment, however, that that extremely important consultation is a substitute for accountability.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the absolute power of 44 chief constables throughout the country as if that were the only problem. The truth is that chief constables or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis have very little control over the lower echelons of their forces, and it is not in the nature of things that they should have such control.
I found it refreshing to see the community ranged on one side with representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Tendency to Rastafarians and, on the other side, not only the commander but ordinary beat officers of the ranks of constable and sergeant. Those officers were making themselves accountable to the community. Consultation is vital, but I do not think that it transcends accountability. The two approaches are complementary and each succeeds best with the other.
I shall give a constituency example that shows the need for full accountablity and why I believe that it is not sufficient to have the police authority in London residing in the Home Secretary alone. I described the Brixton riots in April 1981 as a traumatic experience. Yet, in July 1981, the police mounted a raiding operation—at the time it appeared to be a demolition operation—on 11 houses and shops in my constituency. They were using—I do
278
not think that there is any doubt about this now—warrants which had been issued injudiciously by local magistrates.
As a result, there was a row in Parliament. Questions were put to the Home Secretary. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman extended to me every courtesy in listening to my point of view. Indeed, I was commuting between the Home Secretary and Railton road to stop another riot breaking out. I took assurances back from the police authority that there would be an investigation.
There were two investigations. One was conducted by Mr. Dear at the instigation of the Home Secretary. In addition, two or three complaints were investigated under the Police Acts. The press recently reported that comments had been made about the complaints by the Police Complaints Board, which submitted a special and unprecedented report to the Home Secretary on the events of July 1981.
Perhaps I should acquaint the House with the comments of the board. First, in a letter in January it drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to its powers under the Police Act 1976 to report on matters of
"gravity or other exceptional circumstances."
The board stated:
"The Board's interest in this operation"—
the events of July 1981—
"arises from its examination of the investigation into a number of complaints made by members of the public which were recorded and investigated in accordance with section 49 of the Police Act 1964. These matters were specifically (and properly) excluded from Mr. Dear's report."
The board explained that it was
"concerned to discover that the investigation revealed serious lapses from the professional standards which it expects to find in the capital's police force: and that these lapses were by no means confined to the conduct of one or two officers only."
The board added:
"Mr. Kavanagh, the Deputy Commissioner, replied on 26 August … The Board take the view that the letter accepts the validity of their criticism, but they are disappointed that it was not more specific"—
"it" is Mr. Kavanagh's letter—
"about the remedial steps which have been taken to prevent further abuses of a similar nature. The Board realise that the lessons to be learnt from the Railton Road operation go far beyond the individual lapses and abuses of authority which have been identified".
Part of the next paragraph states:
"The Board's concern, however, is directed both at the Railton Road operation itself and at the implication that the unprofessional conduct of officers engaged on that operation could be a reflection of their conduct on less sensitive occasions."
We are talking about a raid that took place at the very centre of the storm. It was immediately investigated by myself and no less a person than Lord Scarman. We are talking about abuses in an enormously sensitive area which were bound to come under the scrutiny of the nation's press, of local Members of Parliament, and of Lord Scarman who had been presiding over the inquiry that was taking place only a few hundred yards away. The board was saying that if there could be grave abuses of police authority in the use of warrants and search powers and the giving out of hammers and crowbars, for example, on such a sensitive occasion, consider what might happen on less sensitive occasions which come under less scrutiny.
I shall not weary the House with the correspondence that passed between the board and Scotland Yard. However, it seems clear that, even after the Scarman inquiry, Geoffrey Dear's investigation, all the upheavals that took place throughout the nation and the divisions

279
between the police and the community, Scotland Yard did not appear to be taking seriously enough the grave shortcomings that were illustrated by the Police Complaints Board in its special report.
The serious and unprecedented report to which I have referred was sent to the Home Secretary—the the police authority—in January. For the past four months during which a Standing Committee, a Committee of the whole House and the House of Commons considered the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, none of the contents of the special report was revealed to the House or to the general public. Following an answer that I received on 28 April, it was clear that the contents of the report had not even been revealed to the press. They were tucked away in the Library and not made available to the press. The contents of the report were not put into the hands of the press until I contacted its representatives between 6 and 7 o'clock on the evening of 28 April. I assumed that the Home Office would supply the information to the press as matter of course, but it did not.
There is always the danger of matters being covered up or of investigations not being as thorough as they might be while we have such a limited police authority for the metropolis. If there were a wider degree of accountability to elected representatives, the risk of scandals occurring would be not obliterated, but certainly diminished. I draw that conclusion from the unhappy events which took place and which I hope will never be repeated.
I understand that earlier events will not be repeated because there have been changes in procedures and training in the Metropolitan police. However, we have been told that time and again. Whenever something goes wrong, we are told that there will be changes in procedures and training. A bulwark against abuse and the vesting of greater confidence in the public will come from a more broadly-based democratic police authority. That will be a breadth of fresh air for the police force itself.
My experience in Lambeth from serving on a consultative committee is that many awkward questions are asked by those who can be vituperative in their language. However, the police come out of these consultations with great credit. The police no longer talk down to people; they are prepared now to talk to them. It has been a refreshing experience to serve on the consultative committee. I am sure that that experience will be shared by others if there is greater accountability.
I have only one reservation about the new clause. I do not believe that Members of Parliament, certainly in the metropolis, should be excluded from an ability to make the police accountable. There are councils throughout Britain—I do not know whether this happens in Conservative councils but it certainly takes place in Labour councils—where it is necessary to go to the Labour group to ask permission to submit a question in open council. County councillors and borough councillors might be less robust, less rebellious and less disrespectful than Members of Parliament. I do not disagree with the general thesis that the police authority for London should be based on the Greater London council. However, I believe that Members of Parliament have a part to play as well.
My experience in Norwood, where I have tried hard to repair the poor relations which have existed between the police and the public, leads me to believe that accountability is one of the secrets of getting an
280
improvement. There have been improvements. Only today I read in the local newspaper that some serious crime in Brixton had gone down by 33·5 per cent. in the first three months of this year because of new policies. That is incredible. There have been dramatic drops in crimes such as fraud. That has happened because of the improvement in relationships. Consultation is not enough. Accountability will lead to a greater improvement in relationships and in the performance of the Metropolitan police.
For those reasons, with one slight reservation, I strongly support the new clause.
7 pm
Miss Richardson: I admire the way my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) have shown such sensitivity and common sense in a situation which none of us as Members of Parliament would have wished to face. It was unique. I listened fascinated as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood told us about the work that has gone on in the meantime towards greater understanding between the community and the police. That is not to say that things are perfect now.
I want to follow two streams of thought put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said that something along the lines of the new clause will eventually be put on the statute book. It would be nonsensical of the House not to recognise that this is bound to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk pointed out, as I intended to, that there has been so much discussion during the past few years that democratic police authorities must be set up.
This is so not just because of the riots in Brixton and elsewhere, the death of Blair Peach or the more recent death of Colin Roach. We also go back to the memories of the over-heavy policing at Grunwick. Then there was the recent shooting of Stephen Waldorf; it shocked many people who are not politically motivated to find that someone could be shot in the street like that. Those who used to view the Starsky and Hutch kind of police operation with some admiration are beginning to think that perhaps we have gone too far and that there must be a return to the system of the policeman on the beat.
I strongly support new clauses 10 and 11. It will be a fine day when the police and other people who carry out policy are accountable to ordinary people. My hon. Friend the member for Norwood and other hon. Members have referred to consultative committees. I was interested to hear what was happening in Lambeth. In my area the proposal to have a consultative committee has been on the cards for a long time but it has not got off the ground. I hope that it will do so soon. It may be a useful body, although I would not see it as by itself a substitute for a police authority; I think other hon. Members share that view.
One must remember that it is difficult to get the opinion of the public. Most other hon. Members will have had the same experience as I in regard to crime in their constituencies. Sometimes it is exaggerated by public opinion. If there is one mugging, immediately most of the people in that street will swear that almost everyone who lives there has been mugged. One has to keep a sense of balance.

281
Only yesterday I had a meeting with a home beat policeman from Barking; it was quite by chance that the meeting was arranged for yesterday. The policeman is using a questionnaire to get the opinions of councillors, leaders of ethnic minorities and Members of Parliament about how they see the work of the local police. My discussion with the policeman, whom I know as an excellent officer, was interesting and useful. This exercise, which is being carried out under the aegis of the Commissioner, should not be a substitute for a police authority or a proper consultation procedure.
In the questionnaire I was asked to give my views about parking problems, about how the police responded or failed to respond to traffic problems and about drugs and glue sniffing problems. I was also asked if there was much car theft, burglary, mugging and assault; also, whether neighbourhood disputes figured largely in what I knew about crime or in difficulties for the police.
I found it relatively easy to answer some of the questions because there are statistics, but some were very difficult to answer because they were purely subjective. They were based on what I knew from my experience of constituents who had come to me, for example, about children sniffing glue and other things which do not show up in statistics. I defy anyone to give proper statistics on parking offences or how many cars are towed away by the police.
I was also asked to comment in little boxes about whether the problems had decreased or increased in the past few months; I found that extremely difficult. I appreciate that Sir Kenneth Newman is trying to get a picture of how leaders in the community see the police force, but this is doing no more than scratching the surface. I hope he will learn from that that it would be helpful if he were to put his weight behind the establishment of police authorities.
We must have police authorities. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who wants people to come to the surgeries of Members of Parliament and councillors, demanding to know what the police are doing. In other words, he wants genuine accountability. People come to us now, but we cannot always get a proper answer because we have no control. People in the community must have control and the police must be accountable to the public. The police should come from and be of the community, not just responsible to it. If they are themselves members of the community they will understand what the community really wants.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I oppose new clause 10 and strongly support new clause 25. It is disgraceful that in a debate launched by the Labour Opposition with great steam on the accountability of the police, there should not be one Labour party shadow Home Office spokesman listening to the closing stages of the debate. It is typical of many of the campaigns that are launched today by the Labour party—full of fury and phoney appeal to the electorate but not supported by Labour Members in the House.
Miss Richardson rose—
Mr. Wellbeloved: I would rather not give way.
Miss Richardson: The hon. Gentleman is in error.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that as my speech progresses I shall be faced with more significant interventions.
282
New clause 25, standing in the name of a number of Liberal and SDP Members, puts forwards some sensible and carefully thought out proposals which would go far towards meeting some of the genuine apprehensions that exist in London about the control of the Metropolitan police. For example, it proposes that the Metropolitan police Commissioner should lay, as he already does, an annual report before Parliament, but that that report should then be referred to a Select Committee of Members representing constituencies in the Metropolitan police area. That would be a significant step forward in bringing about the greater involvement of Parliament and the accountability, through the Home Secretary, of the Metropolitan police. It would be a better way of proceeding, with caution and common sense.
We go on to suggest that the Home Secretary—the Minister responsible for the Metropolitan police—should also lay before Parliament proposals for establishing a Metropolitan police authority which would include representatives of the GLC. Be they Left, Right or sensible Social Democrats and Liberals, they too are entitled to have representatives on a police authority for London. The new clause goes on to say that London borough councils should also have representative on the police authority for the metropolis and it leaves it open for other authorities to be included at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
7.15 pm
Our proposal contains the proviso that such a sensible move forward for the involvement of local authorities on a police authority must rest on the firm foundations of the democratic reform of local government by the introduction of proportional representation. In that way we should be sure that the GLC and the London borough councils were more truly representative of the people of London and would, when members of the police authority, act in a way which would represent the views of all the people of London rather than that one section who happen from time to time to have gained political control.
Although, as I said, new clause 25 would be a significant step forward, I am realistic enough to know that the chances of it being approved are remote. I therefore come to new clause 10, which I oppose. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who I am glad to see in his place, made a speech notable for what he omitted to say. Using typical old class war language, he referred to "our people" in a cynical attempt to align the Labour party with the fears and apprehensions that are felt in many parts of the country over the escalation of crime and violence.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the people have rumbled him. As I go about my constituency and other areas and discuss crime, violence and policing, I hear few demands for accountability. The people of Erith and Crayford and elsewhere tell me when I am on platforms talking about this subject, "We want more policemen acting more effectively to bring peace and security to our old people and our homes, to ensure that our property and lives are not at risk." The people are not all steamed up about police accountability, although I recognise that significant sections of the community want more accountability, and I share their view. But the bulk of the people want more policemen on the streets combating crime.
At times in my constituency, only one police constable is on duty for the whole area. As a result, crime is

283
increasing dramatically in Erith and Crayford. I assure the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that one reason why often there is only one PC on duty is that the rest of them are in central London trying to control street demonstrations sometimes organised, and invariably supported, by the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. If the Labour Opposition really wanted to make a serious and immediate contribution to better policing in London, they should reduce their support for street demonstrations. Then the police could do their real job of policing the community. By that means the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could make a contribution to the well-being of "our people," as he cynically referred to them.
Our people in Erith and Crayford would sooner have policemen patrolling the local high street than in London protecting the right hon. Gentleman at a demonstration in Trafalgar square. Thus, the right hon. Gentleman could do no more for peace and security by using what little influence he has nowadays in the Labour party to lessen street demonstrations, reduce tension and, above all, call a halt to the Labour party's campaign to undermine the police and destroy public confidence in the police.
Who should control the police? The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and other Opposition Members have said that no one man, and certainly not the chief constable, should control the police. I wish to say as clearly and as strongly as I can that no one party should control the police. One has only to study the position in London and the agitation of the Greater London council to become the police authority to realise that. The Greater London council is elected on a minority vote of a low poll. Decisions of the GLC are taken not so much by committees as by a party caucus meeting in private in a room in County Hall. The decision is then imposed on the council and the committee. If there were a police committee for London under the present administration it would not be the Greater London council meeting and discussing rationally and sensibly the real problems of policing in London; it would be that party caucus under Red Ken meeting and deciding that it would impose its political control on the Metropolitan police.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: That is "our people".
Mr. Wellbeloved: The issue is not one of accountability to a political group or a political party. True democracy would ensure not a dictatorship of the activist but the involvement of all members elected to public office by proportional representation so that all the people are indeed represented on that authority.
Londoners would not sleep more safely in their beds if Red Ken was in control of the Metropolitan police. How would this one-party system of decisions taken by the caucus behind closed doors and then ratified with the stamp of legality deal with demonstrations in London? How would Councillor Ken Livingstone deal with the problems of IRA bombers in London? I would repose little faith and confidence in his ability to act with impartiality and decisiveness to protect the lives of the people of London against the terrorists who from time to time unleash their horrors on the streets of London. How would a Greater London council under Red Ken deal with street demonstrations such as those in Tottenham yesterday, during the by-election campaign? How would he deal with
284
the black Fascists and the red Fascists? Whose side would he take? Again, we would have no confidence in that source of control over the Metropolitan police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was right when he said—new clause 25 says it clearly—that before we can have accountability of the police to elected public authorities in London and indeed elsewhere in the country we must first have the political reform that ensures that true democracy operates in local government by having a really representative council elected on the basis of proportional representation. That would ensure that all political opinions were elected and that all political opinions would share the responsibility of control rather than that caucus behind closed doors.
Confidence in the police and confidence in local government will not be restored until the Labour party ends its deliberate campaign to undermine respect for the forces of law and order and supports the true democratic reform of proportional representation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred in his speech to CS gas, baton rounds and water cannon. He failed to say whether he would support those weapons being acquired by police authorities so that they have them in reserve as weapons of last resort if public order breaks down. The right hon. Gentleman says nothing, no doubt to placate those who sniff around his ankles and threaten his political existence.
Mr. David Winnick: That is on the gutter level.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Member talks about the gutter level. My experience tells me that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in judging what is and what is not a gutter level.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook failed to say whether he supports the acquisition and holding of such weapons and equipment by police forces. I hope that, when the Opposition reply, we will have a clear statement on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition whether they support the police having these weapons of last resort so that the Queen's peace may be maintained on the streets and in the homes of this country.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will no doubt take the same view as the Socialist party in France. In opposition, it is against having those weapons, but in government, as we saw only a few days ago, it will use CS gas, the water cannon and the baton rounds with the utmost ferocity when it is attacked on the streets by opponents of its regime.
I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will have something to say about the scurrilous cartoon which appeared in the Labour Herald of Friday 3 December, which is reminiscent of the worst publications issued under Hitler's Third Reich in its vendetta against the Jews. I have that cartoon before me — a symbol of shame for the right hon. Gentleman unless he is prepared to denounce it and those who allowed it to be published in a magazine sponsored and organised by influential members of the Labour party.
We heard a great deal about democracy earlier in the debate. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) referred to those SDP Members who no longer wear the label under which they were elected, and asked whether that was not slightly undemocratic. I have refreshed my memory on the statements on law and order

285
which were contained in the manifesto on which I was elected to the House and on which other hon. Members were elected. On page 26 of the section that deals with law and order, there is no mention of police accountability or of making the GLC the responsible authority for the Metropolitan police. I shall tell the House the three firm pledges of that manifesto which I still carry close to my heart, because I still support almost the whole of that manifesto. Those who should have resigned, perhaps two or three years ago, are those who have repudiated the aims and cast aside every solemn pledge contained in the manifesto on which they were elected.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. Wellbeloved: Despite the interruptions from outside the House, I will not seek to deal with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) because I am confident that the electors of his constituency will do that shortly.
On page 26 of the manifesto on which I and some of my hon. Friends were elected three pledges are given.
First:
"We will fight against crime and violence".
Secondly:
"We will continue to back the police".
Thirdly: We will
"provide further help for the victims of crime."
Has a single amendment or new clause during the discussion of the Bill in Committee and in the House referred to those three solemn pledges?
On the contrary, every effort has been put into the campaign to undermine public confidence in the police and to bring into disrepute the steps being taken to grapple with the appalling crime wave. It is disgraceful that those solemn pledges of support for the police should have been scrapped so readily and easily by the Labour party.
7.30 pm
I am opposed to new clause 10 and to the new-found policy that the Labour party has embraced without having tested it with the electorate. It would transfer control of the police in London from a police commissioner to a political commissar. We want none of that. We want the sensible and modest steps outlined in new clause 25, which would begin to involve the community in influencing and controlling the police — [Interruption.] It would be better if the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—who I believe is to conclude the debate on behalf of the Opposition—had been in the Chamber for the debate, instead of standing at the Bar of the House making noises. However, we are used to such things and I suppose that we must put up with them.
The way forward is to combat the mounting wave of crime and violence, which has created so much fear in so many homes. I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). As always, he made a courageous contribution to the debate, given the political complexion of his area. He spoke in support of the consultative liaison committees that are being set up. I wholeheartedly endorse what he said about the value of those committees. I hope that the Labour party will tell us what advice it gives Labour local authorities such as Greenwich about their attitude to membership of the police consultative liaison committees in their areas. If we want some community involvement, we must support the development of such committees. It should be made clear to those Labour-controlled authorities that refuse to co-operate and that will not serve, that it is their
286
duty as elected bodies to display their responsibility and genuine concern for policing by fully participating in those committees. I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook or his spokesman will make the Labour party's position clear at the end of the debate, so that the message can go out and so that we can get some of these people involved in trying to do something about crime and violence in London.
That is the first step forward. The second step is reform of the political system. I refer to proportional representation and the enhancement of true democracy, which will lead to effective accountability. The third step forward is represented by new clause 25, which I fear has little chance of success because of the composition of the House. However, it will come before the House again, perhaps in another Parliament, and it will then have a greater chance of making a modest and responsible step forward towards involvement and accountability.
The fourth way forward is for all politicians, of whatever party and whatever view, to support the forces of law and order. We do not want uncritical support, because there are things that are wrong, and it is our duty to criticise where criticism is justified. However, it is not our duty, and it is not responsible for a political party, to be part of a campaign designed to undermine confidence in and support for the police.
It would be a significant contribution if, for once, a Labour party spokesman could declare, without equivocation, his support for law and order. Policing rests on consent, and consent rests on the reasonable exercise of power by the police. Let us move towards that with common sense and responsibility and with the full cooperation of the public. It is vital to bring peace and security to the lives and homes of our people. By "our people" I mean all the people of Britain, whether they vote Labour, Conservative, Social Democrat, National Front or whatever, because they are our people. In order to bring peace and security to their homes, some modest adjustments must be made in the control of the police. Above all we must support the police and re-establish confidence, by restoring the confidence of this House and of politicians in upholding law and order.
Mr. Hooley: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said that he was a passionate upholder of the manifesto on which he was elected. Offhand, I do not recall that the manifesto said anything about proportional representation, but that was just one of the many inconsistencies and illogicalities in the hon. Gentleman's rather peculiar speech.
I think that it is common ground among all parties that if we are to have good policing it is essential that the police should hold the public's confidence. That confidence between the public and the police is fundamental to good policing. Most chief constables and experienced policemen would accept that their job is, if not impossible, at least extremely difficult, unless they can count on the public's wholehearted support. Clearly, that wholehearted support must derive from confidence between the police and the public. If we are to establish that confidence as strongly as possible, three important reforms are necessary. The first reform involves having a totally independent police complaints system. I shall not go into that now, because it is a topic for separate debate, but it

287
is fundamental to trust and confidence in the police that the public should believe that if something goes wrong it will be properly and independently investigated.
Secondly, we need a completely independent prosecution system. England and Wales — but not Scotland—are almost unique in Europe beause they do not have a prosecution system that is independent of the police. Scotland has such a system. Until we introduce such a system, the public will have all sorts of doubts and uncertainties about whether we are moving in the right direction.
The third reform involves the matter under debate—or at least it was under debate until the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford spoke—democratic control. One of the most interesting recent developments has been the acceptance by police forces up and down the country of the need for confidence, mutual support and help between policemen and those whom they serve. We have returned to accepting the importance of the policeman on the beat and of creating an understanding with the local people. Sheffield and, I believe, other areas support the concept of the community constable and of the policeman who has a small path to deal with. The idea is that the local people should come to know him personally, should know his name and should feel able to call upon him if they are in trouble or want to raise matters with him. The aim is to establish a rapport between the people and the police constable. That rapport may sometimes have been lacking, but police officers accept that it is extremely important if effective and efficient policing is to be carried out. That is now the policy in Sheffield, and I believe that it is becoming the policy in other parts of the country, including London.
Another experiment taking place in Sheffield and elsewhere is the setting up of police liaison committees. I have been invited to serve on one in Sheffield. That is a good idea, as it will bring together policemen involved in the day-to-day policing of Sheffield, social workers, councillors, Members of Parliament and people with wide contacts among the folk of Sheffield. Such a committee can discuss on an informal basis, not with grim and formalised agendas or lengthy minutes, some of the problems that have arisen — for example, problems within the ethnic minorities, among young people and in certain areas of the city. That permits a flow of information between the police and those concerned with these matters from day to day. Both sides can highlight problems and difficulties, and in turn the police can explain what they are trying to do. As a result, each side can learn from the other.
The building of confidence between the police and people has taken hold in Sheffield. Serious efforts have been made by the city council and others on the one side and the police on the other to make sure that policing is based on public confidence and the personal knowledge of police officers. As a result, the policing is made more effective and efficient, and we defuse the possibility of a repetition of the terrible eruptions that took place in Brixton, Birmingham and Manchester, but not in Sheffield. Of course, Sheffield has been under Labour control for the past 57 years.
It is surely a logical extension of those experiments to bring democratic control — the interweaving of city councillors and others—in at the top as well as at the
288
bottom. I see no illogicality at all in suggesting that the controlling body should comprise the freely elected councillors of Sheffield, Birmingham, London or wherever. Therefore, let there be no talk of political commissars.
Such a democratic body, responsible to the electorate, can be changed from time to time. Different personalities can emerge, even if there is a long tradition of political rule. At the top, such people will have the ultimate authority for the policy and general overall direction of the police.
People accept as a matter of course that the armed forces should be subject to the authority of whichever political party gains power, but they would not dream of suggesting that enormous power should be given to the commander-in-chief to operate as he thought fit. He must operate under the authority of whichever party is elected to Government. No one would dream of suggesting that the armed forces should be outside democratic control, but it is considered outrageous that a group of elected politicians should have responsibility for the direction, control and policy of a local police force.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: There is much sense in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but will he define what he means by control? Is he talking about general policy, or about operational control? In normal circumstances, in the middle of a conflict, the armed services are not subject to day-to-day operational control by politicians.
7.45 pm
Mr. Hooley: I do not want to stray off the subject but the hon. Gentleman should read some of the accounts of what happened in the Falklands war to see how far the politicians intervened in those operations. It is a matter of common sense that the police authority would not direct where individual constables should go and whether by car or on foot. Nevertheless, there is a blurred area between policy and operation.
We cannot take a hard line and say that this is policy and that is operation. Operation may derive from policy, and policy may be amended in the light of operation. Decisions about plastic bullets, water cannon, CS gas, plastic shields and even defensive clothing are obvious examples of where the area is blurred. It is important that an elected authority should determine where policy and operation are likely to blur, and I have sufficient faith in the common sense of our democratic institutions to believe that for at least 95 per cent. of the time a sensible distinction will be drawn between general policy, where directives must be given to the chief constable, and day-to-day operations, where his judgment must stand.
It is academic to argue that if we grant democratic control, a group of city councillors will direct police operations in the tiniest detail. No one seriously argues that a city council should be deprived of control of education lest councillors trot around and inspect the exercise books of every boy and girl in a school. That is absolute nonsense. No one seriously suggests that an elected housing authority will take on the job of architect. One of the most sensitive areas of government is the education of our children, and we accept that as a matter of policy that should be run and directed by an elected city council, working through an education committee. In principle, there is no difference between that and an elected authority to control and direct the police.

289
Confidence in the police is affected by the three major issues of independent complaints, independent prosecution and democratic control. Major reforms in those areas would go a long way towards improving relationships between the public and the police, and they would certainly go a long way towards reversing the disastrous failure in law and order that has occurred at various times during the past four years under this Government.
Mr. Snape: The debate that we are now concluding started at about 5 o'clock this morning. Although we have had a half-time interval—considerably longer than halftime intervals normally are—it has still been a long-drawn-out debate and I hope that the House will forgive me if my reply is brief.
The debate has rested on the accountabiliy of Britain's police forces. We have heard from both Labour and Conservative Members that the proposals in the two new clauses, particularly in new clause 10, are a challenge to Britain's democracy and the sort of proposals that would lead the country down the path of anarchy. More sensible hon. Members will acknowledge that, while the proposals are controversial — it is the purpose of this place to engender argument and disagreement—to say that the proposals in new clause 10 are remotely dangerous is to abuse the English language.
I want to talk about accountability in a parochial sense, dealing with the west midlands in general and my constituency in particular. My constituents, like ordinary people anywhere, express much anxiety about law and order. They are never reluctant to express their views and fears on the topic. One of the problems of law and order that most people in Britain see affecting them is the danger of having their homes broken into and their property damaged or stolen.
A generalised criticism that my constituents make about their police force is that it is difficult to get hold of a policeman. One rarely sees a policeman on the beat. There is some romantic attachment to the principle of bobbies on the beat. Most hon. Members would agree that probably the greatest deterrent to crime is the likelihood of being caught in the act and the deterrent effect of the bobby on the beat is recognised by all. It would be nonsense, as hon. Members frequently try to explain, for all policemen to be on the beat when all the villians are in fast cars, but the feeling is prevalent that the police force, particularly since the 1960s, has become too mobile or too mechanised, and most hon. Members would be inclined to agree.
My constituency includes the football ground of a good first division team called West Bromwich Albion. It has had a somewhat difficult time of late, but it is a good team. I am glad to say that I can frequently see it play. Behind the football ground is an estate from which I receive many complaints about damage caused by hooliganism, particularly on match days or match nights. When I write to my chief superintendent I invariably receive a prompt and courteous reply. I try to point out to him that a police presence on that estate would be a valuable deterrent against football hooliganism. He does his best to oblige, but he says that, the demands and exigencies of the service being what they are, it is not always possible to have police officers standing around.
Mr. Warren Hawksley rose—
Mr. Snape: I shall give way in a moment.
290
On the other side of the football ground is a four-lane road that is a source of complaint from my constituents because it seems to be a habit of the K division of the west midlands police frequently to set up a radar trap there, normally on a Sunday morning. That road has a 30 mph speed limit. No hon. Member would dream of exceeding a 30 mph speed limit in a built-up area, but that is the temptation for those who use that road. My constituents, and others passing through, frequently succumb to that temptation, particularly on a Sunday morning when there is little traffic.
The point that I tried to put to the chief superintendent on behalf of my constituents was that there always seems to be sufficient manpower, on overtime rates, to mount a radar speed trap on that road and I wondered why there was insufficient manpower to protect my constituents from the real danger of football hooliganism on the estate opposite. Inevitably, I received the reply that the radar trap was the responsibility of the traffic department, which is a semiautonomous organisation and that there was little to be done to prevent the department from doing as it liked to enforce the law.
New clause 10 suggests that a police authority should have more to say in the deployment of police officers and the conduct of their duties. I do not think that the House would view that as a particularly dangerous or drastic concept, but at the moment it is largely denied to elected members of police authorities.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we are fortunate in the west midlands to have a chief constable who is ready and willing to consult his police authority. But it is perhaps the fault of those who drew up the Police Act 1964 that it is difficult to decide to what extent chief constables are responsible for consultation under it. We suggest that the ambivalence inherent in the 1964 Act could be swept away if the Government could be persuaded to accept new clause 10. It would give a police authority, consisting entirely of elected local authority members — I repeat my right hon. Friend's point that they could be members of any political party; that is surely what local democracy is all about —the duty to prepare a law enforcement policy for its area. The duty will be upon the authority, in consultation with its chief police officer, to decide how that law enforcement policy shall be carried out. Even the Conservative party, which is somewhat touchy about these matters, cannot disagree with that eminently reasonable new clause.
In the discussions on new clause 10, the song and dance act by the SDP Members is worthy of comment. There was something particularly sad about the contribution of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). His speech reminded me of the conversation that took place on that mythical, runaway train between the driver and fireman before the train hit the buffers and disappeared down the embankment into oblivion, because there is no doubt that that is where the hon. Gentleman is going. To stave off that inevitable result of his defection from a party which, if it did not cherish him, certainly succoured him for a good few years, he is anxious to snatch his customary headlines by attacking the members of that party and accuse them of all sorts of sins, both real and imaginary.
8 pm
The contribution of the hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was also

291
interesting. He, too, was a member of the Labour party for many years. I always felt that the hon. Member's membership of the Labour party owed more to his personal ambitions than to any political commitment. The actions that the two of them have taken over the past few years surprise us a little and disgust us a lot. The hon. Member for Thornaby asked me to comment about a cartoon in the Labour Herald that I had not seen. I have never read the Labour Herald. I thought that the cartoon was deplorable, neither satirical nor humorous, and one or the other or both is the purpose of a cartoon. It was as deplorable in its way as many of the cartoons that appear in newspapers that are widely read, such as The Standard, cartoons that I also find neither humorous nor satirical. The cartoon was deplorable, and I would not defend it.
However, the Labour Herald, despite its name, has no official connection with the Labour party, although I understand that it is produced by members of the Labour party. I also understand that Mr. Rupert Murdoch was once a member of the Labour party—and look what he is up to these days in the newspapers that he produces. Thus, we cannot be held responsible for some of the things that are produced, given away or sold privately by those who happen to be members of the same political party. Both the SDP Members are on their way to their own pathetic swansong. If that is the best way that they can get their newspaper headlines, I feel more pity than anger.
The new clause is concerned with the crucial problem of a police authority for London. I point out, partly in answer to the hon. Member for Thornaby, that if it comes to a direct choice between Mr. Paul Boateng and the Home Secretary as chairman of the police authority for London, my money and sentiments are on Mr. Boateng. I am not joining in the chorus of criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman. He has enough problems as it is from such publications as Crossbow, which I have always regarded as the organ of the Left wing of the Conservative party. When it says the things about the right hon. Gentleman that it has recently said, it is not for me to comment on the private grief of the right hon. Gentleman or on the internal rows of the Conservative party. However, given the multiplicity of functions and the wide range of duties that any Home Secretary must carry out, one should not be surprised that he is not a particularly effective police authority for London.
Our belief, ably expressed during the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), is that the difficulties and disagreements, the arguments and some of the punch-ups that have taken place in London would not have taken place had there been a properly elected police authority for London. The criticism levelled at some of the monitoring committees from some parts of the House leads me to say that such a police authority, on the lines laid down in new clause 10, would make such monitoring committees superfluous. Because power, such as it is, resides entirely with the Home Secretary at Queen Anne's gate, there has been difficulty and unrest.
There is nothing particularly harmful about the provisions of the new clause. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it if it is necessary to vote upon it. It would be difficult to imagine the circumstances in Greater London, under any authority, where the morale of the
292
police force, the detection rate for serious crimes and the general discontent could be any worse regardless of the constitution of any police authority that might be set up under the terms of the new clause. The present system is manifestly unsatisfactory, and it is in the hope of changing that for the better that I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
Mr. Whitelaw: It is very rare that a new clause is debated for 14½ hours. It is over 14 hours since I gave the reasons why I believed that the House should reject the new clauses. I set out my reasons clearly earlier today, and it would not be right to add further to what I said then because I made the position of the Government and myself clear. However, I owe it to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and one or two other hon. Members to say some words in conclusion.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that this had been a good debate on an important issue, and I agree with him. There is a fundamental difference between the views of both sides of the House on how we should proceed. There are two views, and one can hold either. I believe that the Government's view is right, but I understand the Opposition's view, and I made that clear throughout the debate.
I do not wish to do other than point out why I believe that the Opposition's view is wrong. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made a point about the purchase of CS gas and batons. I should make clear to him the technical and legal position, because it supports something else that I believe to be important. The technical, legal position is that the purchase of the equipment must be approved by the police authority unless it has delegated authority to the chief constable.
It is relatively common for authority to purchase firearms, under which these weapons would come, to be delegated to the chief constable. However, and this is the important point, the police authority has the absolute right to withdraw its delegated authority at any time. If police authorities wish to use their influence and powers, they can do a great deal more within the powers that they already have. Therefore, they have the power to keep the approval of such weapons in their own hands, if that is what they want to do. I believe that that adds weight to my argument.
Perhaps I might explain briefly why I believe that new clause 10, which proposes a fundamental change and would bring the police under political control, would make a grave difference. The law in this country must be enforced impartially. We have been round this course before, but I say again that the law must be enforced impartially. If a police authority, with all the appointments that it can make—inevitably, a political police authority of any political party — is to appoint police officers down to the rank of inspector, is there not a grave danger, to put it no higher, that it will seek to make political efforts to control enforcement of the law? There is a grave risk of that happening, and in my view it is not a risk that the country should take.
It has been said by some Opposition Members that everything would be all right if there were an independent prosecuting system. They advocate that that should come in now, and we agree in principle and would wish to bring it in, but that of itself would not solve the problem that I have posed. After all, the public prosecutor would be acting on information and advice provided by the police in the area. If that advice and information were provided

293
by the police in the area, and if they were subject to the party political control of any party—whether in large cities or in country districts does not matter; it could happen in either, and I suspect that it has often happened in both—there is a real danger that political control of the police would not be avoided by an independent prosecuting system. That danger is very real, and that is why I believe that new clause 10 is wrong and should be opposed.
8.15 pm
I should say a word to those hon. Members who tabled new clause 25. The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said that in much of the country there was a harmonious and good relationship between police authorities and their chief constables. That is undoubtedly true, and I am sure that it is accepted by many people in the country and here in the House. He advocated the acceptance of new clause 25, as did the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). Far be it from me to enter into the controversy that subsequently broke out between the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. I can only put it as a happy thought to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that he brought me nearer to getting angry—something that is frequently possible, part of the time at least—than I have been during the past 14½ hours when he suggested that he would rather have Mr. Boateng than me as the police authority. I would rather be criticised by the Bow group, or indeed by anyone else, than have that said about me. However, I have to take all these things in my stride, and I take that in my stride, too.
I do not believe that it is right to change the position of the Home Secretary as the police authority for the Metropolis, because of the particular problems of policing the capital city and because of the size of the Metropolitan police. I noted what the Social Democratic party said about its proposal in this connection. I understand the point, but it does not stand up, and I ask the House to reject it, in that it is related to proportional representation. I cannot anticipate what a future Parliament might say on that electoral matter, it would be wrong for me to support the SDP clause. I have said why I am against the clause. Moreover, I believe that it is right for the Home Secretary to remain the police authority for the Metropolis.
Finally, as I admitted that I was stirred to some anger, I must tell the House that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State reminded me that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)—in my absence, for which I apologise to him—made some kind remarks about me. Who am Ito deny the pleasure of a few kind remarks about me? I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I must admit, because I do not want to embarrass him, that he was critical of me shortly afterwards on another matter, which I also accept and understand. In all, he had what one might call a 15-all effect, and I thank him for it.
Mr. John Fraser: On the critical side of the balance, will the Home Secretary tell us why he suppressed or covered up the special report from the Police Complaints Board about the Railton road raid, at a time when it would have been of great interest to the Committee considering the Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: I did not cover it up. It was reported by the Police Complaints Board, and I published when
294
asked to immediately after the report had been published. The board could have published it itself, but in no way did I suppress it.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, which has been valuable. However, it would be wrong for the House to accept either of the new clauses. I therefore ask the House decisively to reject them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 166.

Division No. 142]

[8.17 pm

AYES

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Field, Frank

Bidwell, Sydney

Ford, Ben

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Foulkes, George

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

Cook, Robin F.

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Cryer, Bob

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Davidson, Arthur

Heffer, Eric S.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

Dewar, Donald

Home Robertson, John

Dixon, Donald

Hooley, Frank

Dormand, Jack

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Dubs, Alfred

Kerr, Russell

Eadie, Alex

kilroy-Silk, Robert

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Snape, Peter

McCartney, Hugh

Soley, Clive

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Spearing, Nigel

Marshall, D.(G'gow S'ton)

Spriggs, Leslie

Maxton, John

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Mikardo, Ian

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Watkins, David

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Welsh, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Wigley, Dafydd

Morton, George

Winnick, David

Parker, John

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Richardson, Jo

Mr. Ron. Leighton.

Robertson, George

NOES

Adley, Robert

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Alexander, Richard

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Ancram, Michael

Cope, John

Arnold, Tom

Costain, Sir Albert

Aspinwall, Jack

Cranborne, Viscount

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Critchley, Julian

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Dorrell, Stephen

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dover, Denshore

Beith, A. J.

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Best, Keith

Elliott, Sir William

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bright, Graham

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Brinton, Tim

Freud, Clement

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fry, Peter

Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gow, Ian

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Greenway, Harry

Budgen, Nick

Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

Bulmer, Esmond

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Burden, Sir Frederick

Grylls, Michael

Butcher, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cartwright, John

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Hawksley, Warren

Churchill, W. S.

Heddle, John

295

Hill, James

Penhaligon, David

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Percival, Sir Ian

Hooson, Tom

Pitt, William Henry

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pollock, Alexander

Howells, Geraint

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Proctor, K. Harvey

Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

Rathbone, Tim

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Renton, Tim

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Jessel, Toby

Rifkind, Malcolm

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roper, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rossi, Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rost, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lang, Ian

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lawrence, Ivan

Sandelson, Neville

Le Marchant, Spencer

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

Silvester, Fred

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Speed, Keith

Loveridge, John

Speller, Tony

Lyell, Nicholas

Sproat, Iain

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Stevens, Martin

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

McQuarrie, Albert

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Major, John

Thompson, Donald

Mates, Michael

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Mather, Carol

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mayhew, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Mellor, David

Waddington, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wainwright, H.(Colne V)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Wakeham, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Moate, Roger

Waller, Gary

Monro, Sir Hector

Ward, John

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Watson, John

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Wellbeloved, James

Murphy, Christopher

Wells, Bowen

Neale, Gerrard

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Needham, Richard

Wheeler, John

Newton, Tony

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Normanton, Tom

Wiggin, Jerry

Onslow, Cranley

Wolfson, Mark

Osborn, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Parris, Matthew

Tellers for the Noes:

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Mr. Archie Hamilton and

Pawsey, James

Mr. David Hunt.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 14

  PROTECTION OF POLICE OFFICERS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
  `Where a police officer has been acquitted of any offence by a court, no internal police disciplinary proceedings may be taken in respect of that offence. '—[Mr. Spriggs.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a), in line 1, at beginning insert `(1)'
  Amendment (b), in line 2, after 'taken', insert
  `on the basis of the same evidence as has been placed before the Court'.
  Amendment (c), in line 2, at end add—
  296
  `(2) Where the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to proceed with a criminal charge against a police officer, no disciplinary charges shall be made against that officer on the basis of the same evidence as was presented to the Director'.
  Amendment (d), in line 2, at end add—
  `(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to recommend prosecution shall not be regarded as an acquittal.
  (3) Nothing in this Act or in any other Act shall be construed so as to prevent the consideration of disciplinary charges against an officer complained of after the question of criminal proceedings has been considered but where no criminal proceedings have been instituted.'.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Spriggs: New clause 14 protects police officers against double jeopardy by providing that a police officer acquitted by a court shall not be subject to police disciplinary proceedings for the same offence.
  In the past few months, I have tried to discover the substance of the Police Federation's case and spent quite a few hours discussing the matter with the federation. The Police Federation and individual officers accept the necessity in a disciplined service to uphold the proper authority of chief constables. There is no room for corrupt policemen in the police service, but the present disciplinary system is unjust, for the following reasons.
  The rules of evidence are not observed and in some quarters hearsay evidence is accepted almost as a matter of routine. The accused officer has no right to legal representation at the hearing. The penalties imposed by internal police courts often bear no relation to the nature of the alleged offence. Policemen have been sacked for swearing at superior officers. One was fined more than £1,000 because his wife's car was untaxed, even though it was not on a public road. The punishment for some offences may vary alarmingly between one force and another.
  The present system of appeal to the Home Secretary is an anachronism. I am told that the only source of professional police advice to the Secretary of State in his appellate role is a former chief officer of police.
  For all those and many other reaons rooted in years of experience, the Police Federation now looks to Parliament to provide its members with greater justice under discipline. The federation seeks the protection of Parliament which protects the public interest. Alone among citizens, the police may not engage in trade union activities in pursuit of those rights for themselves.
  I understand that in Standing Committee J all parties agreed that the time had come to reform the present system and to provide a minimum charter of rights for police officers. The police welcome the Standing Committee's decision that the Home Secretary should have power to require police disciplinary hearings to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and look forward to the fulfilment of the Government's promise to end the use of hearsay evidence and the objectionable practice of recording in a police officer's file details of allegations of which the officer has been found innocent. They look forward to a more open system.
  Every member of the Police Federation looks to the House to secure one indispensible reform—the basic right of any policeman who may be sacked, demoted or fined large sums of money to be represented, if he wishes, by a legally qualified person. That right is available to the police in virtually every democratic country, and it is time that our police were treated in the same way. Having

  297
  accepted the overwhelming justice of the case, Standing Committee J amended the Bill to provide for this. My anxiety is that the Government might seek to overthrow the Committee's good judgment. Therefore, I appeal to every right hon. and hon. Member to support the new clause.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) for so eloquently expressing the feelings of the vast majority of members of the police force, who are of course members of the Police Federation, with which he knows I have a connection. I could not have put the case better than he did. I understand that the clause is about double jeopardy, but I wish to follow the hon. Gentleman by dealing with the subject of police discipline. He does not want police officers to be faced with the onerous discipline system if they have previously faced the courts.
  In summarising what is wrong with the police discipline system, I have eight specific points to raise. First, the hearing is held in secret. That cannot be right. Secondly, the discipline code contains a series of catch-all offences. An example is the offence of discreditable conduct, which is so wide that it is almost impossible for an officer to avoid being caught by one or other of the provisions within the code if his senior officer wishes to pursue the matter.
  Thirdly, the rules of evidence are simply not observed in many cases. I would be wrong to suggest that all police disciplinary proceedings are conducted in the wrong way. The majority are conducted properly. None the less, the rules of evidence do not have to be observed and hearsay evidence, as the hon. Gentleman said, is frequently used, and used in the wrong way.
  Fourthly, a record is kept in the officer's personal file, even if he is found to be innocent. That is not right, as that record might compromise his position as and when he is subject to a further charge. Fifthly, he has no access to legal advice. That is wholly wrong, when he can be sacked, demoted or fined a large sum of money.
  Sixthly, the penalties are frequently harsh and often quite excessive. They can involve dismissal, demotion and other punishments for offences that do not justify such treatment. The penalties often bear little resemblance to the nature of the offence.
  Seventhly, the penalties vary greatly between one force and another. An earlier debate involved differences in policing practice. There is no area in which differences between one force and another are so marked as they are in the treatment of policemen by their superiors.
  Finally, the appeal system is unsatisfactory. As it stands at present, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not required to give any reasons for his final judgment in appeals. He is advised by a Home Office inspector, who is almost automatically a former chief officer. The appeal system tends to be asymmetrical.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I rise only to avoid the necessity of making a speech on the subject. Is not a ninth point the somewhat unsatisfactory silence in the House on clause 69, which gives a policeman the right to be legally represented in any serious disciplinary proceedings where he may lose his job and pension rights, while there is an ominous threat that the Government might seek to do something about it in the House of Lords? Would my hon. Friend care to say something, as his ninth point, about the importance that he, as the eloquent and diligent spokesman
  298
  for the Police Federation, attaches to the right of police officers in serious disciplinary proceedings to be legally represented?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I was about to come to that point. Because of the various points that I made, and which were thoroughly rehearsed in Committee, Standing Committee J carried an amendment that now stands in the Bill. I very much hope that the House will accept that clause and allow it to stand part of the Bill. It will then go to another place.
  What happens in another place is a matter for speculation, but I would not be giving away any secrets if I said that the Association of Chief Police Officers is not enamoured of the amendment. In fairness, I must say that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister was advised by the Home Office that the Government should not be enamoured of it either. I accept that one or two technical aspects of the clause might justify some amendment: we shall have to see. My expectation is that the House will accept the clause as it stands for the time being, and that negotiations will then take place.
  The central point, following directly from the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, is that no man should be sacked or demoted or lose thousands of pounds of pay without having had at least some access to legal advice. I do not believe that in a disciplined service it would be right for the police to have access to lawyers in all disciplinary cases. If a police officer is late, if he is not properly dressed, if he has behaved in some manner that his immediate superior feels is wrong, it would be absurd to wheel in the lawyers at every stage.
  There is a tendency among us all towards litigiousness, and policemen are not immune from that characteristic. Indeed, they might be said to be well to the fore among the litigious population. I could not support the notion that in all circumstances the police should have access to lawyers when discipline is under consideration, but in the specific areas to which I have referred, if the penalty can involve their being sacked, demoted or fined more than three months pay, it should be an elementary right that they have access to legal advice.
  The question arises who is to pay for legal advice. No doubt the Government will wish to consider that, because public funds are involved. In some circumstances, an officer might be prepared to pay his own legal fees. The Police Federation, from time to time, if it were satisfied that a legitimate point was at issue, could use its voluntary funds. It is permitted to do so under the present law. There may be cases in which, if the police officer's legal fees were to be paid by the Home Department, the chief officer might demand that he should have legal representations at the same hearing. There are a number of problems, and I do not deny them.
  I hope that the House will concede the principle. I am pleased to say that the Law Society, with whom the Police Federation and I had some useful discussions recently, has agreed to give us full support in believing that it is a principle of English law that should be established. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Helens for so effectively moving his clause.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The clause does not relate to the representation of the police in disciplinary

  299
  proceedings, although I understand the anxiety that has been expressed. On that issue, I kept silent in Standing Committee and was paired on the vote, so I do not intend to pursue that further.
  The issue that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) involves a most important question of principle which perhaps he has overlooked. "Jeopardy" in "double jeopardy" means the possibility of punishment. It does not mean the possibility of consideration whether there is a prima facie case. Therefore, to say that the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered the case has never put anybody in jeopardy.
  The best example that I can give relates to two prison officers in Manchester who were charged with murder. They went before the stipendiary magistrate, who said that there was no prima facie case and threw it out. There was then an application for a bill of indictment from the judge, and it went before the Crown court. If jeopardy simply meant that it had been considered by the stipendiary magistrate on the basis of whether there was a prima facie case, there would have been an absolute answer to it, but there was not. That is the factor that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) knows very well, but keeps muddling up, and that the Police Federation keeps muddling up because they want to get out of having to deal with disciplinary charges. My hon. Friend should not be misled.
  Mr. Spriggs: If a police officer went to a wedding party, say, drank a little more than he would normally drink, was seen to stumble outside and was picked up by a policeman and taken to court and charged with being drunk and incapable, the court would deal with him. When he returned to work, however, the chief constable might send for him. Fortunately, not all chief constables are like that, but some have been known to do this and to add another penalty.
  Mr. Lyon: If the offence with which he is charged under the disciplinary code is exactly the same as that with which he was charged before the court and of which the court either acquitted or convicted him, he has the right to claim double jeopardy. In that case he has the protection of the law. That is the result of the Madden case, and that is a sufficient and satisfactory defence for any police officer.
  What worries the police is that when an issue goes to the Director and, as is frequently the case, the Director says there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute, it can go before the chief constable under the disciplinary code which might encompass the same offence. In such situations he is entitled to consider the evidence and to decide whether there has been a breach of the disciplinary code, even to the point of the same offence, although I suspect that in most cases the chief officer would not proceed on such a charge. The mere fact that the Director has decided that he will not proceed does not mean that there is a risk of double jeopardy.
  In that sense, therefore, my hon. Friend's new clause is unnecessary. It is true that it says
  "Where a police officer has been acquitted of any offence … no internal police disciplinary proceedings may be taken in respect of that offence."
  In a sense, that is precisely the law. Therefore, this new clause is unnecessary, but it allows the hon. Member for
  300
  Bury St. Edmunds to put down his amendment, which tries to reverse the effect of Madden. I would certainly not subscribe to that.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was very particular. I did not move either of my amendments.
  Mr. Lyon: In that case, I do not quite know why we are disturbing the peace of the House at this time. Perhaps we could move on to the next new clause.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: In effect, the new clause restates the existing law. Section 11 of the Police Act 1976 states:
  "Where a member of a police force has been acquitted or convicted of a criminal offence he shall not be liable to be charged with any offence against discipline which is in substance the same as the offence of which he has been acquitted or convicted."
  In that light, I am sure that the new clause has the support of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has rightly said, the amendment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) would reverse the decision in Madden and Rhone. However, the hon. Gentleman has not moved his amendment, so the lengthy and eloquent speech which I had prepared is now unnecessary and superfluous.
  Madden and Rhone states what my hon. Friend the Member for York has said this evening and what he said previously in Committee. The practice has evolved, largely as the result of Home Office circulars, that when the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered criminal proceedings against a police officer and has decided not to commence proceedings, it follows in practice that disciplinary proceedings based on the same evidence cannot be brought. Madden and Rhone stated that the decision by the director not to bring proceedings does not mean automatically that the Police Complaints Board should not itself consider whether to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officer, based on substantially the same facts.
  The argument that the Police Complaints Board used in attacking that example of double jeopardy was that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in deciding whether to prosecute, used a higher standard of evidence than that which a chief officer of police might use in coming to his decision. This was felt to be a wrong distinction.
  Much of the debate is academic because Madden and Rhone now applies and the criticisms of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and of the Police Complaints Board have been met by the decision. Amendment (d) would have given statutory effect to Madden and Rhone.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there might be some advantages in the House agreeing to amendment (d) and putting it on the statute book instead of relying on its terms being set out in a court judgment?
  Mr. Davidson: I can understand the advantage of taking that course. I am merely saying that Madden and Rhone has lessened the criticisms of the present practice, as outlined by the Select Committee and the Police Complaints Board. Amendment (d) would give statutory effect to the judgment. On the basis that it is better to have something in a statute than something recommended by the court, I hope that the amendment will have the approval of the Government and of the House.
  With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak briefly about the disciplinary proceedings.

  301
  My hon. Friends and I took the view in Committee that we ought to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, which proposed that police officers facing disciplinary proceedings in relation to a reasonably serious offence should have the benefit of legal representation. We still think that is right. It is as much a principle of natural justice as the double jeopardy rule, that nobody should be punished twice for the same offence. We can see no reason why a police officer, as opposed to anyone else facing an internal inquiry, should not have the benefit of legal representation.
  I hope that my remarks have been useful and that the amendment will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. William Pitt: The hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) has got me off the horns of a dilemma, if I understand correctly what he has said about amendment (d). I wish to support the amendment. I was among those in Committee who supported the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in his efforts to achieve legal representation for police officers. It is scandalous that a man or a woman faced with the appalling prospect of losing his or her job, thousands of pounds and seniority cannot have a properly qualified person as defence. I hope that attempts will not be made to remove this from the Bill.
  It is satisfactory to have the judgment in Madden and Rhone as case law, but I would prefer to see it enshrined in statute. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred often to a disciplined service. As I said in a brief speech yesterday, I served for a short period in the Army, which is a disciplined service. If someone joins a disciplined service, he accepts the codes of discipline; even if he joins voluntarily, as is the case with those who join the police service, he accepts the disciplinary code. I would be the first to support action which protected a police officer from double jeopardy. It is peculiarly unpleasant for someone who has been convicted to be charged again with the same offence.
  I have slight doubts about new clause 14, because in some cases where a police officer has not committed a criminal offence he may have committed a disciplinary offence. If he is a member of a disciplined service, within proper bounds and reason he should be subject to the strictures of the service. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment (d), which covers the matter.
  If the Director of Public Prosecutions decides that there is no case to answer, there is neither a trial nor a disciplinary hearing. The dreadful case in Southall involving the death of Blair Peach stands out. To this day, no one has been brought to book on a disciplinary or criminal charge for causing his death, because no one could find out what had happened. It was rumoured that the double jeopardy rule would apply. Nobody is more pleased than I that Madden and Rhone finally laid that ghost. We now know that in case law the double jeopardy rule will not apply to the DPP. Will the Minister accept the amendment so that once and for all it will be in legislation and no one can gainsay it?
  9 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: It is important that we accept amendment (d) because, although hon. Members have pointed out that the Madden v. Rhone case has done much to remedy the problem of double jeopardy, it is only a High Court decision. It could be overturned by
  302
  the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, if not in that case—even if the Police Complaints Board decides not to appeal—then in a subsequent case in which it is decided to appeal. We might then get a different judgment from that which the High Court gave in Madden v. Rhone.
  The double jeopardy rule is important because, as the rule operated in practice before Madden v. Rhone, far from preserving police officers from double jeopardy, it often meant that they were in no jeopardy whatever. It placed officers in the ironic position that, if there was some evidence against them that they had committed a criminal offence, they were in a better position than an officer against whom a complaint was made and yet there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence.
  The problem starts with section 11. Although that provision has been quoted, I hope that I shall be forgiven for returning to it because the double jeopardy rule is so complicated that, if one does not start at the beginning, it is difficult to arrive at the end without falling into some confusion. There is nothing wrong with section 11 as it stood in the Police Act 1976 in that it said:
  "Where a member of a police force has been acquitted or convicted of a criminal offence he shall not be liable to be charged with any offence against discipline which is in substance the same as the offence of which he has been acquitted or convicted."
  Where an officer has been convicted of an offence, often that will in itself be a disciplinary offence. But we are discussing the situation where an officer has been acquitted, and he shall then not be charged with a disciplinary offence
  "which is in substance the same".
  That protects him from double jeopardy. The problem arose with the way in which the Home Office guidelines related to section 11 and, further, the way in which the Police Complaints Board interpreted the connection between the guidelines and section 11.
  The Police Complaints Board, in reading the Home Office guidelines—the fault lay more with the board than with the guidelines; if I had been chairing the board I would not have felt hampered by whether the guidelines interpreted section 11 properly—equated a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute with an acquittal for the purposes of section 11, and thereby failed even to consider whether disciplinary proceedings should be instituted.
  That was wrong not only in terms of section 11—and the High Court said that — but in principle, for two reasons, which is why amendment (d) should be accepted. The first, made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), is that one is not in any jeopardy if the papers in the case are simply being looked at by the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is not jeopardy in any common sense meaning of the word.
  The second reason is that criminal matters and disciplinary matters are completely different. There might be some cases in which an officer, or somebody holding a job, commits a criminal offence, which offence bears no relation to his job and therefore should not be a disciplinary matter. I suppose that in relation to police officers committing a criminal offence, prima facie it should give rise to a disciplinary offence. However, there will certainly be cases where an officer has committed not a criminal offence but a disciplinary offence. The two tests are completely different. In one the court is directing its mind to whether, beyond reasonable doubt, an officer has committed a criminal offence; yet, in disciplinary

  303
  proceedings, it should be directed to the question whether the person has carried out his job properly. As I said, the two are completely different.
  When deciding whether to prosecute a police officer the Director of Public Prosecutions will take into account the 50 per cent. rule regarding the likelihood of gaining a conviction when his evidence is presented to a court. The Director has said that he will also take into account the reluctance — the supposed reluctance — of a jury to convict a police officer. Therefore, the Director of Public Prosecutions will carefully consider the evidence against a police officer before instituting criminal proceedings. My argument is that police officers are better protected than members of the public because the DPP takes into account the supposed reluctance of juries to convict police officers.
  I should like to go through the Madden case because it illustrates the problem. I acted for Errol Madden, the complainant in the matter. He was arrested on suspicion of theft, searched, taken to the police station and ended up confessing falsely to the theft of two Dinky toys in his possession for which he had the receipt. To confess to the theft of articles for which he had a receipt is obviously a serious matter.
  It was a worrying case, so the papers were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the view being that there might be evidence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or another criminal offence. In my view, there was no evidence which could have led to a criminal conviction. However, once the case had gone to the Director of Public Proscutions, the Police Complaints Board felt that it was unable to do anything about it. The DPP, having considered the evidence—which, as I say, should never have given rise to a feeling that there was likely to be a prosecution — decided not to prosecute. The Police Complaints Board then felt that, as the case had been before the DPP, it should not consider the matter.
  What would happen if a complainant in a police station alleged that a police officer had pushed him? A zealous investigation might result in the papers being sent to the DPP, because that push might be considered prima facie evidence of assault. After all, if the police officer touched the complainant, consideration should perhaps be given to whether that constituted an assault. Clearly, a prosecution for assault will not take place in such circumstances. It might be considered wrong behaviour and regarded as discreditable conduct, but it would be outside the ambit of disciplinary procedure.
  In considering section 11 of the Police Act 1976 and the Home Office guidance, the Police Complaints Board clipped its own wings and limited its power. It did so wrongly, according to the court, and the court was right. We have only a High Court judgment in this matter. If that High Court judgment is right and it has clarified the law as section 11 intended it to be, rather than be left with a High Court judgment, we should have an amendment to clarify the law henceforth. That would ensure that the police have the protection from double jeopardy, but would not allow a criminal offence to be equated exactly with a disciplinary offence when the two are completely different.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): New clause 14, which was moved by the hon.
  304
  Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), has fortuitously given us an opportunity to discuss some interesting matters connected with the disciplinary arrangements of the police, which featured in our debates in Committee and resulted in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) being carried against the Government's advice. Today, we have nostalgically gone over some of those issues.
  Contrary to the wishes of the hon. Member for St. Helens, the effect of his new clause would be to afford police officers less protection than the present law does, because the new clause does not take into account the fact that disciplinary offences are not framed in the same way as criminal offences, and does not afford any protection against disciplinary charges for officers who are convicted of criminal charges. It deals only with officers who have been acquitted of any offence by a court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want his new clause to afford less protection to police officers than is afforded at present under section 11 of the Police Act 1976. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that point, without the need for further explanation, and that he will think it appropriate to withdraw the motion so that we do not end up with the opposite of what he intended.
  I need not, therefore, weary the House with a discussion of the issues on double jeopardy, save to say that I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said about the interpretation of that expression. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds discussed matters relating to discipline and our discussions in Committee illustrated the difficulties that the Government then saw. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has told him that he is consulting in appropriate quarters following that vote in Committee. Thus, it would not be helpful to the House to say more at this stage, and I am unable to do so.
  Mr. Spriggs: The Minister has advised me to withdraw the new clause, but would he be prepared to take it over in order to achieve my objective?
  Mr. Mayhew: The Government would not wish to disturb the effect of section 11 of the Police Act 1976, as interpreted in the recent case of Madden and Rhone. In the Government's view, that achieves a satisfactory statement of the law. I understand that it is not open to us to consider now the terms of amendment (d), because this is a Second Reading debate on new clause 14. However, the Government believe that it is better to leave the law as interpreted in that case. We shall issue revised guidance to chief officers covering the relationship between criminal and disciplinary proceedings. It has been prepared and was, indeed, circulated in Committee. It explains the Madden and Rhone judgment and fully meets the terms of amendment (d). In our view it is better to rely on the longer and more detailed explanation in the guidance.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), that it is better to have this enshrined in statute rather than in a court judgment as there is always the possibility of such a judgment being overturned? Will the Minister either consider putting the terms of the judgment into statute or at least guarantee that if there is any danger of the

  305
  judgment being overturned by a higher court, the Government will then legislate to ensure that the spirit of the judgment is enshrined in legislation?
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Mayhew: I have already said that the judgment provides an entirely satisfactory and correct interpretation of section 11 of the Act. We would not wish to see that overturned, and I doubt whether there is the slightest prospect of it happening. Although I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to the action that may be taken, I think that I have given a clear outline of our reaction. It is not desirable to attempt to put into statutory language what has been settled by the court. It is better to leave this matter as settled in the judgment and to supplement that with the detailed guidance that has already been circulated in Committee.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: What would be the disadvantage of putting amendment (d) on the statute book? That surely states much more simply and precisely the effect of the Madden and Rhone judgment and is free from the possible ambiguity of a Home Office circular, no matter how well expressed. Will not the Minister think again about the desirability of putting Madden and Rhone on to the statute book by means of a simple clause?
  Mr. Mayhew: Where the courts have in clear terms given a clear judgment, we think it better that it be left in that form. I fear that I do not have sufficient faith in the powers of draftsmanship, either my own or those of others, to believe that in every circumstance a clearer and unambiguous result is obtained. In those circumstances, I cannot give the assurance for which the hon. and learned Gentleman asks.
  Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman advise me in writing so that I can consider withdrawing new clause 14?
  Mr. Mayhew: Under our rules, the new clause will have to be proceeded with or withdrawn now. However, I am perfectly prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman explaining further the matters that I have perhaps inadequately explained this evening.
  Mr. Spriggs: I accept the Minister's advice and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

  TAPE-RECORDING (1)
  '(1) As soon as he is satisfied that a system of tape-recording of interviews by police officers with prisoners held in custody at police stations is available that is mechanically efficient and workable, the Secretary of State—

  (a) may make regulations to provide for such tape-recording at police stations where prisoners are detained.

  (2) Such regulations shall provide inter alia that:

  (i) the whole of the interview shall be tape-recorded and this includes any questioning, cautioning or the taking of any statement whether written by the person or the police officer and any conversation between a police officer and the person preliminary to or consequent on such questioning, cautioning or taking of a statement.

  (ii) the interviews to be tape-recorded shall be those where the person interviewed is reasonably suspected of an offence which is triable on indictment, either way, or one of such offences triable summarily as the regulations shall provide;

  306

  (iii) if an interview may not be tape-recorded because of mechanical failure or because of a suitable interviewing room not being available, the interview should be postponed until such time as the failure has been rectified or room becomes available unless an officer of the rank of at least Chief Inspector not connected with the investigation believes on reasonable grounds that such delay would be impracticable. It shall be the duty of the officer concerned to record the reason for the interview not being tape-recorded;

  (iv) the standard of tapes and recording machines shall include specifications to minimise the risk of interference with a tape;

  (v) One unedited copy of every tape-recording shall be made to be kept, secured and played only by order of a court;

  (vi) the defence shall have access to a copy of an unedited tape on request as of right;

  (vii) at the commencement of any interview the date, time and place will be recorded;

  (viii) forms of recording interviews other than by tape-recording shall not be rendered inadmissible;

  (ix) it shall be an offence for any person, including any police officer or other person charged with the duty of investigation of offences or charging offenders to interfere with the recording of interviews as provided by this section, or to erase, alter, amend, cut, tamper with in any way or destroy any tape-recording of an interview made under the provisions of (v) above;

  (x) "tape-recording" shall include any process for the recording of sound by magnetic tape in a form suitable for reproduction or other process and may additionally include visual recording.'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffith.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take new clause 20—Tape-recording (2)—

  (a) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to provide for the tape-recording of interviews by police officers with prisoners held in custody at police stations where prisoners are detained.

  (b) Such regulations shall provide inter alia that:

  (i) the whole of the interview shall be tape-recorded and this includes arty questioning cautioning or the taking of any statement whether written by the person or the police officer and any conversation between a police officer and the person preliminary to or consequent on such questioning, cautioning or taking of a statement;

  (ii) the interviews to be tape-recorded shall be those where the person interviewed is reasonably suspected of an offence which is triable on indictment, either way, or one of such offences triable summarily as the regulations shall provide;

  (iii) If an interview may not be tape-recorded because of mechanical failure or because of a suitable interviewing room not being available, the interview should be postponed until such time as the failure has been rectified or room becomes available unless an officer of the rank of at least Chief Inspector not connected with the investigation believes on reasonable grounds that such delay would be impracticable. It shall be the duty of the officer concerned to record the reason for the interview not being tape-recorded;

  (iv) the standard of tapes and recording machines shall include specifications to minimise the risk of interference with a tape;

  (v) one unedited copy of every tape-recording shall be made to be kept, secured and played only by order of a court;

  (vi) the defence shall have access to a copy of an unedited tape on request as of right;

  307

  (vii) at the commencement of any interview the date, time and place will be recorded;

  (viii) forms of recording interviews other than by tape-recording shall not be rendered inadmissible.

  (ix) it shall be an offence for any person, including any police officer or other person charged with the duty of investigation of offences or charging offenders to interfere with the recording of interviews as provided by this section, or to erase, alter, amend, cut, tamper with in any way or destroy any tape-recording of an interview made under the provisions of (v) above.

  (x) "tape-recording" shall include any process for the recording of sound by magnetic tape in a form suitable for reproduction or other process and may additionally include visual recording.'.

  Mr. Griffiths: We now come to an important discussion on the need for tape recording. I note with interest that a number of Opposition Members have added their names to my new clause.
  The new clause owes a great deal to a remarkable new collaboration that arose during the study of the Bill between the Police Federation and the Law Society. It has the support of both and you may agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is an unusual but powerful combination.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: New clause 20 is grouped with new clause 19. It has been suggested to some hon. Members that it is new clause 20 that has the Law Society's support and there is a slight difference between the two. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that to us?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I shall come to that, but I am saying at the outset that the new clause has two parents—the Police Federation and the Law Society. The Law Society has done the drafting, and perhaps that is just as well.
  Tape recording has been debated for years and it is only fair to say that the police service has neverbeen enthusiastic about it. There are many elements within the police service—perhaps in the Association of Chief Police Officers and elsewhere.— who remain less than keen about it. I must freely admit that over the years I, too, have had doubts about it. They arose primarily because I could not easily see how one could overcome two problems.
  The first problem was that interrogations are bound to take a long time. A police officer, particularly if he is interrogating a young person, will try hard in the early stages to win his confidence. He will talk about virtually everything under the sun, from football matches to film stars, in order to establish a rapport. I have often thought that it would be difficult to ask a jury to listen to the whole of such a recording, because a large proportion of the tape would be extraneous to the matter under consideration. It seemed to me that there would inevitably have to be some severe editing, which immediately raises the question of who would do it. That was my first difficulty — the sheer scale and therefore the cost of tape-recording interviews that frequently last for many hours.
  My second difficulty was that from time to time during the course of an interrogation, particularly that of an old lag who had gone through it all before, he would deliberately blurt out some appalling charge or language about other people who had nothing to do with the case that was being considered. For example, he might allege that some innocent third party was guilty of a foul assault. That would raise the question how the police could permit such a recording to be brought before a jury when it plainly
  308
  contained libellous, scandalous or injurious matter concerning a third party. Again one faced the problem of editing, and my difficulty was to know how that could be done.
  I am glad to say that after much discussion I can now see the way forward. It has largely been described in the full answer that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave the other day to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). It would be wrong of me to quote this in detail, but there are three things that I want to welcome.
  First, it is now proposed that the defence as well as the prosecution—the police for the time being—will be able to examine the tape before the trial and arrive at some sensible judgment on what part of the material should be placed before the court. That is a perfectly sensible arrangement, and it was well described by my right hon. Friend, who said:
  "it will be recommended that notwithstanding the lack of formal arrangements for advanced disclosure of the prosecution case in certain circumstances the defence has served on it in advance the police officer's statement of evidence."
  That is an interesting new departure. I should be grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's comments.
  The second problem was the cost of transcription. Typists are expensive and the many hundreds of thousands, even millions, of words that would be taped would cost an enomous sum if they were all to be solemnly typed up. My right hon. Friend, in his reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, had it about right when he said:
  "Where, however, there is a need for a transcript, provision will be made for prior consideration by the courts and the legal aid committees of the justification for making a transcript so that the party ordering the transcript does not run the risk of having the considerable expense involved disallowed on taxation.—[Official Report, 29 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 455.]
  That is another important, practical step forward.
  I have two other points, one of detail and one of general principle. I am glad that progress has been made in identifying the type of equipment and in setting up proper research and monitoring proposals. We are still at an experimental stage, but there are to be thorough experiments in four police areas, which have already been defined, and possibly a further one in Northumbria. I am glad, too, that Customs and Excise will also be mounting two field trials in tape recording at London airport. It is particularly gratifying that two of the areas are in the Metropolitan police area, one in the north, one in the midlands, in Leicester, and one in the important southern force in Hampshire. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to tell the House that the Home Office is determined to move forward rapidly with these experiments. I hope, too, that British industry, which has the opportunity to produce these unobtrusive, robust and reliable machines which can be operated simply will do so quickly, because there is a potential export market in this growing business.
  We are still at a stage of advanced experiment, but the important thing is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, seems now to have accepted fully the principle of tape recording and has virtually adopted it as a policy that will be worked through as rapidly as possible. I am glad that we are to have proper monitoring.
  I end with this possibly daring prediction. The reservations that I and the police service have had will melt

  309
  away over the next year or so as we see the results of the experiments. In two or three years' time we shall have in many, although not all, police stations, these simple, reliable machines, and they will achieve two things. First, they will enable the police to be protected from unfair allegations. Secondly, the subject will be better protected, too, and the entire process of criminal justice will be conducted more expeditiously.
  This is a conversion for me. But it is also a matter of congratulation for the Government. My right hon. Friend has moved a long way along this course, although it has not always been easy for him to do so.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: This is a somewhat alien intrusion into this part of the Bill, but when we come to other clauses relating specifically to Scotland, as well as to England and Wales, more will be heard from Scottish Members. However, it might be useful to make an intervention in this general discussion on tape recording, because we in Scotland, having gone through these arguments in the past few years, have some experience that might he of help in this debate. In passing, I point out that there is a tendency for hon. and learned Gentlemen who take part in English legal debates to look for comparable experience in almost every quarter of the globe but Scotland, which is part of the United Kingdom.
  In my previous appearance in this House in the 1966–70 Parliament we had discussions about majority verdicts. I sat for many a long and weary hour listening to interesting accounts of the experiences of majority verdicts in almost every country of which I had heard—indeed, of some that I had not—but no one mentioned that Scotland had had majority verdicts for hundreds of years.
  9.30 pm
  When my eye alighted on this legislation and these admirable new clauses—incidentally, it is refreshing to be on the same side of the argument as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths); it is an unusual event when discussing legislation on this or any other matter—I thought that I should say a word or two about why I think positive progress should be made in every part of the United Kingdom, both north and south of the border. I am particularly glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), who has responsibility for these matters, has miraculously appeared from behind your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It would be unfair to rehearse at length the arguments for tape recording, because I am sure that they must have been gone into in minute detail in Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that tape recording is an essential and important safeguard for the rights of the individual who is at hazard with the law—the person who finds himself detained in Scotland in a police station under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act and in England under the equivalent procedures that exist south of the border and for the police themselves.
  Perhaps I should make a confession. Indeed, perhaps I should declare an interest. I am a solicitor by trade, although I seldom practise my trade nowadays, and I earned my bread and butter in the criminal courts in a very jogging practice. Therefore, I have experience of listening to gentlemen in trouble with the law reacting in a variety of ways to that situation.
  There is no doubt that some of the reflex defences are, "It was planted," "I was verballed," "It is all lies," "They
  310
  made it up". Indeed, a great deal of court time, and the time of the judicial system, is spent in sifting through those defences, which often turn out to be false but obviously have to be taken seriously. Because the evidence is very much "them and us"—the accused says that he has been set up and that words have been put into his mouth, and the policeman obviously has a vested interest to ensure that that is not seen to be so—it is difficult for the court to be 100 per cent. certain in every case that it has come down on the right side of the argument. If I might use an analogy from the trade, it is like the situation that faces the most junior magistrate when he comes across his first "two cop breach". At the end of the day there are no independent witnesses; it is a simple matter of credibility.
  I freely concede that in many cases this defence is clearly fabricated, but everyone who has practised in criminal courts over a lengthy period—I am sure that this is true of Ministers as well as of Opposition spokesmen —is left occasionally with the unpleasant thought that perhaps someone was speaking the truth although the decision went the other way. Therefore, this is an important safeguard not only for the accused, but for the police, because it will preserve them from the false allegation.
  I look with some trepidation at what is now happening in London, because I do not pretend to have the detailed knowledge of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends about what happens in England. As I understand it—perhaps it is a case of looking for a specific statutory enactment at this stage—the arguments about tape recording have been knocking around, if I may put it that way, since 1971, when they cropped up in the Criminal Law Revision Committee report. There has been a great deal of argument and much lack of action in England ever since.
  I welcome the Solicitor-General for Scotland to the debate. He may remember that on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill 1980 on 14 April 1980 there was a speech from the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke). It was unusual for him to speak in a Scottish law debate and he made rather an uncharacteristic speech. He announced rather dramatically that he would not be able to join his Government colleagues in support of the Bill because he had been incensed by the fact that the introduction of tape recording had been discussed year after year. He saw it as an absolutely essential safeguard but precisely damn all had happened.
  The hon. and learned Member for Darwen used the Second Reading of that Bill to protest. I cannot remember whether he voted with the Opposition or abstained, but it was a strong and forceful way of drawing my attention —I do not know whether it drew anyone else's—to the rather dilatory record of successive Governments on tape recording. I accept that it applies to successive Governments.
  The hon. and learned Member for Darwen said:
  "There is no doubt, from the arguments used from time to time against the taping and recording of questioning by the police, that the arguments are so derisory as to question the sincerity of those who put them."—[Official Report, 14 April 1980; c. 861.]
  He said that, despite that strong feeling, nothing had happened and he therefore found himself at odds with his

  311
  Ministers about a major change in legal legislation. I will not call it law reform, because that might suggest that I look upon it with some sympathy.
  We have had discussions about this subject since early in the 1970s. The theoretical argument has been won, but little has flowed from it. If we leave the Bill without placing a duty upon the Government to act, we may well be leaving the subject in exactly the same unsatisfactory state.
  The Minister may say, "We are going to have some experiments in England. Once experiments are set up there is a certain momentum and dynamism and at the end of the day there is bound to be success and action." We of course made this mistake in Scotland, because we had a series of experiments with the tape recording of the interrogation of suspects who were detained under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.
  That was an important departure from the law in Scotland. It was the first time that the police had been given power to detain a citizen when they did not have sufficient evidence to arrest him. It was a departure at which many of us looked sceptically. We felt that the departure was the result of arguments of expediency put forward, somewhat shamefacedly, by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser). It was argued that there were many abuses of the law and that therefore the law should be brought into line with the abuses rather than tackle the abuses. As a concomitant to that departure in the law, it was accepted that we should have the experiments in tape recording. It was an important part of the package that had come out of the Thomson report on criminal procedure in Scotland, which was the foundation of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act.
  It was strongly frowned upon by Ministers, but the Thomson report advocated the detention power which I have been implicitly criticising. Thomson said that if that power were to be given there had to be a safeguard and the quid pro quo was the introduction of tape recording. I refer merely to paragraph 7.13(c). It is a simple principle, so I will give just a tast of what the report says. I do not think that we need to go into the case of Chalmers v. Her Majesty's Advocate and its place in the development in Scots law, unless a Scottish Minister wishes to go into the matter more deeply later in the debate.
  Lord Thomson said:
  "Interrogation of suspects in police stations must be recorded on tape".
  I shall not follow the argument through to paragraph 7.21. The main point is that it was clearly a package deal. An infringement of traditional individual liberty was to be permitted because it was expedient to make police investigations more effective and perhaps to increase the clear-up rate for serious crime, but if that was done there must be tape recording.
  In Committee and on Report we tried hard to amend the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, with some Conservative Back Bench support, but we were unsuccessful and achieved only what is now being offered in England—experiments. I wished to bring that discouraging point to the notice of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and others.
  The experiments began in Falkirk and Dundee and were later extended to Glasgow and Aberdeen. They have gone
  312
  on endlessly, clouded in anonymity and shrouded in secrecy. They are quite properly being monitored extremely carefully. I asked a parliamentary question about the matter because, as so often happens, there were leaks in the press. We know that the Scottish Home and Health Department had a report, "The First 24 Months" —a title which emphasised the length of time for which the experiments had continued. The first two years of the Falkirk and Dundee experiments were carefully analysed in that report. We owe that information to press leaks. The report was never published or made available to Members of Parliament.
  On 7 December 1982, in reply to my parliamentary question as to whether the report would be published, I was told:
  "No. This is an interim internal report on the experimental tape recording of police interviews in Scotland. To publish it would jeopardise the free and frank exchanges upon which the success of the experiment depends. In view of recent press reports I should make it clear that in these exchanges, and at all stages of the experiment we have had the full and ready cooperation of the police."—(Official Report, 7 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 465.]
  As we all know, when a Minister feels the need to put such a disclaimer at the end of a reply, there is good reason to suppose that there has not been full and frank co-operation. I do not know whether that was so on that occasion, but articles in the New Statesman and The Scotsman suggested that there had been some interesting distortions of experience as a result of the introduction of the experiment.
  I see the Solicitor-General for Scotland shake his head, and I sympathise. I may be under a misapprehension, but if I am it is his fault because he will not publish the report. If he would publish it, I should not need to speculate because I should know what happened in the first two years' experience of tape recording experiments in Scotland and we could have an informed debate on the matter. Whether my opinion would be greatly improved, I do not know, but the debate would certainly be better informed. My difficulty stems from the fact that I do not know exactly what has been happening and that is entirely due to the Government's coyness about producing the evidence, which we all know exists and which has been half leaked and has appeared in shadowy form in public print.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most dramatic element in what I believe was a wholly authentic leak in the New Statesman was the way in which the length of the interview was cut down when tape recording was introduced? Does he agree that it cannot be a bad thing if, instead of spending many hours trying to get confessions out of people, the police cut down interview time substantially?
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Dewar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) on his excellent powers of recall on what must have been for him a rather peripheral matter, which related to occurrences in Scotland and to the Scottish legal system. My hon. Friend is extremely accurate in his recollections.
  I will quote from a press report, in the New Statesman, dated 26 November 1982, as hon. Members have not seen the actual report:

  313
  "In Dundee, before tape-recording, the average length of an interrogation was 24·5 minutes. Since tape-recording, it has fallen to 10 minutes. In Falkirk the reduction is even more dramatic: from 39 minutes to a mere six minutes."
  Those are interesting facts and figures. It is a great pity that more is not known about the subject. Although other matters were considered, such as the number of statements that were made before suspects reached the police station, which gave rise to some speculation about the level of co-operation and the frankness of the way in which the system worked, I encourage the House to consider a statutory obligation towards tape recording. I quote from the same article:
  "The response of agencies other than the police to the experiment is by and large positive. A survey of the prosecution service showed that in almost half of all cases the taped material is regarded as important; and in one in seven cases it was described as crucial or very important. It was widely thought that tape recording had reduced the number of false allegations against the police."
  That is an important part of the document.
  I trust that I will not be returning to full-time legal practice in the immediate future, but I am well aware that one of the most aggravating positions that a defence solicitor can find himself in is when he is faced with what he suspects to be a false defence and he is unable to persuade his client that it is counter-productive in the context of the trial. He clearly has a duty not to be judge and jury, but if that is the defence his client wishes to put forward it is for the court to decide whether it is valid or not, although he may appreciate that he is going through a charade which is no good to anyone. If a tape recording was available, the lawyer could say to his client, "Look, mate, let's play the tape over and listen to it. What on earth will you say when you go into the witness box, in view of what we can hear on the tape?" The saving in judicial time and the irritation which many people face when they are on jury service—they sometimes have to sit through a pointless judicial exercise—is a powerful argument for the introduction of tape recordings.
  The arguments are overwhelming. In a sense, they have been conceded. Experiments are taking place north and south of the border. Most arguments against tape-recording are practical, such as whether it is necessary to produce the entire tape or whether extracts can be taken from the tape, and matter involving the rules of admissibility. With a little will and ingenuity, the obstacles can be overcome. When examining the English experience from 1971—I am principally considering the Scottish position, as I understand it far better—one sees that an enormous inertia is built into the system. The problem cannot be left to the leisurely programme of endless experiments. We should be putting some impetus behind the problem.
  The new clauses provide a real chance to do exactly that. The new clauses should be given a fair wind unless the Goverment can give far better assurances.
  Mr. Lawrence: A sad irony is that those hon. Members who speak most strongly in support of new clauses 19 and 20—the introduction of tape-recording—spend the most time trying to stop the Bill getting on to the statute book. I want clauses dealing with tape-recording to be included in this measure.
  I cannot avoid the opportunity of speaking on this subject, because I have spoken more about tape recording since I have been a Member of Parliament than about any other aspect of law reform. I have spoken more often on
  314
  the subject of law reform than on fluoridation, which will give hon. Members an idea of how often I have spoken about tape recording.
  I am pleased that some advance appears to be taking place. The clear recommendations made in the early 1970s degenerated into feasibility studies about the feasibility of whether it was feasible to have a feasibility study. Fortunately, a Conservative Government took office in 1979 and action was taken in various parts of Britain. Field trials are far advanced. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's parliamentary answer to me last week, which was full and thorough, is proof positive that the Government are determined to do something. However, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister can tell me how long he expects the field trials will last. Can he give us a date for their conclusion?
  I do not deny the need for these matters to be investigated thoroughly. If they are not, when the scheme is introduced it will be ineffective. However, I want some commitment about the dates and a more positive sign of determination than we have had hitherto. I know that I am pushing at an open door, because if I have spoken long and loud about tape recorders, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spoke even longer and louder before he reached the elevated office that he has attained.
  My hon. and learned Friend and I were both practitioners in the criminal courts. We know that it is vital, for all sorts of reasons, that tape recording should be introduced. The allegation of an admission known as "the verbal", whether it is a false allegation by the police or by the accused, has been responsible for more miscarriages of justice—I mean not convictions of the innocent, but acquittals of the guilty—and more delays in our criminal processes than almost any other aspect of our criminal trials.
  I wish to list some of the benefits that will accrue from tape-recorded interviews. First, they will shorten trials and, therefore, speed up justice. The long queue of criminal trials will shift through the system faster. There will be fairer justice, because witnesses will not have forgotten their evidence. The cost of delay, which is enormous, will be substantially reduced if there is a great turnover. Therefore, questions of the cost implications of introducing tape recordings are peripheral and almost unimportant. We could almost put a video tape recorder in every police station in the country and still save many millions of pounds each year.
  Secondly, they will lead to the conviction of more who are guilty. As one who has spent a large part of his life defending people in the criminal courts, I can say that it is an undisputed view of the criminal bar that many people plead not guilty because they stand a chance of being acquitted if the only evidence against them is verbal. That is certainly the position in the courts in London. It is bad for justice. If there were no dispute about the admission of guilt, many more people who now plead not guilty, and are acquitted, would face their responsibilities at an earlier stage and plead guilty. More justice to society would result from that.
  Thirdly, there is the protection of the innocent. An important facet of introducing tape-recorded interviews is that the innocent are thereby protected from false allegations of admissions of guilt that sometimes, though not often, result in convictions. That is an important reason why tape recordings should be introduced.

  315
  Fourthly, they would massively increase the morale of the police. Consider how many detectives in some of the major cities time and again in the witness box are accused of being liars, cheats, planters and perjurers. It must be wearying and demoralising for police officers. If all that were cut out, and all the temptation of the verbal removed, the self regard, efficiency and pride of the police force would be greatly increased.
  Mr. Snape: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ever made such allegations in defending any of his clients?
  Mr. Lawrence: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to this statement and my earlier speeches he would know that one of the things that I am complaining about is the need to be for ever cross-examining police officers and suggesting that they are dishonest, when in many cases the whole matter could be settled if there were tape-recordings.
  I congratulate not only my right hon. Friend and the Government on taking these steps, but the steering committees and the committees that have been thinking about these field trials. The chief constables of the various police forces throughout Britain who are implementing them, and the Police Federation. I have a feeling that the impetus for much of this came only when the Police Federation withdrew its objections to tape-recorded interviews. When the Police Federation said it was prepared to go ahead and support the trials, there was a completely new drive on these matters.
  There is some action pending. I hope that this will not just grind away into the dust as so many other good proposals have in the past. I hope, in particular, that these new clauses will be added to the Bill and that Opposition members will do all they can to speed this Bill to the statute book so that it can be said that the Labour party and the Liberals have contributed to introducing a substantial and vital piece of law reform which will do more than almost anything else could for the reduction of crime and the perpetuation of justice in our criminal system.
  Mr. Pitt: I could not echo more warmly the closing words of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). In rising to support this new clause to which I have put my name I must say that I believe that the introduction of tape recording is one of the major safeguards of civil liberties, which to a great extent this Bill lacks. That is one of the reasons why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Liberal parties have been opposing it. If the Government can see their way to accepting new clause 19, they will be taking a positive step in aiding the police service, improving the morale of the police and safeguarding civil liberties. It will without doubt put an end to the verbal. With modern tape recording methods and equipment, the verbal cannot exist if tape-recorded evidence becomes wholly admissible.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that one has to be a bit cautious about this? Does he remember that in the New Cross inquest, although there was an independent person present during much of the questioning of the young people and the taking of statements from them, during some of the questioning there was not? There was a good deal of evidence there
  316
  that, if there is a period during which there is no tape recording, especially if an individual has previous convictions or there are ways in which the police can put pressure on him, the tape-recorded statements can compound the injustice. If there is going to be any tape recording at all, it must be tape recording of every part of the interview between the police and the individual.
  Mr. Pitt: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. New clause 19(2)(iii) says:
  "if an interview may not be tape-recorded because of mechanical failure or because of a suitable interviewing room not being available, the interview should be postponed"—;
  and it continues to define the position. It also says that one totally unedited tape recording shall be available to the defence. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
  I know something about the editing of magnetic tapes, having spent a good deal of my time over the years editing for various purposes as an amateur. At one time I could understand the objections that were raised to the recording of evidence on tape. It was easy to edit on reel-to-reel machinery and it was difficult to discover that editing had taken place. With modern lightweight cassette equipment that objection is 99 per cent. obviated, and we should have confidence in the modern equipment.
  It has been proposed that two districts covered by the Metropolitan police—Holborn and Croydon—should be involved in the experimental tape recording of evidence. Those two districts will provide a good cross-section of those whom the Metropolitan police are likely to interview. Holborn is a central city area—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Water Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lang.]

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Pitt: As I was saying, Holborn is a central city area and Croydon is a suburban area. I hope that the district commander of Croydon, Commander Meynell, whom I have praised in the House before, along with his men—and I shall continue to do so—will use the tape recorder system to the fullest extent. I am sure that we all take on board the Scottish evidence and the argumemt of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) about the time that interviews have taken. If tape-recorded evidence is to be taken, we should take the precaution of recording conversations that take place in police cars before the interviews.
I give my support to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I hope that the Government will be able to accept the new clause, which will provide a fundamental safeguard for civil liberties. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, it will do a great deal to sustain the morale of the police service. It will greatly facilitate the assessment of evidence in the courts, where evidence is given on the spot. It will render unnecessary a considerable amount of "hard labour" because at present police officers have laboriously to write statements and to stop at every other sentence to ensure that the witness has

317
said the right thing. Finally, it will remove the "verbal". I hope that the Minister of State will give his wholehearted support to the clause.
Mr. Christopher Price: It is nice to have a debate in which everyone is so certain that everything will come right in the end. I shall inject a note of realism and a certain note of scepticism. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that the new clause would do an enormous amount to raise the morale of the police. I would believe that if the police had not been opposing this reform tooth and nail ever since it was suggested 12 years ago. I would believe what the hon. and learned Gentleman said if the Government were proposing to back up six experiments in England and were prepared to introduce a clause to make tape recording mandatory throughout the land. I have seen the goal of mandatory tape recording slip through my fingers over the years when pressing my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the Home Secretary in the Labour Government, and when pressing the present Home Secretary over the years leading up to the Bill. I am deeply suspicious of the facility with which lawyers say that they want tape recording, when that is set against the extraordinarily slow pace at which it is arising.
When the hon. and learned Member for Burton said that it would do much to raise the morale of the police, what he meant was that it would do much to raise the morale of barristers who make their money putting forward suggestions which they find distasteful. They look forward to the time when they do not have to say to policemen whom they broadly support, "I suggest, Sergeant Plod, that you made this up and that you are a terrible old liar."
Mr. Lawrence: Barristers make their money out of lengthy trials. This procedure would shorten trials.
Mr. Price: For 12 years I have heard lawyers saying that they favoured tape recording. In Committee the Minister constantly said something like this, "I am a passionate tape recorder." I take him at his word. When one takes the results of the Scottish experiment into account and considers the tiny scale of the English experiment, I think we are as far away from a national system of tape recording as ever. I commend the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on the deal that he has done with the Law Society to come forward with a joint amendment. It is a massive step forward for the Police Federation to swallow hard and say that it is in favourof tape recording. However, I do not think that we should kid ourselves about the opposition that will come from the Police Federation if the system is brought in universally.
The results of the Scottish experiment were stark. They showed that policemen stopped interrogating when they had tape recorders. They did not use their normal methods of interrogation. Once that spy in the cab, as it were, was installed, there was a dramatic reduction in the time of interrogation, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I suspect that there will be a similar reduction in the rest of Britain. I am not making a party point, because my party has made no more progress on this than the Conservative party.
I suspect that the experiment will run for a couple of years. I hope that the Minister will give us the time scale in months and years, so that we shall know where we are. The results will be the same as in the Scottish experiment. The police will throw up their hands in horror. They will stop interviewing and there may not be so many
318
convictions. The Home Secretary will, then consider the matter for a further two years and we will be into another decade before there is universal tape recording.
We are talking about an experiment, not about a system that is designed to safeguard everyone. It may safeguard people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt), but I am interested in safeguarding people in P division of the Metropolitan police and in places such as Lewisham or Pratt's Bottom, which we discussed with the Prime Minister the other day at Question Time. There will be no experiment there. There is still no safeguard under the Bill to prevent another Confait case.
I apologise to the House for returning constantly to that case. It was mentioned in the early stages of the Royal Commission report and, in a sense, it is galling, certainly for me, having fought right through a Labour Government and now a Tory Government to put right an appalling miscarriage of justice by which three of my constituents were sent to gaol for murder, manslaughter and arson on the evidence of their confessions alone. I say it is galling because we have had a Royal Commission and now legislation, but there is nothing that I can see in the legislation to guarantee that next year, when the Bill receives the Royal Assent—unless it is cut off in the prime of its life—there will not be another Confait case and another miscarriage of justice.
I am sure that tape recording would have prevented that miscarriage. Even though the youngsters were bullied into making admissions, without any overt violence—simply because of the situation they were in—I am sure that if the jury had had the chance in that murder case of listening to the tones of the voices of the police and the voices of the youngsters, there would have been no question of the youngsters being convicted. Indeed, I am sure there would have been no question of the case being brought to court.
The tape recording suggestion represents a revolution in the law of far greater dimension than any hon. Member has suggested. That is why I am detaining the House on the matter. At present, people are convicted on the basis of statements. Such a statement is a piece of paper with words typed on it, with initials against any changes, and each piece of paer is signed and countersigned by the police and suspect at the bottom of each page. That is what lawyers are used to dealing with and what juries are used to looking at. Such statements look most impressive before a jury.
In the Confait case the statement went something like this, "I went down the road, I went into the house, I strangled the man and then I went home." That broadly was what the confession said. It looked as though the individual said it. In 99 cases out of 100 the individual never says anything of the kind. The policeman says, "You went down the road, did you not?" to which the suspect replies, "Yeh." The policeman then asks, "You went into the house, did you not?" and the suspect replies, "Yeh". The policeman then asks, "Your strangled the man, did you not?" and the suspect replies, "Yeh". Finally the policeman asks, "Then you went home'?" and the suspect replies, "Yeh". The policeman then puts a sheet of paper in the typewriter, knocks out the words, "I went down the road, I went into the house, I strangled the man and then I went home" and says to the suspect, "Just sign here."
Mr. Snape: Does my hon. Friend agree that he has probably omitted a vital sentence from the interrogation? At some point the suspect must have said, "It's a fair cop, guv".
Mr. Price: I am sure that that and various other pieces of dialogue occur, but I am simplifying the matter, otherwise I should detain the House for much longer. What I have described is the way in which statements come before the courts. Most jurors, on seeing that typed piece of paper, actually think that the individual in question said those words.
Mr. Cryer: Is that what might be called the Daily Express technique — a journalist's investigation —resulting in people believing headlines arising in exactly the same way following questioning by journalists on the Daily Express and the Daily Mail?
10.15 pm
Mr. Price: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have all been verballed over the telephone late at night by Press Association reporters. I shall not mention any by name and I shall not even allude to Mr. Christopher Moncrieff. We have all experienced getting out of bed, half asleep and bleary eyed, and answering "Yes" to a question. The next morning, when one picks up The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star, one sees one's golden words printed for everyone in Britain to see in the form of a sentence. "I believe that this is a scandal," said Christopher Price yesterday. Christopher Price said nothing of the kind. I said "Yes" in a bleary haze to a Press Association reporter.
Mr. Cryer: Yet another bleary haze?
Mr. Snape: The immovable meeting the unspeakable.
Mr. Price: With regard to Members of Parliament, I am sure that one could properly describe it as "a fair cop", but for youngsters who find great difficulty in managing in such circumstances—as, for example, in the Confait case—it pollutes the face of justice and is not the way ahead. Many policemen have been against tape recording because they know that if the jury did not have a typewritten sheet in front of it but could hear the exchanges, with the accents and the tones of menace the police would get many fewer convictions by the methods that they use at present. That is why I want tape recording. I want the police not to go for convictions through verballing—I do not use the word in an illicit sense. I do not want the police to get their convictions through verbal statements, as so often is their habit at the moment. I want them to get their convictions through genuine, solid evidence on which they can base a proper case before the court.
We appear momentarily to have lost our Scottish lawyers, but in Scotland the position is not as serious. In Scotland one cannot convict people on their confessions alone—there must be corroboration. Scotland has an independent system of prosecution, through procurator fiscals, which we do not have in England. All through the Committee stage the Government would not give us corroboration, they would not give us an independent system of prosecution and they would not agree to the other suggestions that we made about the exclusion of evidence wrongly obtained or the exclusion of confessions
320
not obtained according to the rules. They were denied us. All that we are left with is tape recording and in that sense I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.
As well as talking about time scales, will the Minister talk about costs? The most spurious and idiotic argument used against tape recording over the past 12 years has been the cost. Anyone who read Lord Salmon's recent article in The Observer would be convinced that arguments of public expenditure against tape recording are wholly spurious, whether put forward by the Labour party or the Conservative party. They are not put forward by the Labour party or by the Conservative party. They are put forward by functionaries in the Home Office who are terrified that the police will object if they suggest that we go to universal tape recording.
To me, the final argument was that, on the ground of cost, the Government were quite happy to put video recorders into every police station in Northern Ireland. For a small amount they could be converted for use by the courts. There is closed circuit television in every police station in Northern Ireland, but it is used simply for security and surveillance purposes by those outside the interview. Such televisions are not available to the courts for checking the veracity of statements that have been made. In Committee I pointed out to the Minister that it would cost only about £50,000 or £60,000 to convert that machinery to provide video recordings for the courts in Northern Ireland. Thus, I hope that the Minister will say something about cost and that he will give us some idea of the time scale involved in introducing that reform.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: I, too, wholeheartedly support the idea of using tape recordings to monitor the way in which prisoners are interviewed in police stations. It is curious that, despite the overwhelming arguments in favour of such a change, successive Governments have failed to implement it. They have sought refuge in Royal Commissions. When a Royal Commission says that it is in favour of such a procedure, the Government say that there should be experiments. After experiments in Scotland, there are experiments in England, just to delay the day when we achieve a sensible reform, to which there are few objectors. After all, it would greatly improve the way in which interviews at police stations are conducted.
For the life of me I cannot understand why we are still arguing about this simple, easy-to-implement change in our procedures. I think that it was the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who listed the many benefits that would follow from such a change. The Royal Commission on criminal procedure is only the latest of many authorities to recommend that that essential safeguard should be introduced. I am fully aware that no safeguard—not even that of tape recording—can prevent every abuse of the interview. The tapes could be tampered with, although a gentleman in the White House, who had a fair number of technological resources at his disposal, failed to tamper with tapes when his moment of need came.
More significantly, pressure from police officers could be applied in the police car, or even on the stairs, and thus would not be tape recorded. However, the pressure would have been applied and the person in custody would then do what the police had urged in the subsequent tape-recorded interview. No safeguard can be perfect, but,

321
given the pressure on police officers and the number of interviews that take place, it would be difficult for there to be much abuse if tape reordings were introduced.
There is another argument that I do not think I have heard tonight. The Bill gives the police powers to hold an individual in custody for up to 96 hours. A fair bit of the time will presumably be spent interviewing him. The pressure on an individual would be enormous, particularly if he was not used to being arrested and held in a police station. That in itself greatly increases the argument in favour of tape recording. The House should not allow the Government to introduce the new procedures for holding people in detention for up to 96 hours without at the same time introducing tape recording.
Many of us criticised the Royal Commission's report when it was published, but it at least sought to introduce a balance between police powers and safeguards. However, we now have a prime example of a Government moving towards increasing police powers while leaving out the one essential safeguard. The Minister ought to think hard before allowing the Bill to go through without the simultaneous introduction of tape recording.
Many of us have heard stories of what happens in police stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) referred to the Confait case. But at the level of lesser offenders, and possibly even more so, stories about the way in which an interview has been conducted would not occur if interviews were tape recorded.
We have all heard of instances where the police have said, "If you make a helpful statement, we will see that you get bail," or, "If you co-operate with us, you will get a lower sentence. We will see to that in the court." Other forms of pressure are also brought to bear. We know that that happens because we need only talk to people who have been held in custody for it to be perfectly obvious. It happens in the most alarming way with young offenders who do not have experience of being in a police station, are more vulnerable to pressure from police officers and do not know how to defend themselves.
The only people who could conceivably have an argument against tape recording are bad police officers. A good police officer will welcome the change. It will strengthen his position, make his task easier and save a lot of police time. We need quick action.
I understand that in Committee the Minister said that he was reasonably sympathetic to this change, and for the life of me I cannot understand why we are not introducing it right away. The case for an experiment alone is not strong, given that we have the results of what happened in Scotland. The only technical argument for experimentation was whether tape recorders would properly pick up the sound and so on. I know of no other argument, but if there is perhaps the Minister will tell us.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been piloting the Bill through the House with such enthusiasm for the last five or six months, could well apply some of that energy and enthusiasm to adding this necessary and essential safeguard.
Mr. Snape: This debate has not mirrored the one in Committee, although many of the sentiments expressed tonight were expressed in slightly different ways during the long and protracted arguments in Committee.
It is strange that we should be discussing this matter in 1983, as it is now 11 years since a majority of the Criminal Law Revision Committee suggested that experiments
322
should be conducted. Indeed, at that time a minority recommended that statutory provision be made for the compulsory use of tape recorders at police stations in our largest centres of population. The fact that we are still discussing this matter in 1983 suggests that successive Home Secretaries have been less than diligent in pursuing the introduction of what should have occurred many years ago.
In 1972, the reaction of the Home Office to these revolutionary proposals was eminently predictable. Rather than set up a committee to inquire into the desirability of such a revolutionary concept, in typical Home Office fashion it set up a committee to inquire into the feasibility, despite the majority recommendations on the tape-recording of interviews with suspects that it had already received. That was directly contrary to the minority report before it at that time.
10.30 pm
The committee reported in October 1976, and all hon. Members will agree that four years for such an investigation is about par for the course. We cannot demand any greater urgency than that from our public servants, whether appointed by a Government of one political hue or another. Surprisingly enough, it reported that the tape-recording of interviews with suspects was feasible. The Home Office's reaction was predictable. It sought comments on the committee's recommendations, so another year went by.
In 1977, having received those comments, the Home Office, again somewhat predictably, handed the whole matter over to the newly established Royal Commission on criminal procedure. We know that in due course the Philips commission made its recommendations, but the inquiry, feasibility study, and so on, has brought us to 1983. I know that at least the Minister of State —probably the Home Secretary as well—is eminently in favour of this long overdue measure. We all recognise that there are real practical and technical difficulties, but they surely do not take 11 years to overcome.
Much of the delay since the original report in 1972 is, to put it mildly, as I always try to do on such occasions as this, reprehensible. The Home Office has effectively shelved the question for at least three years by the Home Secretary's decision to authorise field trials in six police divisions. I know that there is not much money about at present, but they will not commence until the financial year 1983–84 and they are forecast to run for at least two years. That will see us safely through to 1986 — 14 years after the original recommendations were made. No doubt the Home Secretary of the day —it may be the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) if the nation is unwise enough to re-elect another Conservative Government — will find some suitable reason for packing the whole business off to a suitable committee of the great and the good which will no doubt report with its customary haste some time in the early 1990s. That is not good enough.
The attitude of the Police Federation to this matter shows a welcome change from its previous track record, but over the years it has expressed much opposition to the introduction of what in the past it has termed "electronic surveillance" of its activities. That opposition, rather than any technical or operational considerations, has been the main reason for the long period of Government inactivity. The intensive police lobbying over the years has persuaded

323
successive Governments of both political hues that the proposals to introduce such tape-recording would be controversial. I hate being rude about the Home Office, because my admiration for the Ministers and civil servants who work in the hallowed portals of Queen Anne's gate is limitless, but such opposition from that quarter undoubtedly persuaded the Home Office that the game was not worth pursuing. That, in principle, if not alone, has been the reason for the 11 years of inactivity so far and the further four or five years of inactivity if the Home Office gets away with the delays.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was, as ever, relevant and amusing. One of the difficulties of any Opposition Front Bench spokesman is to try to follow my hon. Friend and still hold the attention of the House. I was surprised at the drift of his comments. He said that the report on tape recording from the Scottish Home and Health Department was not available as it had never been published in Scotland. I do not know whether our deliberations are the right forum to pursue this matter, but it is surprising, to say the least—as ever I choose my words carefully—that hon. Members from north of the border should be denied access to the report when its contents have been published with comments in the 1983 Criminal Law Review in England. I presume, given our different legal system, that that is a separate publication, but that does not explain why my hon. Friend has not seen it.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the article on the report. I have drawn it to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and I suspect that he is now reading it, as I am, to discover what is in it. The case for publishing the report is even more persuasive as a result of the comments in this learned periodical.
Mr. Snape: It is surprising that an official report commissioned by the Scottish Office should be denied to hon. Members from both sides of the House who represent areas north of the border when it is freely available to those south of the border where lawyers operate a different legal system. However, that has happened. I hope that, if my hon. Friend chooses to pursue the matter, explanations for such conduct will be forthcoming from the Scottish Office.
I hope that, in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, I shall be allowed to quote some extracts from the SHHD report. I think that the House will find them interesting and instructive. According to the review, the SHDD report was based on research undertaken between 1 May 1980 and 30 April 1982 involving 2,149 suspects who were interviewed on tape as part of an experiment by CID officers in Dundee and Falkirk.
The Criminal Law Review article, referring to the SHHD findings, states:
"The report is wide-ranging and covers such matters as the impact of tape-recording on the police, suspects, lawyers and court but the analysis tends to be confined to straightforward description and no overall appreciation is attempted. The document is, however, full enough to allow others to make connections and offer interpretations within a wider analytical frame."
I wonder which well-paid civil servant, north or south of the border, thought up that phraseology — "a wider analytical frame." It is no wonder that those of us who
324
perhaps lack the intelligence to compete in such matters are terrified of verbal conflict with lawyers when they can use such words. However, I must not digress.
The Criminal Law Review report pointed out—again, on this interesting subject from north of the border—that the SHHD report
"appears to provide supporting evidence in that in the first 24 months of tape recording, refusals to be tape-recorded occurred in both locations"—
that is, both Dundee and Falkirk—
"in only about 3 per. cent of all interviews."
One of the objections that has been made over the years to tape recording has been that it would inhibit suspects, that many of them for that reason would decline to be interviewed on tape and that, therefore, the experiment would fail.
The report, which is not before the House for the reasons that I have explained, says that one of the objections over the years to tape recording is the feeling that suspects might "play-act"—something that might be thought to have occurred occasionally in the hallowed precincts of this House. That objection is dismissed by the SHDD report. I know that my hon. Friend from north of the border will look into this aspect of the report when and if it comes before the House.
Mr. Dewar: The way in which my hon. Friend is using the article will be extremely helpful to the House in making up its mind on the new clause. Perhaps he will draw the attention of the House to page 162? It is not so much an extract from the report as from the commmentary on the report by Messrs. Michael McConville and Philip Morell, who are the authors of the article. They quote from Glanville Williams:
"One cannot help wondering whether the real objection of the police to tape-recording (though it is never avowed) is their fear of the consequences of public inspection of what happens in the interviewing of suspects."
The authors go on to say:
"The SHHD Report gives this suspicion real substance."
That is a serious charge for two respectable academics and a very noted law journal to make, and it conclusively underlines the need for early publication and an informed discussion.
Mr. Snape: In drawing the attention of the House to this aspect of the report, my hon. Friend does both sides of the House a service.
Many of the myths that have grown up over the years about tape-recording interviews with suspects have been nurtured by the police through their representative, the Police Federation. As my hon. Friend said, another cherished myth held by those who oppose this long overdue reform has been destroyed. The experiment shows that if there is any change in habits in what takes place in an interview room, it is a change more to be welcomed than to be deplored because the police officer conducting the interview will perhaps choose his words more carefully. The replies will be on the record, and the process, so eloquently described as "verballing" by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), will be more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve when the suspect's interview is completely tape-recorded.
10.45 pm
I come to a fairly important aspect of the tape-recording of suspects' interviews. Although the Scottish experience shows that the impact of tape recording has not had a drastic effect on the behaviour and attitude of the suspect,

325
it has had some discernible effects upon the behaviour of the police. I find it difficult to believe that the introduction of this system and the changes in the habits of police officers and suspects are not somehow interconnected.
The report seems to show that in the areas covered by the experiments, tape-recording was more than the introduction of an electronic notebook. The police perceived it to be more than that. Therefore, according to the report, they immediately employed a range of defensive tactics, only one of which involved the initial rejection of the idea and principle of tape-recording.
I do not say that police officers deliberately ignored the proper procedures for tape-recording interviews with suspects, but there was a temptation, to which some police officers succumbed, to conduct some parts of the interview away from the interview room and the tape recorder.
The facts that I hope I can persuade the House support that assertion are published in table 1 of the Scottish Home and Health Department report, which is headed
"Average duration of interview (minutes)."
It refers to the tape-recorded part of the interview. In Dundee, for example, during the pre-monitoring period, the average period of a suspect's interview was 24·5 minutes. During the experimental period with the tape recorder switched on it fell to 10 minutes. That substantial difference shows the change of police tactics that the tape-recording of interviews brought.
There was a more significant change in the interviewing of suspects in the Falkirk area. Table 1 shows that during the pre-monitoring period the average length of time taken by the Falkirk police to interview a suspect was 39 minutes —15 minutes more than their counterparts in Dundee. It provides scope, one might think, for productivity experts opposite to tell the House about the productivity, or lack of it, in other industries. During the experimental period with the tape recorder switched on the the average length of interview in Falkirk fell to six minutes. That suggests a fairly dramatic change in the habits of the officers conducting the interviews.
To avoid the gimlet stare of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I hasten to say that I draw no significant conclusions from that, save that it is just possible that some police officers decided that verballing suspects is not worth even an attempt when the tape-recording equipment is in the interview room. One flaw in the experiment so far is that there is no force of law or custom and practice to ensure that such interviews are carried out only in interview rooms. The Philips commission seemed somewhat tentatively to support the idea of tape-recording, although it set out in some detail the difficulties of achieving proper acoustics and so on in interview rooms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West in, as ever, a relevant contribution rightly pointed out the other great scare tactic used not only by the Police Federation but by the Home Office. In my customary desire to be fair, I should say that this has been so under Governments of both political parties. I refer to the cost involved. The present Government are especially keen to tell us that they believe in value for money. I think that that is the Victorian phrase to which the Prime Minister is addicted, and I know that such sentiments usually meet with the approval perhaps not of the Victorians opposite but of Conservative Members who no doubt believe that the Victorian period was a golden age in British history.
326
Before reaching a decision on the new clauses, we should examine carefully the cost of tape-recording and ask ourselves whether the financial conclusions drawn by the Philips commission were correct. In paragraph. 4.20 the report estimated that the cost would be about £24 million for the first year and more than £13 million annually thereafter. Those figures may be accurate or they may, after all this time, have become out of date. The present figures may be greater or smaller, but I think that hon. Members would agree that, even at the higher figure of £24 million, this would improve the questioning of suspects by the police.
In this context, we welcome the conversion of the Police Federation to the scheme. In passing, I wonder whether that conversion is not due entirely to the progressive views of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds who, in his advocacy of these matters, seems to be mellowing rapidly in his political views. I am sure that his views are no less sincere and the more welcome for that apparent mellowing.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), in one of his welcome but insufficiently frequent interventions in the debate, said that tape recording would put a stop to the allegation of verballing. Witnesses will be unable to say that police officers were putting words into their mouths. I asked the hon. and learned Member whether he made alleged verballing allegations when ably defending his clients in court, and he said that he did. He said that was one of the reasons why he supported this long overdue reform.
I do not wish the hon. and learned Member for Burton to think that I am being unkind, but I suspect that at one time he was the best chairman that the Monday Club has ever had. If I or any of my hon. Friends had made the allegation that the police were frequently guilty of verballing in court, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his customary political flair and acumen, would have accused me of undermining the entire basis of democracy in the country and of making disgraceful and unsubstantiated allegations against a much-loved police force. It is interesting to know that one can make allegations like that if one is being paid to do so, but if an hon. Member made such an allegation in the House he would be accused of fermenting revolution and discontent.
Mr. Lawrence: Counsel in a court of law is under an obligation to put his client's case. Furthermore, I have never been, nor am I likely to be, the chairman of the Monday Club.
Mr. Snape: I accept both of those points. I withdraw the second, far more serious point that I made. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon for making such a dastardly accusation. I trust that he and the House will accept that I made the allegation thinking that it was true. I am delighted to withdraw it.
I thought I heard sounds coming from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), who has not been conspicuous by his presence during our deliberations. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way. If he has a better function to attend, I am sure that he will drift off, as he habitually does.
I am interested to know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who is the promoter of new clause 19, is intending to put the issue to the vote. No doubt that will depend on what the Minister says in reply to the debate.

327
If the Minister's reply is not to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I trust that he will press the matter to a vote.
I understand that it is procedurally impossible for the House to vote on new clauses 19 and 20 because the substance of both clauses is virtually identical. The Opposition are anxious to place on record their concern to ensure that this long overdue reform comes into being. [Interruption.] I assure the House that that is the position. I have taken advice on that matter. If the Minister's reply is not satisfactory, the Opposition are anxious to express their view in the Division Lobbies. If the new clauses are not accepted by the Government, I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobbies in support of one or other of them.
Mr. Mayhew: Whether a policy is proceeded with, not proceeded with or delayed is the responsibility not of officials in the relevant Department but of the responsible Ministers who are in charge. If tape recording has not made progress under previous Administrations, that is the responsibility not of the officials who served Ministers of the day in the Home Office but of the Ministers themselves. Equally, if under the present Administration tape recording is making progress, that is the responsibility of the Minister in charge, that being my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The reason why tape recording is making progress now, whereas under the previous Administration it did not, is that my right hon. Friend is convinced that it is in the interests of justice that we should have a system of uniform tape recording of statements taken in a police station from people in custody. That is not a late conversion but something to which my right hon. Friend expressed his commitment when we first debated the Royal Commission's report rather more than a year ago. For what it is worth, I acknowledge that I have been in favour of tape recording for many years—a good deal longer than the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and certainly rather longer than the Police Federation.
If we are to consider these matters in terms of party advantage or disadvantage, I must point out that it would be of considerable advantage to me and the Government if we said we would have tape recording right across the board tomorrow. That would save us a considerable amount of obloquy. But one thing we must deny ourselves if we are responsible for affairs is going for cheap and quick popularity at the expense of getting the matter right.
Mr. Snape: Tell that to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Mayhew: Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not in need of quick popularity and she certainly will not take advice from me about it. The flattering references of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East to my future career appear to show a fairly gloomy assessment of the relative popularity of his leader compared with the Prime Minister.
We must consider what must be done. One thing that we could do is to say that, straight away, from now on, there will be tape recording right across the country. Never mind what the Royal Commission said about it being necessary to ensure that we have worked out a right way to equip acoustic rooms in police stations; never mind about the need to modify interview rooms and to develop
328
and provide simply operated equipment and the necessary transcription facilities and to train interviewing officers and so on, all of which I take from paragraph 4.25 of the report. Never mind about all that, we will hit upon a system and see what happens. If we did that we would risk a great deal of money—
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Mayhew: I listened with the greatest of interest to the hon. Gentleman for a long time. I wish to finish my sentence and then I shall give way.
We might bring tape recording into harmful disrepute. It is a great deal more sensible to heed what the Royal Commission said, which was that
"the introduction of tape recording even on the lines we recommend will have to be gradual."
Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have access to the Scottish experience? I refer especially to the Scottish Home and Health Department's report. During the past two years it has closely monitored experiments in several centres in Scotland and has wrestled with exactly such matters as technical acoustics, training of police officers and so on. Presumably that experience could be translated to England and cut out a lot of the delay that pains the hon. and learned Gentleman so much.
Mr. Mayhew: We are aware of what is going on in Scotland and we are in close touch with Scottish officials. It is important to have regard to what is happening in Scotland. However, the steps that my right hon. Friend announced in the written answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) are sensible and important. No one who has seen what has been described as the full and thorough answer of my right hon. Friend could conceivably doubt his commitment to the principle of tape recording, or his will to introduce it as soon as it is practicable to do so.
Mr. Pitt: I do not doubt the Home Secretary's commitment to tape recording, but am I right in assuming that the Minister is saying that interview rooms in police stations should be built almost to broadcasting standards? Is he aware of unidirectional microphones that are used by the broadcasting companies and the high quality of tape recording that can be achieved in an ordinary ambient atmosphere?
Mr. Mayhew: There are many marvels of science. Experience teaches us that unless we get acoustics right there will be accusations that the background noise is evidence of improper practices. I do not pretend to be a scientist. I try merely to advance a policy to which I am committed in a way that will ensure that we get it right, and in a way that will lead to the best results in the shortest time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the passage in the written answer to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton that refers to the police officer's statement of evidence being made known to the defence. That passage relates to circumstances not where someone is being tried in the Crown court on indictment, where there is an exchange of depositions beforehand, but to cases where someone is being tried on committal proceedings, when the proceedings are taking place in a magistrates' court, or in one of the instances of summary

329
trial, where the prosecution's evidence is not automatically made available to the defence. I hope that the day will soon come when there is a uniform system of exchange.
The tape recording should be available to both sides so recourse can be made to it if it appears that there is a conflict of evidence or of recollection. With that availability, it will not be necessary to have an expensive and time-wasting trial within a trial while the matter is fought out. It is important to know what the police officer is going to say and what he remembers of the conversation so that it may be determined whether there is a conflict.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I take it that the police officer's statement of evidence will be that which arises from the tape and that it will not be provided by means of the other matters that the police officer may be willing to bring forward in proof.
Mr. Mayhew: That is right in this context. My right hon. Friend's written answer makes it clear that two tape recordings shall be taken at the same time. The police officer will use one for the purpose of writing up his note of what he regards as the relevant part of the interview. That will be made known to the other side, and if there is a dispute — if the defendant says that there was something more, something less, or that the police have it wrong—the tape will be available to enable a check to be made and for the issue to be established beyond doubt.
Hon. Members have asked whether the Home Office is determined to move forward quickly with the experiment. The answer is yes. Certainly we are determined to do so. My right hon. Friend's written answer is evidence of that determination. I am grateful to those who have commented on the progress that is being made.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) said that nothing should be done to implement the rest of the recommendations of the Royal Commission until such time as tape recording has been introduced.
Mr. Mikardo: No, only the detention recommendation.
Mr. Mayhew: Very well, especially the detention recommendation. Some have said that we should not implement any part of the Royal Commission's recommendations until we have introduced both tape recording and a system of independent prosecuting. I have always considered that to be an entirely wrong appreciation of the Royal Commission's approach. It has been said that the recommendations form a package and that the commission intended the entire package to be introduced at once. I felt that that fox was shot convincingly the other day in a letter to The Times by the chairman of the Royal Commission, Sir Cyril Philips, about the most impressive of marksmen in this context, in which he said:
"Much essential further work was deliberately left to the Home Office, to the Attorney-General's Department, and to the legal and parliamentary draftsmen, including, for example, the reform in detail of the police complaints system and the formulation of codes of practice to govern interrogation and identification.
In putting forward the Bill in its present form, whilst at the same time indicating its commitment to the principle of tape-recording interviews subject to further experiment, the Government is proceeding consistently within the general approach."
In an earlier paragraph he said:
330
"This line of criticism appears to assume that the reform of the whole of pre-trial criminal procedure, including both investigation and prosecution. could and should be comprehended in one and the same statute. I am bound to say that this was never assumed by the Royal Commission and as chairman I did not regard it as practicable."
That seems to be the most convincing refutation of that line of criticism that it is possible to imagine.
Mr. Dubs: Would the Minister care to comment on the point that I made, that the long detention periods which will be permitted under the Bill will put suspects in a particularly vulnerable position and that the least one can do to redress the balance would be to introduce this safeguard? It was the relationship of those two that I was seeking to argue, whatever the chairman of the Royal Commission is saying in letters to The Times.
Mr. Mayhew: The provisions for detention constitute a restriction upon detention as it is practised at the moment, week in and week out, in the courts of England and Wales. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we discussed this at length in the Standing Committee, the Royal Commission recorded numerous instances of detention up to 72 hours. In one case in 1977 that I have seen somebody was charged with murder and convicted on the basis of a confession obtained during a period of detention lasting seven days and three hours. So the 96 hours constitute a restriction upon powers that exist.
There is no statutory backstop beyond which detention may not continue. There is no procedure whereby somebody must be brought before the court in order to obtain judicial sanction for further detention before charge. That is in the Bill for the first time. Although of course I agree that the principal advantage of tape recording is that when people are interrogated and interviewed in custody there shall be a scientifically unchallengeable record of what they said, I do not believe that it is right to delay implementing the changes in detention until such time as there shall be universal tape recording.
There is nothing to prevent interviews from being tape recorded at the moment. They frequently are. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) said that tape recording was already practised frequently in his part of the world. The more the better. Where expenditure is incurred in that regard, the Government pay 50 per cent, as they pay 50 per cent. of all police expenditure. There is nothing to prevent this from going ahead on a private enterprise basis. All I am saying is that before we say that we wish to take the powers given in the Bill to introduce a code of practice for tape recording under clause 51 we wish to satisfy ourselves that we have got it right, I cannot believe that that is other than a sensible and prudent decision.
I have been asked about the time scale. Unhappily we have discovered that there is on the market no sufficiently robust and simple machine that will take two tape recordings at the same time and we have to go into the market to commission one. It follows that although we are in June introducing monitoring of trial procedures, as the written answer made clear, in two of the six police areas that were identified, it will be not before the end of the year that we are likely to have the machinery to employ in the field trials. It appears, therefore, that it will be about two years from the time when that machinery is available until the trials are complete. If it can be done quicker, it

331
will be. I hope that it will, but that is the answer that I have to give to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why is the Scottish equipment so inadequate?
11.15 pm
Mr. Mayhew: I am not saying that the Scottish experiment is inadequate. I am saying that procedures which are being followed in Scotland, and in the different Scottish criminal justice system, are not adequate to enable us to assess adequately how universal tape recording would affect trials in this country. In four out of six police areas we shall follow through in criminal trials the influence of statements having been taken on a tape recorder to see what effect that has on the loading of the courts, the number of cases in which it proves necessary to have a transcription of the whole proceedings, the circumstances in which it proves most practicable to play it, and so on. Until we have done that, we shall not know what costs will arise and what rules the court should employ for the playing of tape recordings, making tape recordings available to the defendant and so on.
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the machine would have to be specially designed and constructed and that it would take two years to do that? What exactly will take two years? Is such a machine available in any other country? Has he inquired into that?
Mr. Mayhew: As the written answer made clear, it is necessary to have a machine that will take two tapes at the same time and is adequately robust and simple. I am informed that one is not available. Therefore we are having to go into the market, and naturally we want to get a British machine if we can. The two years relates to the period that the field trials will need once the machinery is available.
It would be nice if it were possible to accept a new clause that was unexceptionable. I have made it clear that new legislation is not needed to enable the Home Secretary to introduce a uniform system of tape recording. Clause 51 and the codes of practice provisions provide for that. There are certain features about the new clause which we cannot accept. First, tape recording would extend, for example, to preliminary conversations between a police officer and a suspect. That would mean either that police officers would be unable to speak to a suspect outside the police station or that they would need pocket tape recorders to record such conversations, Even if the stipulation were limited to preliminary conversations in the police station, the position would be unsatisfactory.
Secondly, the requirement to delay an interview because it could not be tape recorded immediately could lead to the unnecessarily prolonged detention of somebody already in custody. I agree with what the hon. Member for Battersea, South said about the undesirability of unnecessary custody, but that could happen. The requirement for tapes to include specifications minimising the risk of tampering is not necessary. Special tapes, if they had to be used, would be very expensive; the safeguards will be in the tape recorder. Thirdly, the
332
requirement to give the defence access to an unedited tape would not allow for the exceptional circumstances where the tape contained highly sensitive material.
With good will and practical experience in the field trials, we will, I am sure, iron out the difficulties so that we end up with a practical system. The more that is done inititially on a private enterprise basis, so to speak, the better, but it would not assist to accept the new clause and the Government, though wholly behind its intention and the proposal that we should have uniform tape recording as quickly as possible, are not able to advise the House to accept the new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who spoke kindly of the progress we had made, will feel able to withdraw it on the assurances I have given.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. and learned Friend's response has been very forthcoming indeed, more so than I had expected when originally I tabled the new clause. There can be no doubt that the Government, as a matter of policy, have committed themselves to the proposition that tape recording would assist the course of justice, would provide safeguards for the police service, would provide safeguards for the person in custody under interrogation and would be expeditious and, I believe, cost-effective. To that extent, the virtual statement of policy that my right hon. Friend has made, and which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has followed, is unexceptionable.
What must be decided is whether the clause is technically sound and whether the Government have shown that they will make speed as quickly as they can. I accept my hon. and learned Friend's two criticisms of my new clause in so far as taping would be extended to the interrogation from the time, for example, that an arrest was made, which, if the clause were carried as it stands, could involve taping outside as well as inside the police station. I can see that that would be technically inefficient and possibly unjust.
I had not appreciated that the clause would also give the defence access to material that could be so sensitive as to touch on state security. My hon. and learned Friend would not expect me to move a new clause that had such an effect. In the circumstances of my hon. and learned Friend's reply, the commitment that the Government have made and their desire to get the right equipment, the right physical set up and also to buy British, it would be churlish for me to press the new clause to a Division.
Mr. Lawrence: If the new clause is in all principle matters a good one and is absolutely right and if corrections can be made between now and the consideration of the Bill in the other place, why is it wrong to append it to the Bill so that it is there as a permanent reminder to the Government that they must not go to sleep on the matter?
Mr. Griffiths: I wish that my hon. and learned Friend would not make my life more difficult than it already is. Given that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has set out the two matters to which I could not subscribe — the risk that sensitive information could touch on state security and the fact that, inevitably, interrogations would have to be recorded outside as well as inside the police station—it would be irresponsible for me to press a new clause that contained those holes.

333
Moreover, as my hon. and learned Friend has made that clear statement of policy, it would be churlish to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  New Clause 20

    TAPE-RECORDING (2)
    (a) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to provide for the tape-recording of interviews by police officers with prisoners held in custody at police stations where prisoners are detained.

    (b) Such regulations shall provide inter alia that:

    (i) the whole of the interview shall be tape-recorded and this includes any questioning, cautioning or the taking of any statement whether written by the person or the police officer and any conversation between a police officer and the person preliminary to or consequent on such questioning, cautioning or taking of a statement;

    (ii) the interviews to be tape-recorded shall be those where the person interviewed is reasonably suspected of an offence which is triable on indictment, either way, or one of such offences triable summarily as the regulations shall provide;

    (iii) If an interview may not be tape-recorded because of mechanical failure or because of a suitable interviewing room not being available, the interview should be postponed until such time as the failure has been rectified or room becomes available unless an officer of the rank of at least Chief Inspector not connected with the investigation believes on reasonable grounds that such delay would be impracticable. It shall be the duty of the officer concerned to record the reason for the interview not being tape-recorded;

    (iv) the standard of tapes and recording machines shall include specifications to minimise the risk of interference with a tape;

    (v) one unedited copy of every tape-recording shall be made to be kept, secured and played only by order of a court;

    (vi) the defence shall have access to a copy of an unedited tape on request as of right;

    (vii) at the commencement of any interview the date, time and place will be recorded;

    (viii) forms of recording interviews other than by tape-recording shall not be rendered inadmissible.

    (ix) it shall be an offence for any person, including any police officer or other person charged with the duty of investigation of offences or charging offenders to interfere with the recording of interviews as provided by this section, or to erase, alter, amend, cut, tamper with in any way or destroy any tape-recording of an interview made under the provisions of (v) above.

    (x) "tape-recording" shall include any process for the recording of sound by magnetic tape in a form suitable for reproduction or other process and may additionally include visual recording.'. — [Mr. Snape.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 110.

    Division No. 143]

    [11.20 pm

    AYES

    Beith, A. J.

    Dormand, Jack

    Bennett, Arndrew(St'kp't N)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

    Freud, Clement

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

    George, Bruce

    Cook, Robin F.

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Cryer, Bob

    Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

    Deakins, Eric

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Dewar, Donald

    Home Robertson, John

    Dixon, Donald

    Howells, Geraint

    334

    Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Snape, Peter

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Soley, Clive

    Mikardo, Ian

    Spearing, Nigel

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Tilley, John

    Penhaligon, David

    Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

    Pitt, William Henry

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Richardson, Jo

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Robertson, George

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Roper, John

    Mr. George Morton

    Sandelson, Neville

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Mather, Carol

    Ancram, Michael

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Mellor, David

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Best, Keith

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Moate, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Murphy, Christopher

    Bright, Graham

    Neale, Gerrard

    Brinton, Tim

    Needham, Richard

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Neubert, Michael

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Newton, Tony

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Normanton, Tom

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Onslow, Cranley

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Osborn, John

    Churchill, W. S.

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Cope, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Renton, Tim

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Rossi, Hugh

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Eyre, Reginald

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Fox, Marcus

    Sims, Roger

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Speed, Keith

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Speller, Tony

    Gow, Ian

    Sproat, Iain

    Greenway, Harry

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Stevens, Martin

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Stewart, k.(E Renfrewshire)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Heddle, John

    Thompson, Donald

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Hooson, Tom

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Waddington, David

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    Jessel, Toby

    Warren, Kenneth

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Watson, John

    Lamont, Norman

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Lang, Ian

    Wheeler, John

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Loveridge, John

    Wickenden, Keith

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Wolfson, Mark

    MacGregor, John

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Major, John

    Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

    Mates, Michael

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause 21

    POLICE COMPLAINTS PANEL FOR SCOTLAND
    (1) There shall be established a body known as the Police Complaints Panel for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as "the Panel"), which consist of not less than three members appointed by the Secretary of State.

    (b) Persons may be appointed as whole-time or part-time members of the Panel, and the Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members to be chairman.

    (c) Schedule (The Police Complaints Panel for Scotland) shall have effect in relation to the Panel.

    (2)— (a) Subject to subsection (5) below, where under regulations relating to discipline made from time to time under section 26 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 the deputy chief constable of a police force has considered a report submitted to him by an investigating officer of an investigation made by that officer into a complaint by a member of the public against a constable of that force not being a chief constable, deputy chief constable, or assistant chief constable and the deputy chief constable has decided that the constable shall not be charged with a disciplinary offence he shall—

    (i) intimate his decision in writing to the complainer, with a statement of the findings of the investigation and of the manner in which it is proposed to dispose of the complaint; and

    (ii) draw the attention of the complainer to the provisions of this section relating to the Panel, and advise the complainer that should he wish the matter to be referred to the Panel he must so elect in writing within the prescribed period.

    (b) If the complainer fails, within the prescribed period, to elect to have the complaint referred to the Panel, the Panel shall have no function under this section in relation to that complaint.
    (c) Where the complainer has elected to have the matter referred to the Panel under (a)(ii) above the deputy chief constable shall send to the Panel a copy of the report of the investigation together with—

    (i) a copy of the complaint if made in writing or a record of the complaint if made orally; and

    (ii) a copy of the complainer's election under paragraph (a)(ii) above; and

    (iii) a memorandum signed by him stating his opinion on the merits of the complaint, and his reasons for deciding not to bring disciplinary charges.

    (3) — (a) Where the report of an investigation into a complaint is sent to the Panel under subsection (2) above, the following provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to disciplinary charges in respect of the matters complained of, and for the purpose of discharging their functions under those provisions the Panel may request the deputy chief constable to furnish the Panel with such additional information as they may reasonably require.
    (b) The Panel may, if they disagree with the decision of the deputy chief constable not to bring disciplinary charges, make recommendations to him as to the charges which they consider should be brought, and if after the Panel have made such recommendations, he is still unwilling to bring such charges as the Panel consider appropriate, they may, after consulting him, direct the deputy chief constable to bring such charges as they may specify.
    (c) Where the Panel give a deputy chief constable a direction under paragraph (b) above they shall furnish him with a written statement of their reasons for doing so.
    (d) The deputy chief constable shall comply with any direction given to him under paragraph (b) above and with any request under paragraph (a) above.
    (4)— (a) Subject to subsection (5) below, where the deputy chief constable of a police force has considered a report submitted to him by an investigating officer of an investigation made by that officer into a complaint by a member of the public against a constable of that force not being a chief constable, deputy chief constable or assistant chief constable, and he has decided to charge the constable with a disciplinary offence, he shall refer the matter to the Panel and shall send to the Panel a copy of the report of the investigation together with—

    (i) a copy of the complaint if made in writing or a record of the complaint if made orally; and

    (ii) a copy of the particulars of the disciplinary charges; and

    336

    (iii) a statement as to whether he considers that the circumstances are such that the attendance of a Panel member at the hearing of the charges is desirable.

    (b) The deputy chief constable shall not refer a complaint to the Panel where—

    (i) the complainer has withdrawn the complaint in writing; or

    (ii) disciplinary charges have been brought and the accused has admitted the charges and not withdrawn his admission.

    (c) Where disciplinary charges are brought in pursuance of a recommendation or direction under subsection (3)(b) above the deputy chief constable shall before the hearing of those charges, send to the Panel a copy of the particulars of those charges.
    (d) Where disciplinary charges have been brought as mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (c) above, they shall not be withdrawn except with the leave of the Panel.Panel.
    (5).— (a) Where a complaint by a member of the public against a constable of a police force not being a chief constable, deputy chief constable or assistant chief constable is made, from which it can reasonably be inferred that the constable may have committed a criminal offence, the allegations in the complaint and the report of any investigation into the complaint, shall as soon as possible be submitted by the deputy chief constable to the procurator fiscal, and the deputy chief constable shall make no decision regarding the bringing of disciplinary charges arising out of the allegations or report, nor shall any reference be made to the Panel under subsection (2) or (4) above until it has been intimated whether or not criminal proceedings are to be instituted.
    (b) Where it has been intimated to the deputy chief constable that criminal proceedings are not to be instituted, a disciplinary charge shall not be brought, nor shall a reference to the Panel be made, in respect of any act or omission referred to in the allegations or report which, if proved, would constitute a criminal offence, and where criminal proceedings are instituted in respect of any such act or omission a disciplinary charge shall not be brought, nor shall a reference to the Panel be made, in respect of such act or omission.
    (c) Paragraph (b) above shall not be construed as applying to a charge in respect of an offence against discipline which consists of having been convicted of a criminal offence, or of having been made the subject of an order under section 182 or section 383 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, (absolute discharge) or of a probation order under section 183 or section 384 of that Act.
    (d) No reference shall be made to the Panel under subsection (2) or (4) above nor shall the Panel have any function under this section in respect of the bringing of disciplinary charges relating to a disciplinary offence which has not been complained of or specifically mentioned in the complaint referred to in paragraph (a) above.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take amendment No. 265, the new schedule—The Police Complaints Panel for Scotland—
    Incorporation, Status, and Membership

    1. The panel shall be a body corporate.

    2. The Panel shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown.

    3. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, a person shall hold office as a member or as chairman of the Panel in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

    4. A person shall not be appointed as a member of the Panel for more than three years at a time.

    5. A person may at any time resign his office as a member or as chairman.

    6. The Chairman shall cease to hold that office on ceasing to be a member of the Panel.

    7. The Secretary of State may at any time remove a person from office as a member if satisfied that—

    (a) he has without reasonable excuse failed to carry out his duties for a continuous period of three months beginning not earlier than six months before that time; or

    (b) he has had his estate sequestrated or has made a trust deed for behoof of his creditors or a composition contract; or

    (c) he is incapacitated by physical or mental illness; or

    337

    (d) he is otherwise unable or unfit to perform his duties.

    8. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified under those Acts) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
    "The Police Complaints Panel for Scotland".
    Staff, etc.
    9. The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Panel, and subject to the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, provide from time to time such of his officers and servants and such accommodation and facilities as appear to him to be requisite for the Panel to exercise their functions.
    Proceedings
    10. — (1) Subject to the provisions of section (Police Complaints Panel for Scotland), the arrangements for the proceedings of the Panel (including the quorum for meetings) shall be such as the Panel may determine.
    (2) The arrangements may provide for the discharge, under the general direction of the Panel, of any of the Panel's functions by one or more of the members of the Panel.
    11. The validity of any proceedings of the panel shall not be affected by any defect in the appointment of a member or by any vacancy among the members or in the office of chairman.'.
    Mr. Dewar: This is my second intervention in these long proceedings and I approach it a little shamefacedly, because it may seem anomalous to propose to add to a complicated Bill a new clause dealing exclusively with Scottish matters. However, it is appropriate, because if it is inconvenient for the Government and for many of my English colleagues, who will see the new clause as a break in the natural sequence of events, it is an inconvenience which the Government have brought on themselves. The Bill includes a group of three or four clauses that apply to Scotland as well as to England.
    There is much resentment, not only in Scottish legal circles but among others who take an interest in Scotland's place in the legislative process, at the Government's increasing habit of slotting in quite important pieces of legislation that affect Scotland. Presumably that is done for the Government's convenience, but it is not convenient for anyone else.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows that the Scottish Law Agents Society, the Law Society of Scotland and a wide range of other bodies have made strong and spirited protests about the way in which the Scottish legal system has been treated. The Government's actions on this Bill are not unique; we had the same treatment in the Transport Act and in a number of other measures, including the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill, which has important implications for Scotland. It is extremely difficult to scrutinise, monitor and do what Parliament is supposed to do when we have Scottish clauses lost in a morass of undoubtedly important and relevant English matters.
    Mr. Kenneth Pritchard, the secretary of the Law Society of Scotland, wrote to the Lord Advocate stating the view of the criminal law committee of the society. He referred to the
    "unanimous abhorrence of the Committee … at the manner in which little bits of Scottish legislation were 'tacked on' to yet another English Bill, almost as an afterthought."
    Mr. Pritchard concluded:
    "I share that view."
    No doubt we shall return to that theme when we reach the Government amendments to the Scottish clauses, probably on Monday. I make the point because it is important to establish our right to bring home to the Government the inconvenience that they are causing.
    338
    I accept that the police complaints procedure is a sensitive subject. I do not want to exaggerate or be alarmist about the number of complaints or the problems that we face, but the police would be the first to admit that this is a sensitive area. By coincidence, the Scottish Police Federation has been holding its annual conference this week. According to the Glasgow Herald of 28 April, one of the federation's principal spokesmen, Mr. Kennedy, said that
    "the campaign to discredit the forces of law and order by the vociferous minority was gaining momentum … It was based on two fronts, police accountability and the system of investigating complaints against the police… On the subject of complaints there were many police who believed that they were being sacrificed at the altar of public appeasement. Mr. Kennedy said that should be of grave concern to the silent majority to whom the police looked for support."
    I do not necessarily accept those sentiments. I quote them to show that there is concern about the way in which we handle complaints against the police, and that concern exists at both ends of the spectrum. Many in the civil liberties movements are worried about the adequacy of the present complaints procedure, and the new clause is aimed at meeting some of the reasonable points made in that respect. There is also concern among the police. I shall argue that a more adequate complaints procedure, which would reassure the public about the seriousness with which such matters are dealt, would be in the interests of the police and might remove the slightly agonised atmosphere that surrounds the subject and is reflected in the remarks that I quoted.
    The new clause is also appropriate—the Minister will be familiar with the point—because the Government have just produced a consultative document as an aftermath of the Scarman report on the troubles in the south, London and so on. As a result of that and the investigation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, a rather cautious consultative document was issued by the Scottish Office in October 1982. I hope that the debate will give us an opportunity—I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has appeared in our midst—to say a word or two in response to that consultative document on how reform might proceed.
    There is a tendency for the consultative document to be rather complacent in its tone, though it makes some perfectly fair points which I should not dispute. For example, I do not disagree with the fact that, pro rata, the number of complaints in Scotland is lower than in England. I am not so sure that the Ministers are right when they say that there is less public concern in Scotland. It may be a little less sharp because we do not have the same overtones of crisis as England, particularly with the ethnic minority communities in London, Liverpool and so on.
    There is concern, however, and we are entitled to enter a note of caution. I put it no higher than that. For example, in 1976, 1,225 complaints were lodged against the police and in 1981 there were 1,186. It has remained roughly the same for the last decade, which is as far back as I can go. Those sound comparatively modest figures, but it is fair to say that some caveats must be entered.
    Speaking from experience, I suspect that this is one set of figures where under-recording is a serious problem, for all sorts of reasons. When I was in practice, I found that people would start an interview by making what amounted to a complaint, sometimes quite serious, against the police, and by the end of the interview they had talked themselves into a state of almost resignation where they

    339
    did not think it worth while to lodge a complaint or take the matter further. Some were people who were used to being in trouble with the police and tended to see it all as just another engagement in a war between themselves and authority which was likely to continue indefinitely.
    It would also be fair to say that in many cases I met an apprehension about the consequences of making complaints about the police which although in a sense were unreasonable were perhaps understandable. Indeed, as a solicitor I was often in the position of explaining the process of investigation to people and saying that there would be pressures on the complainant if the investigation were to be taken seriously. I do not necessarily complain about that, but it was a substantial disincentive. The hon. Member for Dundee, East, who has practised in the west of Scotland as a solicitor, will probably agree. Many complaints against the police are drawn informally to the attention of the authorities—whether valid or not is not for me to say—which do not get into the annual totals of just over 1,000 that we have been considering.
    People are also understandably deterred by the evidential difficulties of making a complaint stand up. I touched upon that in an earlier debate. The very nature of complaints against the police and the circumstances in which they take place make it likely that it will be the complainant's word against the people whom he alleges have carried out the wrongful act. There will be great difficulties about corrobation. As I said earlier, it will be a classic two cop breach situation which leads to great difficulties in other circumstances.
    From my experience I know that clients and others in that position say that they resent what happened, that it was wrong, but that they do not believe the complaint will ever stand up and will therefore allow it to drop —anything for a quiet life. Although I accept that the figures are lower in Scotland than in England, in Scotland, as in other places, under-recording should be kept in mind.
    I say all that, but I am not making an assumption of widespread abuse. When talking about the system of control, I am not suggesting that the police would ever connive at a cover-up or at a continuing abuse of power by a policeman. We must, however, face the fact that there will be instances in which corners are cut, tempers are lost and there are acts of discourtesy or even dishonesty. It is important that we have a system in which the public have confidence, and that people who have to seek its protection feel that it will give that protection and will be used fearlessly in the public interest. That is in the interests of the police as certainly as it is in the interests of the public.
    11.45 pm
    One of the repeated themes in debates such as this is that it is vital to protect the police from the frivolous complaint. Anyone who has been involved, even at the periphery, as I have been as a solicitor, will have seen and heard of such incidents. We are all too familiar with the person who tries to put the finger on the police in revenge or to explain embarrassing circumstances. The Lord Advocate, when talking to the Scottish Police Federation a few days ago, said that the Government were alarmed about frivolous complaints about the police. I am interested in having an adequate, independent safeguard that will safeguard the police as well as the public.
    340
    It is an uncharacteristic evening when I am again in the same camp as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). He was reported in the press this morning as expressing considerable alarm about the way in which disciplinary proceedings are conducted and about the rights of the police when they are the object of disciplinary hearings. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's opinion on serious disciplinary hearings and the rights and safeguards available to police.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Many police officers have had the experience, when arresting a frequent offender, of hearing the statement, "You do me and I will do you." The person being arrested means that he will bang in a complaint against the police officer for some improper behaviour.
    Mr. Dewar: That is a risk, and the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He will also accept that sometimes he, like me, constructs classic cases that are more common in debate than in reality. However, they do occur and can create great difficulties for policemen in the course of their duties.
    The new clause deals with discipline in a similar way to the criminal offence that goes to the procurator fiscal and then to the Crown Office. It makes a radical difference to the discipline spectrum of the range of complaints and is relevant to circumstances such as those described by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
    Mr. George Robertson: I accept that whenever we consider cases such as this we have to accept some external advice on what the problems might be in setting up a new set of machinery. To complement the example given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), there is the classic case of the individual who, when arrested by the police, says, not that he will go through the long process of the complaints procedure but that he will get at the policeman in some other way. Is the assumption in these other cases that we should not prosecute criminals or use policemen to arrest people simply because there are some criminals who, when arrested, make the threat that physically or otherwise they will get at the police officer? Sometimes the classic cases that are used do not prove the point being made.
    Mr. Dewar: With respect to my hon. Friend, I hope that no one will draw that inference from the circumstances that we have been discussing. The police officer has a duty to do, and, without being too pompous about it, one hopes that he will do his duty, even when faced with that type of blackmail.
    The only point that arises is the protection that we can give the police, who need protection as much as the innocent citizen who is about to be arrested or to tangle with the law. We must preserve the excellent police-public relationship that we have had in Scotland over the years. Much anxiety has been expressed by myself, among others, about the damage that we fear may flow from recent changes in the law affecting specific areas of public opinion and specific problems that arise from the detention and the stop-and-search powers in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. I repeat that on the whole we are fortunate in the trust that exists. We must be vigilant to maintain that trust, because there is always a danger—for instance if we ignore anxiety about matters such as the police

    341
    complaints procedure—that in the longer term we shall undermine the excellent relationship between the police and the public.
    I said that I thought the consultative document was a touch complacent. In a sense, the new clause is an attempt to suggest departures that are not covered by the consultative document, but which I think might usefully be mentioned in it. On reading the document, one would think that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. The Minister refers, for example, to the Home Affairs Select Committee's finding in paragraph 43 that if a Crown prosecution system were introduced in England within a five-year span, no reform ad interim would be necessary.
    The document goes on to refer to the place of the procurator fiscal—undoubtedly a significant one—in the Scottish system, and therefore to assume, I think, that no major changes are necessary. I am a great defender of the fiscal system and the independent prosecution approach in Scotland. The English would be well advised—though it is not for me to give them advice; they probably would not listen anyway—to press on with the strong case that is now mounting for a Crown prosecution service south of the border.
    We should not think that the procurator fiscal is the answer to all the problems in the Scottish system. Sometimes when I read these documents I think that the role of the procurator fiscal in Scotland is the one that was seen so dramatically on our television screens in "Sutherland's Law", where the fiscal was a high-powered Maigret going out into the field to solve the problems personally and to detect and arrest the criminals. In the final resort, the procurator fiscal has to rely on the feed of evidence from the police. He does not have an independent investigative capacity. He may make suggestions and express discontent, and he may issue instructions, but to a large extent—I see the Solicitor-General for Scotland giving me a sideways look—he has to rely on what the police do on his behalf.
    I do not want to envelop the House in statistics, facts and figures, but, if we look at police complaints for 1980, we see that the global total was 1,034, of which a very high number, 304, were withdrawn, 487 were not substantiated, only nine were proceeded with, two resulted in guilty pleas, and two resulted in formal disciplinary procedures. For 1981, the figures were 1,186 complaints, of which 275 were withdrawn, 648 were not substantiated, 11 were proceeded with, two people were convicted of some offence, and five were the subject of formal disciplinary procedures. I do not want to sound like a cynic or be alarmist, but, even allowing for all the evidential difficulties about which we agreed earlier, I should have thought that those figures give cause for anxiety. I put it no higher than that.
    In addition, the Police (Discipline) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 deal with many other disciplinary matters. There were 185 disciplinary proceedings in 1980 and 211 in 1981. I do not know how many cases were considered for disciplinary proceedings or how many police officers appeared and no action followed. The numbers that I have given refer, I believe, to cases in which there was a positive — if I can use that term neutrally—outcome. If one looks at the total number of complaints and sees what they boil down to at the end, one sees that there is no room for complacency.
    342
    Having set the scene, I admit that I have drawn attention to the need to be constantly vigilant about the procurator fiscal's role when there is a prima facie case for believing that a criminal offence might have been committed. Under new clause 21, that relationship will continue. I do not pretend that we are redrawing that part of the system. We shall have to continue to accept that when it may reasonably be inferred—I believe that that is the phrase used—that a criminal offence has been committed, there should be a referral to the procurator fiscal at the earliest opportunity, and from the procurator fiscal to the Crown Office. That is restated in new clause 21. I believe that at this stage we cannot improve that system, although if the new clause becomes law, or finds favour in an amended state, I hope that emphasis will be given to the fact that there should be a referral to the procurator fiscal as soon as possible.
    I do not want to go into individual cases. There is at least one important one still being investigated. However, on the facts as known so far to the public — for this purpose I am a member of the public — it seems that there was an extraordinarily long delay before the case was reported to or reached the procurator fiscal's office. It is a case to which we can return when we are free to do so.
    The new clause will leave the procurator fiscal's role and possible criminal prosecution as they are. What will be altered, and it is important that it should, is the procedure where there is a possibility of disciplinary misconduct, but not necessarily a prima facie case for criminal prosecution.
    The new clause proposes setting up in Scotland a Police Complaints Panel which will consist of at least three members appointed by the Secretary of State. In some quarters of the House there is always a little allergy about the appearance of a new quango, but this is a modest one and I believe that it would fulfil a useful and important role.
    I hope that the new clause is easily read and understood. It would be activated in a number of different circumstances. The first, and perhaps in some ways the most important, is where there has been a complaint to the chief constable, an investigation has followed and no disciplinary proceedings are to be taken. In those circumstances, the chief constable, by law, would have to tell the complainer his decision with a statement explaining the reasons for his action. If the complainer was dissatisfied with what had happened and felt that there was something that should be investigated further, he could refer the matter to the Police Complaints Panel, which could examine the circumstances and decide whether further police investigation was required.
    Having considered the evidence, which would have to be supplied by the chief constable, the panel might recommend that disciplinary proceedings be instituted and, in extrernis — such occasions would be rare, but this is an important fall-back power—it could give instructions that certain charges be brought under the 1967 disciplinary regulations. That introduces an important element of independent surveillance into the system when a complaint has been made but no disciplinary proceedings have resulted.
    12 midnight
    Among the endless possible variations, there is the obvious case in which disciplinary proceedings are pending. In those circumstances the chief constable would

    343
    notify the board of that fact and say whether he thought it would be useful for members of the board to attend the proceedings. I should perhaps apologise for the fact that this is not spelt out in the new clause, but I envisage that if members of the board exercised their right to attend the disciplinary proceedings they could not intervene as cross-examining agents, although they could clarify any points that arose. Certainly, a representative of the board could and should be consulted by the chief constable before he reached his final decision.
    I refer to that because, as the Minister will realise, there is something familiar about the new clause. In fact, it is built on the bones of the Police (Scotland) Bill produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in 1976. That was a good Bill, which failed to find a place in the Labour Government's programme. I say unashamedly that in my view that was a pity. However, it has now been produced again in the shape of the new clause and I hope that it will find favour with the Minister today.
    For completeness, the schedule in this group deals with the incorporation, status and membership of the Police Complaints Panel. I think that, by and large, it is self-explanatory, so there is no need for me to weary the House through every paragraph and sub-paragraph of it.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Hear, hear!
    Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) is more sincere in that comment than in many of his observations from the alliance Bench.
    As I have said, it is appropriate that we should consider these problems in the immediate aftermath of the consultative document to try to put a little more backbone into the Government's proposals and perhaps to persuade them to look a little more bravely at these matters. I hope that the Minister will not think me ultra-critical when I say that he made a few tepid proposals that were then almost knocked down in his own paper. For example, he asked whether there should be a written explanation of the reasons for refusing a complaint, but went on to make it clear in the same paragraph that he was against such explanations being given. Similarly, he asked whether officers from outside forces should be used as investigating officers, but knocked that down by saying that the idea might have had some plausibility in the days before the amalgamation and regionalisation of police forces, thus implying that it was no longer necessary.
    The Government's document is something of a mouse. Given the sensitivity of these matters, I do not believe that it fits the bill, and it certainly does not tackle the main question about police complaints procedures—whether it is right to introduce some element of independence and, if so, what is the most convenient, economical and sensible way to achieve that so that a proper balance is struck between safeguarding the public interest and allowing the police to operate in a responsible way without feeling threatened by the complaints system.
    A Scottish solution must be found to the problem. I should not like to have the English three-tier system, because it would be inappropriate. In the vast majority of cases, prosecutions in England are a matter for the police. There is a problem whether all police prosecutions should be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We do not
    344
    need to examine English models. A Scottish solution must be found by tailoring a system that is appropriate for Scottish problems and sensitivities.
    New clause 21 is modest in content. Although it is technically flawed, because it has been taken from a bill that was drafted by the Scottish Office a few years ago, it has, in the interests of not filling the Amendment Paper with a new clause the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, been truncated. Many important technical points may have been overlooked. Those omissions could be put right in the other place. The important point now is to discover whether the principle finds any favour with the Minister, rather than worrying about the details of the proposal. I believe that the principle is good. The Minister should tell the House unambiguously that he is in favour of having some form of independent surveillance and an independent element within the police complaints procedure. That must be right, and it would be reassuring for the public.
    I have met many people who say that, at the end of the day, substantial complaints are often shrugged off by the police because of sheer group loyalty and because of the way in which complaints arise. I wish to see that position changed. People think that their complaints are not taken seriously by investigating officers. I do not, as a generality, subscribe to that view, but, in matters of public confidence, what is seen to be the position from the public's view is important. The House must go a long way to reassure the public and to establish the credibility of the system.
    Being a constituency Member of Parliament, periodically someone will come to me to complain about police harassment, discourtesy and improper use of authority, such as constant searchings of property and persons. If the complaints are genuinely thought to be serious and there is general resentment by the people involved, there should be some form of investigatory machinery that is above reproach and can be called into effect to attempt to deal with the position and to restore confidence in police administration.
    The position may be that the superintendent, or whoever is asked to look into the complaint, puts his best foot forward and tries extremely hard to get to the bottom of the problem. There is a genuine investigation. He may fail to get to the bottom of some cases because there is nothing to get to the bottom of and the entire affair is touched with fantasy or malice. Conversely, there just may not be any evidence. The position may be that, even with the most independent and high-powered investigatory machinery that man can devise, an unsatisfactory position will remain. I fully concede that.
    In the present position, when a police officer investigates a complaint, he reports to his superiors and then there is a brief intimation that no action has been taken. That often leaves a feeling that justice has been skipped and the issue has not been given sufficient attention. That may be an unfair impression, but it is dangerous, and the House should try to remove it.
    If Scotland went for the solution in new clause 21, the procurator fiscal, who would establish whether there was a prima facie offence or the possibility of a criminal offence, would be the independent element. The Police Complaints Panel would provide a similar independent element at the other end of the scale by investigating and dealing with disciplinary and alleged malpractice

    345
    offences, as distinct from the more serious criminal matters. A balancing and complementing provision would be added to the system.
    Such an addition would be widely welcomed and would not threaten the police. In the longer term it would be in the interests of the police, because it would make the system more creditable and more acceptable. I place those ideas before the House in the form of the new clause. I trust that the Minister and other hon. Members who participate in the debate will have something sympathetic to say about the principle and the ideas. The proposal is modest. I am realistic about the difficulties, with time running out for the passage of the Bill. Perhaps the best that can be obtained is an expression of good will and a promise to examine the position more seriously in the aftermath of the consultative document to which I referred.
    New clause 21 is a useful contribution to the debate. There is a ritual in the House that a controversial Bill must not be given a quick passage, even at this late stage. The Government have introduced Scottish business into this largely English measure as a convenient method of airing an important matter of public concern and putting forward a useful and sensitive reform.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish, at this late hour, to say a few words about the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It is an utter disgrace that the Goverment should try to mix up the reform of the law of Scotland in an English measure. Despite the fact that a controversial clause was removed from the Bill because of certain action, there is no doubt that we should endeavour to keep Scottish measures separate from English measures.
    It is a bad principle that the Government, in this substantial and controversial Bill, should seek to bring in Scottish items of business. That does not exempt the hon. Member for Garscadden from the same criticism. It may be an excuse that he has sought to bring up the subject for debate and hang it on an English hook, but those of us here after midnight tend to regard it as an exercise in masochism as well as a debate in the public interest. I assume that we are here for the second reason as well as for the first.
    I am impressed by the draftsmanship of the hon. Member for Garscadden, if for no other reason than that the length of the new clause showed that he had done a considerable amount of work on the subject. I see that the hon. Gentleman is disappearing. However, he did say that the copyright belonged to the Scottish Office. That is a bad example for draftsmanship.
    The hon. Gentleman's speech was useful because it focused attention on an area of public concern and debate. There is no doubt that the police occupy a valuable role in our society. They perform a job that many of us would not wish to do—it can be unsavoury and messy—but they keep law and order. It is a job of authority. They come into contact with members of the public. From time to time their relationships with members of the public, including non-criminal members, can be abrasive and there can be irritations and problems.
    I sometimes think that there are occasions when, because of the nature of the job that the police do and the provocation that they sometimes face, they can over-react to certain circumstances. As we know from professional
    346
    practice, members of the public who may not have had any previous experience of the police, sometimes end up feeling aggrieved about what has happened.
    We have all received complaints from the public about the police. In the first instance, we would usually write to the chief constable. If it turns out that there is a case pending, either against the individuals concerned or against the police officers, we are, to put it bluntly, fobbed off and advised to await the outcome of the case.
    12.15 am
    Scotland has the procurator fiscal service, which is a great advantage. In many instances it has tended to take prosecution decisions away from the police and to place them in the hands of an independent official. This can reduce some of the suspicions that members of the public may have about the behaviour of the police and their ability to cover up entirely or to bring charges to bear which an independent official might not consider necessary but which a policeman, perhaps in the heat of the moment, might consider to be an appropriate way of dealing with the matter in hand.
    The procurator fiscal system serves a useful purpose. I was interested to read a new clause that included a requirement for Crown prosecutors in England. It is not for Scottish Members to discuss that new clause. We shall leave it to our friends from the south to while away the hours of the morning while the rest of us go home to bed.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: The new clause to which the hon. Gentleman refers has not been selected.
    Mr. Wilson: In that event, our friends from the south may have the chance to go to bed, too, if the numerous amendments are carried through with expedition.
    There are cases of improper behaviour. When these occur it might be in the best interests of the police if the complaints are seen to be dealt with fairly with the attendance of a lay observer. In many professions, where disciplinary action might be possible, under a charter of incorporation, or whatever the standard might be, there is provision for lay representation. Parliament has considered that to be appropriate. Lay persons, for example, are involved in the complaints procedure for solicitors, so the general public see that the Law Society of Scotland is not able to sweep its problems under the carpet. An individual who does not have a vested interest, is present to represent the public interest.
    During the 1970s, when the Labour Government were in office, the police strongly opposed the concept that there should be a police complaints panel with lay representation, and that the system of discipline should, to some extent, be taken away from the chief constable. My impression is that if the police had a system of lay representation, their reputation with the general public would be enhanced. The police are in a position of authority. Although the public frequently welcome the attention of the police in dealing with urgent calls or when giving support, they feel that individual police officers can occasionally step out of line and adopt a bully-boy or abrasive approach. That can happen if individual police officers have not been feeling well on the day in question.
    In American jurisprudence there is the realist school, which was developed in the 1920s and 1930s. It believes that law is a matter not so much of principle as of the judgments at which the courts arrive. It further developed the theory that the decision of the judge can change

    347
    according to whether a meal agrees or disagrees with him. The Americans, with great delicacy, describe that as digestive jurisprudence. When our own rhythms are not working properly, there are displays of bad temper across the Floor of the House. Similar patterns of behaviour can manifest themselves from time to time within the police force.
    If individual police officers were brought before the chief constable for disciplinary action and there were a complaints panel with lay representation, I feel that that would ensure fairness. I sometimes feel that chief constables, who are anxious to protect the good name of the police force, can be hard on individual policemen. It is well known, too, that procurators fiscal will bring cases against policemen, which they would not always bring against members of the public, because they feel they have to show that they are fair and that everything is above board.
    The proposal of the hon. Member for Garscadden that there should be a panel to oversee and be present in certain cases raises the problems of proof and corroboration. Major matters of discipline would probably result in a criminal charge. If there is a criminal charge, the burden of proof is high. Since I have not been involved, I do not know what the standard of proof is in disciplinary proceedings which chief constables conduct within their own forces. I do not know whether the Minister can help us.
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. The Minister may be able to comment on the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings. The very fact that the hon. Gentleman has had to ask the question is an eloquent argument for saying that the present system is too cloistered and secret. The body proposed in the new clause would at least open the doors and the methodology of disciplinary proceedings to public scrutiny, which would be healthy.
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on that point. My ignorance of the burden of proof is substantial. It would be interesting to know whether there are two standards—one which procurators fiscal have to present in court to satisfy the sheriff and another which has to satisfy chief constables.
    Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, in the days when I practised in the courts I came across cases where people were loth to make complaints against the police if they felt that, in the absence of corroboration, they could not prove their cases. Some people felt that if they put up a case which could not be substantiated, they might lose the sympathy of the sheriff, because the accusation might appear to be wild. If they had the chance to ensure that the complaint was dealt with later openly in disciplinary proceedings before the chief constable, some of the frustration which I encountered occasionally might vanish.
    The proposal of the hon. Member for Garscadden is interesting. I doubt whether the Government will accept it, particularly as consultation has been involved. Governments like to do these things on their own initiative. It would be interesting during this break, which enables the shadow Home Office team to go for coffee and bacon sandwiches, for us to hear the Minister's attitude to
    348
    a proposal which will come before the House again during the next five years and which cannot be put off for too long.
    Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for tabling the new clause. The debate may be short. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has said, other hon. Members who are here compulsorily or voluntarily have taken the opportunity of the natural break in the proceedings to have something to eat.
    This is an important subject, which has been discussed at length in Scotland over the years.
    I confess to some admiration for the British police force, which is not a fashionable confession to make in some quarters. We have much of which to be proud and, without being complacent, we can take comfort from the excellent police-public relations which exist in Scotland and which many of us know well. My confession of some admiration comes partly because I have a considerable family tradition in the police. My brother is a serving officer in the Metropolitan police, my father was an inspector in the Strathclyde police and my grandfather was an inspector in the Argyllshire constabulary in the days before regionalisation took away the romance from the names of the Scottish police forces.
    Being involved with politics, I was regarded as the black sheep of the family. I was partly able to redeem myself when my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) appointed me for three years to the Police Advisory Board for Scotland, which I served, and I was on the board of governors of the Scottish police college. Some of my admiration comes from the close contact I had with police officers and police representative organisations during that time.
    But my admiration for the British police comes mainly from my beliefs as a Socialist. That may sound strange even at this hour and I feel bound to explain why my Socialist beliefs give me such an affection for our police. The first reason is that the police force is the only institution bar none in Britain to which entry is at the lowest level alone, from which all senior levels of serving officers must have come—the pulling-on-padlocks beat constable—and nobody serves in the British police force at whatever rank without having started at the bottom. In the class-ridden society which we inhabit, there is not another institution of any type where entry starts and promotion is from that level. While that is a source of strength to the police, in its pure meritocracy lies perhaps also the roots of certain public attacks on the force.
    The second reason for pride is the accountability of the police force. Many people make a great issue of police accountability—and in certain areas I subscribe to their concern and would wish to increase accountability—but let us realise that accountability in Britain is greater than in most modern police forces in the world; and it is accountability not just to the Home Secretary in respect of the Metropolitan force but, in the bulk of the country, to elected local representatives.
    Many of my hon. Friends who make proper criticism of English systems of accountability forget that, in Scotland, only elected councillors are responsible for the police forces; there are no magistrates and no non-elected members of police authorities. Far from there being any of the traumatic consequences which are sometimes used by Conservative Members to illustrate the impact of

    349
    changes in the process of police accountability, the harmony which exists in all police authorities in Scotland should be looked at with interest by those who express strong views one way or the other. That generalisation applies to all police authorities, from those which have a strong Leftward feel to those which have taken a traditionally Conservative view. Political interference has never been a problem in Scotland, yet we have a form of accountability that is regarded by some south of the border as a dangerous manoeuvre to bring politics into the police.
    Accountability is also important in the Scottish police forces because elected members take their reponsibilities seriously not only in terms of general accountability but with regard to disciplinary procedures. The chairman of the police committee of the Strathclyde region is a constituent of mine, a councillor from my area and, perhaps more importantly, a member of the general committee of the Hamilton constituency Labour party—another form of accountability. The Strathclyde regional police authority is the largest in Britain outside London and has considerable responsibility. The chairman of the police committee, Councillor James Irvine, speaking to me today, made it clear that he takes his responsibilities for discipline seriously.
    My third reason for believing that we should have a genuine admiration for the police is that, even in this day and age and even with all the day-to-day exceptions that must occur, the force is generally unarmed. Anyone who travels the world and sees other police forces with junior officers parading the airport terminals with machine pistols and machine guns breathes a sigh of relief on return to our shores to see an unarmed police force still in command of law and order in this country.
    In that brief preamble to my comments, I hope I have shown some credentials in this area and have demonstrated that my clear-cut and long-standing support for an independent element in the complaints procedure is not motivated by a sense of prejudice and is not seen, to use the words of the representative at the Scottish Police Federation conference, as a means of public appeasement of forces critical of the police.
    Over recent years there has been considerable evidence to hold up in favour of an independent element in the police complaints procedure. An independent element exists in the police complaints procedure south of the border which has apparently worked effectively and no attempt has been made by the present Government, whatever their propensities in other directions, to change that independent element. Their concern now is to find a means to strengthen the independent element in the police complaints procedure. We also have the evidence to and the report of the Home Affairs Committee, which gave serious consideration to this matter. Although its main recommendations were concerned with introducing a further strengthening of the police complaints procedure in England and Wales, it concerned itself with the system that applies in Scotland and modelled its principal recommendations not only on the police complaints procedure in Scotland but on the system of Crown prosecution in Scotland as a whole.
    What is amazing is the Committee's conclusion that there is no pressing need for change in Scotland. The Committee said:
    350
    "Legislation to establish a complaints panel was introduced by the previous Government but failed to make the necessary progress through Parliament, and our Scottish witnesses could not point to any pressing need for such a change."
    Yet the evidence it deploys in support of its arguments in other areas shows that the need for an independent element in the police should be considered, and not simply on a geographical basis, confined to areas south of Carlisle and Gretna Green.
    Paragraph 7 of the report states:
    "The Police Complaints Board in their Triennial Review expressed themselves satisfied that, in the vast majority of cases, 'a thorough and fair investigation has been made by the police into the complainant's allegations, and though this may not reveal the whole truth it will nevertheless provide all available evidence on which to make a proper adjudication.'"
    Paragraph 8 states:
    "Few of our witnesses contended strongly that independent investigation would necessarily be more effective in terms of its eventual results; but it was generally conceded, even by representatives of the police associations, that some changes were needed to restore public confidence".
    If that is not a clear commendation of the generality of the principle, I do not know what is. It is not only the Home Affairs Committee that can be deployed to argue the case. Lord Scarman reported on the Brixton disorders that took place two years ago. His credentials are impeccable and his summary of the causes of the riots is now regarded as authoritative. Indeed, Lord Scarman's report has the distinction of changing from being a very expensive £8 per copy Government White Paper into being a very cheap and best-selling paperback. Its popularity is not confined to the salaciousness of its contents, but is due in part to the authoritative nature of the analysis and recommendations.
    In paragraph 7.20, Lord Scarman said that in its triennial review report
    "the Police Complaints Board expressed themselves satisfied that 'in the vast majority of cases which come before them, a thorough and fair investigation has been made by the police into the complainant's allegations'. The Board is uniquely placed to judge the quality of police investigations and its findings on this matter must be given considerable weight. I conclude that the decision whether to establish a new procedure for the independent investigation of complaints must rest on a judgment whether the gain in public confidence which would ensue outweighs the resource and financial costs involved."
    Thus Lord Scarman had seen only "resource and financial costs" as arguments to be deployed against the independent investigation of complaints.
    In paragraph 7.21, Lord Scarman concluded:
    "My own view is that if public confidence in the complaints procedure is to be achieved any solution falling short of a system of independent investigation available for all complaints (other than the frivolous) which are not withdrawn, is unlikely to be successful. Any such system should include a 'conciliation process.'"
    The fact that Lord Scarman was discussing the traumatic events of Brixton and the exceptional circumstances of that area, and of other inner city areas, which led to the riots of two years ago does not mean that the general principle involved was ignored.
    In recent years, Scotland has not seen any riots occasioned by the ethnic minorities, or others, but it is the principle that is being argued in the report. We should be aware of that principle if we are to protect the Scottish community from such riots and from the pressures on the police that may flow as a result. The evidence produced by the Home Affairs Committee included a document from the Scottish Home and Health Department. It appears in other guises, and my hon. Friend the Member for

    351
    Garscadden has already quoted some of it in saying why the Government do not want to become involved in introducing that independent element at this stage.
    Paragraph 12 of the Scottish Home and Health Department's evidence outlines four basic reasons why the Secretary of State has concluded that there should not be this independent element. Item (c) states:
    "there is little or no evidence of any widespread public concern on the matter in Scotland or of any feeling that the police do not deal properly and thoroughly with complaints under existing procedures".
    A reading of the evidence following the questioning of the officials of the Scottish Home and Health Department produces considerable scepticism about these assertions, especially from the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and other organisations which do not necessarily question the assertion that there is no great public demand but which properly made the reservations and caveats that the statistics themselves may not tell the whole story and that any conclusion derived from the statistics alone may not be the best solution for dealing with police complaints in Scotland.
    These statistics can produce a variety of conclusions. The inevitable under-recording is occasioned by the frailty of the very human beings involved. As both hon. Members have said, every hon. Member deals with people who have a serious grievance against the police but who, because of a deferential view of the police and authority in general, never take such complaints further in the system even though they retain that grievance against the police. However small the number, the principle is the same.
    On top of the existing system of the Police Complaints Board south of the border, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended an additional Crown prosecution system that would take over the role of the procurator fiscal. People dissatisfied with the present police complaints system have a disproportionate impact on the public perception of the police. The Police Complaints Board, which both the Select Committee and Lord Scarman have quoted, said that the procedures adopted by the police in an investigation were satisfactory. They probably are, but the fact that the Police Complaints Board said so, could say so and is continually quoted as having said so, also matters in persuading public opinion whether it is prejudiced or sympathetic to the police.
    A complaints procedure as proposed in the new clause would not weaken the standing of the police but would strengthen it by removing that residual resentment that hangs behind in a case when a decision has been made internally but no explanation has or can be offered. It provides a means of persuading the sceptic, the hostile or even the simply puzzled that the process has not been a whitewash. In doing so, the reputation of the Scottish police, who have nothing to lose or hide, will be enhanced.
    In acting in Scotland before we have a problem, be it of class, as we had in the 1930s, or race, as we have in certain English urban areas, or religions, as we so tragically have in Northern Ireland, we may prevent the erosion, however slight it may be, in the reputation of the police that has precipitated the need for these present proposals in England and Wales.
    352
    The proposals in the new clause represent a minor, but important, reform which I believe that the police and the friends of the police in the community should warmly welcome.
    12.45 am
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): We have been discussing an important subject and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gascadden (Mr. Dewar) said, it is a sensitive topic. The three hon. Members who have spoken have recognised that there are excellent relations between the police and the public in Scotland, and we all place immense value on that.
    Hon. Members have paid justified tributes to the Scottish police force, and I agree with the hon. Member for Garscadden that this is a timeous debate against the background of the consultative document. The hon. Member said that the Bill has a considerable history. It is substantially the same as that introduced by the Labour Government in 1976. I make no partisan point, but it would have been helpful if hon. Members had been able to tell us why the Labour Government did not proceed with that Bill, not only in 1976, but in 1977, 1978 or 1979. One must conclude that the then Government did not feel that the case was strong enough to go ahead with Bill.
    Mr. Dewar: I was not a party to the decision, but I have had the advantage of discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) and there is no doubt about his commitment to the Bill. Every Minister has difficulties with the legislative timetable. Perhaps I might delicately remind the Under-Secretary that the Labour Bill was introduced at about the time of the Scottish Devolution Bill, which occupied a certain amount of parliamentary time. Perhaps the Minister will take it from me that the new clause was tabled by the official Opposition, and we think that it is a good idea which is worth pursuing.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, but the Bill introduced by the Labour Government was not proceeded with over a period of three or four years.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden outlined the salient features of the present complaints procedure in Scotland and the distinction between complaints from which it may reasonably be inferred that a disciplinary offence has been committed and those from which a criminal offence may be inferred.
    In disciplinary cases, the procedures are broadly similar to those in England and Wales, without, of course, the involvement of the Police Complaints Board. For complaints from which a criminal offence may be inferred, different procedures apply, and it should be emphasised that such complaints must be referred to the regional procurator fiscal.
    Once the deputy chief constable has referred a case to the regional procurator fiscal, the fiscal will investigate the complaint, either personally or by instructing the procurator fiscal for the district concerned to investigate and report to him. Thus, the regional procurator fiscal supervises and controls the Crown investigation. He will normally take statements from all concerned and make his own independent assessment of the case. If he considers that there is any substance in the complaint, he will send an assessment—a precognition—to the Crown Office so

    353
    that the question of prosecution can be decided by Crown counsel. Crown counsel will recommend to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland his view of the case, and my hon. and learned Friend will finally determine whether a prosecution is to be brought.
    As hon. Members have confirmed, there is already provision for a completely independent, impartial and important investigation of criminal complaints. On average, about 45 per cent. of all complaints dealt with are of a criminal character. Just under half of all such complaints are already dealt with under the independent aegis of the procurator fiscal service.
    The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) concentrated on the Select Committee on Home Affairs investigation last year into the complaints procedures. As he said, that investigation concentrated mainly on the system in England and Wales, but he accurately quoted the evidence that the Committee took from Scottish witnesses. The Committee made a fair commendation of the existing Scottish system, and the House will wish to bear that in mind in assessing the new clause.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Would the result have been the same if the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had considered the matter? The Minister quoted with approval the fact that 45 per cent. of complaints were dealt with by way of criminal proceedings. That would leave 55 per cent. of the cases not subject to independent scrutiny.
    Mr. Stewart: The statistical point is correct; but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical question about what the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs might have concluded, although there is widespread public support for the present system.
    Mr. George Robertson: The Select Committee's conclusion—adding a layer similar to the procurators fiscal in Scotland — was in addition to the Police Complaints Board which already exists in England and Wales. The ideal solution was a Police Complaints Board dealing with the non-criminal element and in addition a procurator fiscal-type prosecutor system. It did not suggest that the non-criminal independent element should be taken out of the system.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think the Home Affairs Committee came up with any conclusive evidence in favour of the kind of additional structure that the new clause puts forward.
    I listened with great care to the point made by the hon. Member for Garscadden on the consultation document. We have not reached conclusions on that, and the points that all hon. Members have made on that have been put timeously and listened to carefully.
    The Government believe that there is a need for a Police Complaints Board in England, but not for the kind of structure proposed by the hon. Member for Garscadden in Scotland. First, as all hon. Members have recognised, Scotland has the unique procurator fiscal system to which all complaints of a criminal nature are referred. Secondly, the number of complaints in Scotland pro rata is substantially less than in England and Wales. Thirdly—this is important—Scotland has no substantial problem of relations between ethnic minority communities and the police. Fourthly, neither the Home Affairs Committee nor the public generally have seen fit to recommend the need for one.
    354
    There is not sufficient evidence that a complaints board is necessary, or that there is a public demand for it. That is not a message of complacency. I take seriously the points that hon. Members have made about the present procedures. We shall consider them carefully in the current consultations with a variety of people and organisations in response to the consultation document.
    Mr. Dewar: I have listened to the Minister, and, as always, he has been courteous. However, he is often disappointing, not in his personal qualities but in the message that he has to give to the House. I recognise that it is too late and that we have held the floor for getting on for an hour and a half now, but this is a subject of some importance.
    I felt that the Minister did not give full justice to the range of arguments that were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who gave a considered and weighty speech, and by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The latter made a simple but important arithmetical point, when he pointed out that, even on the Minister's figures, 55 per cent. of the cases arising from police complaints are not subject to any form of independent scrutiny. We have repeatedly said that we do not suggest that there is a widespread abuse of the system or a conspiracy to go easy on investigations, but —it is a cliché in politics—justice must be seen to be done and an independent element would go some way to reassure the public.
    This has been a worthwhile debate, as the Minister said. Indeed, he used the word "timeous". As there is a consultative document out and the Minister has not yet made up his mind, I think that I should seek leave to withdraw the motion but to put down a clear marker that we shall return to these arguments in future. I hope that the Minister will not take withdrawal of the motion as a demonstration of only luke-warm support for the principles on the Labour Benches or an acceptance of the Minister's insipid status quo arguments which, despite his protestations, bordered on complacency.
    With the warning that this is merely a foretaste of other debates on this subject, when we shall be pressing the Minister a great deal harder than we have done tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 1

    POWER OF CONSTABLE TO STOP AND SEARCH PERSONS, VEHICLES ETC.
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'A constable may on reasonable suspicion' and insert
    `Subject to subsections (1A) to (1C) below, a constable may'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 3 and 5 and amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out from `constable' to 'stolen' in line 8 and insert
    `may search any person or vehicle found in a public place if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has in his possession or that the vehicle contains'.
    Mr. Mayhew: These amendments achieve two purposes. First, they clarify the drafting of clause 1(1), which was criticised in Committee, and I fulfil an undertaking that I gave on that. Secondly, they honour the

    355
    Government's undertaking to restrict the powers of stop and search conferred by clause 1 so that people were not liable to be searched in their gardens.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 3, in page 1, line 10 at end insert—
    '(1A) A constable may not search a person or vehicle in the exercise of the power conferred by this section unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles.
    (1B) If a person is in a garden, yard or other premises occupied with and used for the purposes of a dwelling, a constable may not search him in the exercise of the power conferred by this section unless the constable has reasonable grounds for believing—

    (a) that he does not reside in the dwelling; and

    (b) that he is not on the premises with the express or implied permission of a person who resides in the dwelling.

    (1C) if a vehicle is in a garden, yard or other premises occupied with and used for the purposes of a dwelling, a constable may not search it in the exercise of the power conferred by this section unless he has reaonable grounds for believing—

    (a) that the person in charge of the vehicle does not reside in the dwelling; and

    (b) that the vehicle is not on the premises with the express or implied permission of the person who resides in the dwelling.'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
    `(2) A constable in uniform may require a person driving a vehicle to stop it for a search under this section.'.
    The amendment does two things. First, it makes a drafting amendment. We have concluded that subsection (2) as it stands is unnecessary. Secondly, the amendment makes it clear that to carry out a search of a person or vehicle under clause 1 the officer has the power, provided that he is in uniform, to require a person driving a vehicle to stop.
    Mr. Snape: The Opposition regret that we were unable to persuade the Government to accept our view, strongly expressed in Committee, about officers in civilian clothes when stopping and searching. An officer wearing civilian clothes is likely to engender a hostile and suspicious reaction from the person who is stopped and searched, even bearing in mind that the officer wearing plain clothes must, under another clause in the Bill, show an identity card. We accept that the amendment has improved the clause, but we feel that we should express those reservations.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 5, in Page 1, line 13, leave out from 'If' to 'he' in line 14 and insert
    `in the course of such a search a constable discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be stolen or prohibited article'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
    1 am
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 8.
    Mr. Mayhew: These amendments apply to the definitions of prohibited article and offensive weapon to the whole of part I, instead of, as at present, just to clause 1. This is a drafting change.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 8, in page 2, line 13, leave out `section' and insert 'Part of this Act' .—[Mr. Mayhew.]

  Clause 2
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'may' to 'detained' in line 26 and insert
  'use reasonable force if necessary to conduct such a search or to detain a person or vehicle for the purpose of such a search.
  (5A) The time for which a person or vehicle may be detained for the purposes of such a search is such time as is reasonably required to permit a search to be carried out either at the place where the person or vehicle was first'.
  The amendment amends the drafting of the present provisions in the Bill. I gave an undertaking in Committee to look again at the drafting of these provisions. I hope that the House will accept that the present version makes the Bill's intentions clearer.
  Mr. Snape: I fear that I shall have to detain the House for a minute or two on this. We are in some difficulty, as we were in Standing Committee, because the amendment and the clause refers to the vexed question of stop-and-search proceedings in relation to motor vehicles.
  I shall not rehearse the arguments that were dealt with at length in Committee, but the average driver normally feels some resentment at being stopped. The use of reasonable force in these circumstances therefore caused considerable concern in Committee. Again, we are in the realm of the subjective judgments of individual police officers. Reasonable force is difficult to define.
  Mr. Mikardo: Ask them in Brixton.
  Mr. Snape: Certainly one can imagine as aggrieved motorist in Brixton—or indeed in Barnet—perhaps in a hurry to get to work or to keep an appointment, resenting being stopped and someone's subjective definition of reasonable force being applied to prevent his completing the journey.
  I hope that the Minister will answer one specific question. I may be asking him to dispense advice not strictly relevant to the clause, which may cause him deep pain and anguish as a very professional and successful legal practitioner. If a motorist is stopped on his way to work and subjected to the provisions of the clause, as a result of which he loses his job, misses an appointment or loses a substantial sum of money, will he have a case to sue the officer concerned if it subsequently turned out that he was innocent?
  Notwithstanding the amendment, the clause seems to give the police wider powers than ever before. For that reason, I put on record our concern about the likely worsening of police public relations as a result.
  Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to seek clarification, as anything affecting the liberty of the subject is a matter of importance for Parliament.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, for many decades Parliament has from time to time conferred powers on the police to search premises and occasionally, people. The right to use reasonable force for the purpose of executing the search has always been conferred with that power.

  359
  What constitutes reasonable force depends always on the circumstances, but the kind of test applied is that of the degree of force necessary in the circumstances to permit the officer to carry out that which has been authorised, the circumstances envisaged being those applying at the time. Thus, it is a matter for the common sense of those who may later be called upon to review an action or decision and the common sense of the officer concerned.
  As I said in Standing Committee, if the use of reasonable force were not permitted the effect would be to nullify the power granted. It would enable the person who is to be searched, and who might be a suspect, to nullify the whole purpose of the power by putting up some resistance. If that resistance could not be countered by such force as was reasonable in the circumstances, that would be the end of the matter and off would run the suspect. That would clearly be absurd.
  A person who has fortuitously suffered loss because of the lawful exercise of a power has never been able to claim compensation. If, on the other hand, the power has been exercised in an unlawful manner and loss has resulted, a remedy is compensation. I trust that that deals with the matter that was raised.
  1.15 am
  Mr. Mikardo: Just because that has never been the legal position, that is no justification for it. We must be prepared to examine matters afresh. The people on whom force is most likely to be used are the innocent. If a chap is driving a car knowing that he has something in his possession that he should not have and a police officer stops him, he will not fight the officer.
  The man who is likely to fight is the innocent person, who has never been mixed up in any crime at all and is going about his normal business, who becomes indignant about being stopped without, according to him, any justification. He will say, "Sheer off", or words to that effect. The officer will then get a bit rough and tough about the position. The innocent man may have his vehicle damaged or suffer loss by missing a train, an appointment or a business deal. Why on earth should he not have a reasonble claim to compensation?
  The House is legislating a new Bill. If the House were to relate to what had happenend in the past, new Bills would never be introduced. We would rest on those already on the statute book. Why on earth, since we are changing the whole basis and extent to which the police may interfere with a citizen who is going about his lawful business, should the citizen not be entitled to compensation?
  Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that we need to examine the scenario put forward by the hon. Gentleman, in the light of the requirements of clause 3. The hon. Gentlemam will remember, from the Standing Committee proceedings, that the officer must say who he is, what he is looking for, the object of the search is and why he is making it. H must state the grounds of his suspicion. Furthermore, he must tell the person involved that he is making a record of what takes place and that a copy of the record has to be made available. In those circumstances, the type of resistance that is envisaged is unreasonable.
  I am able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about compensation. At no stage during the Committee
  360
  proceedings or thereafter has anybody thought it right to put down an amendment to provide that compensation in those circumstances should be paid.
  We must look on it as one of the obligations of a law-abiding citizen that, in the interests of law and order and the protection of people, one must take the risk that, from time to time, one may on proper grounds, be stopped and asked to undergo the search provided for by this part of the Bill. It is a light and quick search. In the case of an ordinary individual, it is simply the top coat. As Lord Scarman said in his report on the Brixton disorder, he was convinced that that was necessary to combat street crime. In those circumstances, I do not believe that we are imposing an unfair burden.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 23, in page 3, line 29, after `him', insert
  `or to detain and search a vehicle without making an arrest'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Clause 2

    PROVISIONS RELATING TO SEARCH UNDER S. I AND OTHER POWERS
    Amendment made: No. 11, in page 2, line 33, leave out `of search'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 37, at end insert `without making an arrest'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government amendment No. 23.
    Mr. Mellor: This is a pure drafting amendment, which clarifies the subsection.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 41, after 'duty', insert ',subject to subsection (2A) below,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
    Mr. Mellor: These amendments provide, for obvious reasons, that an officer does not have to state his name, the purpose of the search, and the grounds for undertaking it, if he is proposing to search an unattended vehicle. I hope that the logic appeals to the House.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the officer have some responsibility for making the vehicle secure after the search has taken place, if it has been necessary to force the lock of the car to make the search, and will some indication be left for the person whose car has been searched in his absence that the search has been carried out by an authorised police officer, and not merely broken into?
    Mr. Mellor: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Certainly the officer would be under a civil obligation to do that. It would be negligent not to do so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
    'and the name of the police station to which he is attached'.
    This amendment gives effect to an undertaking that was given by my hon. and learned Friend in Committee to require a police officer proposing to undertake a search to state not only his name but also the police station to which he is attached.
    Mr. Snape: I was under the impression—I hope that the Minister will save me the trouble of referring to the Committee Hansard—that when we discussed the matter in Committee an undertaking was given to require a police constable to give his number as well as his name, but that is not included in the amendment. Without reiterating any of the arguments that were made at some length in Committee, there is an obvious likelihood of confusion if, for example, the constable's name is Smith—to choose a name at random. Some of the debates in Committee concentrated on this aspect. We were under the impression that an undertaking was given on it. However, I concede

    357
    that it is helpful that the clause has been amended so that it will now be necessary for a police officer also to give the name of the station to which he is attached.
    To refer to my previous example, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there might be two Smiths at a large police station such as Paddington green. We believe that the number is essential. I must express some surprise that the undertaking which I thought was given in Committee does not appear in the clause.
    Mr. Mellor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My hon. and learned Friend said that he sympathised with the point that was being raised but saw difficulties because a different numbering system is used by different forces and therefore it might not lead to the clarity for which the hon. Gentleman was asking. As an alternative, we inserted the requirement that the name of the police station be given. Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, there may be circumstances in which it would not be entirely adequate. I ask him to accept that the combination of the name and station would be sufficient identification to allow the Bill's requirements to be properly observed. I hope that he will accept that we have made a genuine attempt to meet that point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'and'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 16.
    Mr. Mellor: This amendment relates to undertakings given by my hon. and learned Friend in Committee to require an officer proposing to make a search to inform the person concerned of his right to obtain a copy of the search record. It is a useful additional safeguard.
    Mr. Snape: This amendment is to be welcomed. It was pressed for by the Opposition in Committee. We are grateful that the Home Secretary has accepted this change.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 16, in page 3 line 2, at end insert
    'and
    (iv) the effect of subsection (7) of section 3 below or, as may be appropriate, of subsection (8) of that section.'.
    No. 17, in page 3, line 3, leave out `A' and insert
    'Subject to subsection (2A) below, a'.
    No. 18, in page 3, line 4, at end insert—
    '(2A) A constable proposing to search an unattended vehicle need not comply with subsection (1) or (2) above.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 5, leave out
    'duties to give information imposed by this section
    and insert
    'duty to give information imposed by subsection (1) above and the duty to produce evidence imposed by subsection (2) above'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
    Mr. Mellor: These amendments correct the drafting of part of clause 2 relating to the duties of officers to identify themselves and give certain information before undertaking a search. At present the relevant parts of the clause speak only of the duty to give information for the purpose of the search, whereas it should refer also to the duty to
    358
    produce documentary evidence that the officer is a constable. I hope that the House will accept that this clarifies the position.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 20, in page 3, line 8. leave out `it' and insert
    'the information or produce the evidence'.
    No. 21, in page 3, line 9, at end insert 'or produce'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 3

  DUTY TO MAKE RECORDS CONCERNING SEARCHES
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'or (b)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
  Mr. Mellor: Amendment No. 24 is a purely drafting amendment which deletes some superfluous words.
  The other amendments exempt officers conducting searches under section 27(2) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 from the requirement to make a search record. Officers conducting searches under the powers conferred by clause 6 of the Bill are already so exempt.
  The reason for this is that clause 6 relates to the practice of port police forces stopping all vehicles leaving goods areas to check their contents against their passes. In the interests of controlling crime these checks are carried out on a routine basis, and consequently a great many are made each day. We therefore consider that it would be unduly burdensome to require a record to be made of each one.
  The same considerations apply to the similar powers in the Aviation Security Act, on which clause 6 was modelled, which enable police officers to check vehicles as they leave airport cargo areas. The purpose of the amendment, which I hope will be acceptable to the House, is to bring section 27(2) and powers exercised under that in line with the powers already given in clause 6.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 4, line 3, after `search', insert '(a)'.
  No. 26, in page 4, line 3, after 'below', insert
  `or `(b) under section 27(2) of the Aviation Security Act 1982. '.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 4, line 6, leave out 'possible' and insert 'reasonably practicable'.
  The amendment discharges an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend in Committee to strengthen the clause by removing the word "possible" and substituting the words "reasonably practicable", which is a more onerous requirement. I hope that on that basis it will be acceptable.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 4, line 17, leave out 'and'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendment No. 29.
  Mr. Mellor: These amendments give effect to a further undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend in Committee to provide that the record of a search must also state—as well as the requirement originally in the Bill —the date, time and place where it was made and its results. Again, this is a tightening of procedures that I hope will be acceptable to the House.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend at some stage, perhaps towards the end of the Bill, make an estimate of the increase in the paperwork that the police will have to undertake?
  Mr. Mellor: If my hon. Friend asks me to do that, I shall oblige him.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 29, in page 4, line 18, leave out 'and' and insert—

  '(iii) the date and time when it was made;

  (iv) the place where it was made; and

  (v) its result; and'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 4, line 29, leave out '3' and insert '12'.
  This amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend in Committee. It was argued convincingly in Committee that three months was too short a period since a case might not be brought to trial within three months. On that basis, 12 months is now accepted. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
  Mr. Snape: Again I thank the Minister for considering our representations as kindly as he has done. Notwithstanding the somewhat sour note injected by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), while the increase in time taken to complete forms is to be regretted—as are all increases in bureaucracy—it does make sense. I hope that I do not transgress the rules of order by retrospectively thanking the Minister for his consideration of the groups of amendments already discussed.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The filing system that the police will require will be very much greater than before. I can only conclude that, in the new premises in which the tape recordings will take place, shelves will be provided on which all the paperwork can be kept.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

  ROAD CHECKS
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 2, leave out from `(1)' to 'that' in line 4 and insert 'above—
  (a) if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 32.
  Mr. Mellor: It was suggested in Committee that these amendments would be introduced on Report to introduce
  362
  consistency into the formulation of the reasonable suspicion test. I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 5, line 10, before first 'that', insert
  `if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 15, after 'days', insert
  'from the time of the authorisation'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 34 to 37.
  Mr. Mayhew: Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 are drafting amendments and I do not need to detain the House with an explanation of their effect. Amendment No. 37 makes it clear that a police officer in uniform has an express power to require a driver to stops his vehicle for the purposes of a road check. It was thought necessary to clarify what might be obvious but which was in need of clarification all the same.
  Mr. Snape: Again I put on record the Opposition's concern about the provisions of the clause. The amendments improve the clause in the way outlined by the Minister, but I draw the attention of the House to subsection (3)(b). We remain in the difficulty that faced us in Committee. The phrase
  "a pattern of crime in that area"
  leads us to believe, to quote the geographical reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), that road blocks will be set up in Brixton rather than in Barnet. In the area that I represent, road blocks are more likely to be found in Sandwell than in Solihull.
  We foresee dangers for police-public relations because of the way in which the clause has been drafted. We find it difficult to understand how a "serious arrestable offence" can be forecast by a police officer or how he can predict how some "serious arrestable" offences are likely to be committed. Those problems remain as baffling now as in Committee. I think it right again to put our misgivings about the clause on record.
  Mr. Mayhew: I should have said that there was a printing error in amendment No. 37 and that (9A) should be (9D). I shall introduce a correction in another place.
  It is important that we should always pay attention to the effect upon relations between the police and the community that may be anticipated from any powers that we confer. Clause 4 constitutes a restriction on the powers of police officers to stop vehicles and establish road blocks. Their powers are unlimited under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, but for purposes other than those bearing on the Road Traffic Act the present tight restrictions will cease to apply.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 34, in page 5, line 17, leave out 'of any rank' and insert
  `below the rank of superintendent'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 226, in page 5, line 19, leave out
  `condition specified in subsection (3)(a) above is'
  and insert
  `requirements of subsection (3)(a)(i) or (ii) above are'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 227 and 228.
  Mr. Mayhew: This is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 227 gives effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee. It provides that the authorising of a road check other than in an emergency shall be in writing. That would happen in any event, but it is desirable to place the matter beyond doubt.
  1.30 am
  The last amendment in this group, No. 228, tidies up the drafting of subsection (9). It gives effect to undertakings that I gave in the Committee. The changes to the Bill as printed which the amendment introduces are as follows: first, it requires that the name of the officer authorising a road check shall be given on the authorisation itself; secondly, it requires the authorisation to record the serious arrestable offence in connection with which the road check was set up; and thirdly, it entitles anyone stopped at a road check to obtain on request a written statement of the reason for the setting up of the road check.
  Mr. Snape: Again, perhaps I pre-empt the intervention of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who will no doubt complain about the additional work load which will arise from the groups of amendments in general and from amendment No. 228 in particular.
  My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Minister for accepting all the points that we made in Committee. Amendment No. 228 gives full details of written authorisations, as we requested in Committee. I should like to take the opportunity again of thanking the Minister for the detail in the amendment.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman anticipated me. Yes, I complain. For every form that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has got rid of, it seems that the Home Office has created another.
  Mr. Mikardo: I do not think that the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) about the amount of paper work that is being created by the Bill should have been dismissed so flippantly in Committee and on Report. There is a real problem. I am not complaining about the paper work; I do not think the hon. Gentleman is complaining about it. We all accept it as necessary. Equally, we do not want the skills of police officers not to be properly exercised because they spend so much of their time as pen pushers.
  There ought to be a proper management examination of the filling in, movement and handling of paper that will be required because of this legislation. I have always felt that there is not sufficient specialist clerical staff in the police service or, for that matter—although it would be out of order for me to discuss it now—in the armed forces. Too many people who have been trained for different duties and who have different expertise spend too high a proportion of their time as clerks. Until a few years ago this was the case with doctors, and the problem still exists in the police service.
  The Minister is always willing to consider new ideas. He should ask a competent person to examine the new clerical procedures created by the Bill to see what would happen in the average police station. The number of man hours which will be involved should be worked out. The Minister should try to get greater productivity from police constables by relieving them of this work and giving it to civilian personnel.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 35, in line 26, leave out 'An' and insert
  'Subject to subsection (7A) below, an'.
  No. 36, in line 28, at end insert—
  '(7A) An authorisation may only be given under subsection (7) above for a period not exceeding 7 days from the time of the authorisation, but may be renewed from time to time for a further such period.'.
  No. 227, in line 32, at end insert—
  '(8A) An authorisation under subsection (3) or (7) above shall be in writing.'
  No. 228, in line 33, leave out subsection (9) and insert—'
  (9) Every written authorisation under this section shall specify—

  (a) the ground for giving it;

  (b) the period for which it is given;

  (c) the locality to which it relates; and

  (d) the name of the officer giving it.

  (9A) In a case where the requirements of subsection (3)(a)(i) or (b) are satisfied the duty imposed by subsection (9)(a) above includes a duty to record in the authorisation the serious arrestable offence in question.
  (9B) A renewal of an authorisation shall be in writing.
  (9C) Where a vehicle is stopped at a road check, the person in charge of the vehicle at the time when it is stopped shall be entitled to obtain a written statement of the reason for obstructing the road at that time, if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of three months from that time.'.
  No. 37, in line 37, at end insert—
  '(9A) A constable in uniform may require a person driving a vehicle on a road to stop the vehicle for the purpose of a road check under this section.'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 5

  REPORTS OF RECORDED SEARCHES AND OF ROAD CHECKS
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 11, at end insert
  'but shall include

  (a) The total numbers of searches in each month during the period to which report relates—

  (i) for stolen articles;

  (ii) for offensive weapons; and

  (iii) for other prohibited articles;

  (b) the total number of persons arrested in each such month in consequence of searches of each of the descriptions specified in paragraph (a) (i) to (iii) above.'.

  The amendment spells out the statistical information about the use of powers of stop and search that must be contained in chief officers' annual reports. Members of the Committee will recall discussing this during our seventh sitting, when it was said that clause 5 should be expanded to set out what information about the use of these powers should be contained in chief officers' annual reports. I gave an undertaking to incorporate this material, and I am glad to have been able to do so.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

  POWERS TO ENTER WITHOUT WARRANT
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 7, line 31, after 'objects),' insert
  '4 (Prohibition of offensive weapon at public meetings and processions)'.
  This amendment would empower the police to enter premises without a warrant to effect an arrest for the offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1936 of carrying an offensive weapon at a public meeting. As drafted, the Bill already provides this power in relation to

  365
  offences under sections 1 and 5 of the 1936 Act relating respectively to political uniforms and offensive conduct. The three offences are of comparable gravity and it is appropriate that they should carry the same enforcement powers. In Committee, the Bill was amended so as to preserve intact the present power of arrest without warrant for offences under section 4 of the 1936 Act, and this amendment simply carries that through. It would plainly be wrong if the police had power to arrest someone for carrying an offensive weapon at a public meeting but could not enter the meeting to make the arrest and so prevent injury.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment 40, in page 8, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert 'section—

  (a) is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking is on the premises; and

  (b) is limited, in relation to premises consisting of two or more separate dwellings, to a power to enter and search—

  (i) any parts of the premises which the occupiers of any dwelling comprised in the premises use in common with the occupiers of any other such dwelling; and

  (ii) any such dwelling in which the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking may be.'.

  This amendment deals with the powers to enter and search premises in multiple occupation. Pursuant to an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend in Committee, this brings the provisions in clause 8 into line with those in clause 23(2) and restricts the rights of entry to homes in multiple occupation, which I hope meets with the approval of the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. —[Mr. Major.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on Recommittal), to be further considered this day.

Water Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Water Bill
  Clause 1

    CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF WATER AUTHORITIES
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—
    "(5) In the case of the regional water authorities, the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall"
    1.39 am
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Paul Dean: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
    Mr. Shaw: The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to provide that the Secretary of State for Wales should appoint at least two land drainage and fishery members to the Welsh water authority. This is desirable as there are statutory regional land drainage and regional fishery advisory committees and it is important that there should be members with relevant experience to chair them.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Even at this unearthly hour I hope that the Minister will clarify the intention of the amendment. It refers to two members with experience of land drainage or fisheries. Does that mean that there should be two of each, or two of either? The wording could result in there being two land drainage people and no fisheries people, or vice versa.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The optimum number would be two. One would be drawn from each faculty. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Secretary of State for Wales also has responsibility for agriculture in Wales and therefore has the same powers as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 2 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 3 in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 23.
    Mr. Shaw: I am conscious that the amendment refers to the discussions that we had in Committee about the local ombudsman. The House will recall that on Report on 18 January we debated the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman over water authorities I moved an amendment which partially restored the remit of the ombudsman over water authorities in respect of that part of their service under which the local authority arrangements for sewerage were undertaken. On that occasion I was criticised by the late right hon. Member for Rhondda, Mr. Alec Jones, for not going far enough. I should like at this stage to pay tribute to the memory of Alec Jones and to the contribution that he made to our Committee proceedings. He was always a vigorous and cogent performer in Committee, with unfailing courtesy and good humour. We certainly miss him tonight.
    When the Bill reached the other place, the anxieties that had been expressed here were repeated, and we therefore

    367
    thought it right to re-examine the issue. In our view, the widespread importance that is attached to the power of the local ombudsman to investigate the water authorities and the useful results that his investigations have achieved make it difficult to maintain that this right should be withdrawn. I have in mind also that the overall purpose of the Bill is to benefit the water authorities' consumers in various ways. I therefore do not wish to part from that objective.
    Mr. Denis Howell: May I say on behalf of the Opposition how much we appreciate the Minister's kind comments about our former colleague, the late right hon. Member for Rhondda, Mr. Alec Jones. It is fitting that the case that he made has been accepted by the Government, for which I express my appreciation.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I endorse what has been said about the former right hon. Member for Rhondda, Mr. Alec Jones, and I share the feelings that have been expressed on both sides of the House.
    I was taught in Sunday school to be thankful for small mercies. This is a small but important mercy in relation to the Bill as a whole. I am grateful to their Lordships for being the bestowers of this mercy and for the work they did on the Bill. Would that they had succeeded in one or two other directions as well.
    It is important that the local ombudsman should maintain his ability to investigate maladministration in the water authorities, because under the Bill the Government have created bodies that carry out powers previously exercised in many cases by democratic local government, by bodies consisting entirely of people appointed by Ministers and by bodies from the meetings of which the Government have seen entirely fit to exclude the press. They have created a monstrously undemocratic body. It is the subject of grossly inadequate accountability and spends vast amounts of public money. All that the poor public have out of this is the right for the local ombudsman to investigate when maladministration arises.
    That is a small benefit to set against so appalling a system for organising the water industry, but we are particularly grateful to the Lords for ensuring that it is there. We hope that the power will be exercised to the full where it is necessary to do so to ensure the protection of the individual against bodies which, in our view, are subject to entirely inadequate public accountability.
    Mr. Wigley: I, too, should like to thank the Minister for his kind words about the late right hon. Member for Rhondda, Mr. Alec Jones. It is sad that he is not with us tonight. It leaves me as the only Member representing a Welsh constituency in the debate. We miss Alec Jones from debates on water matters as well as on other matters.
    It is likely that the ombudsman will be loaded with a fair amount of work arising from complaints about water matters. Because water authorities are not to be answerable, and because the press are not to be allowed in, it may be that more questions will go through to the ombudsman than would have gone otherwise.
    I welcome the concession that has been made tonight. I only wish that there were other concessions, which might have left the ombudsman with a smaller work load.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 2

    LIMITS ON BORROWING OF WATER AUTHORITIES
    Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 11, at beginning insert—
    "( ) In paragraph 34(3)(6) of Schedule 3 to the principal Act (water authorities to borrow from persons other than the Secretary of State, otherwise than by way of temporary loan, only in a currency other than sterling) after the word "Treasury", there are inserted the words "either in sterling or".")
    1.45 am
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment enables water authorities to borrow long term in sterling from sources other than the Government. Although we doubt that they would find borrowing from private sources more advantageous at present, and have no immediate plans to authorise it, we do not agree with the restriction in legislation, and the amendment alters it to end that restriction.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  Clause 5

    OVERSEAS ACTIVITIES OF WATER AUTHORITIES AND STATUTORY WATER COMPANIES
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 4, line 36, at end insert
    "; and for the purposes of this section, statutory water companies shall have the same powers as water authorities have by virtue of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the principle Act.)"
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a small amendment in discharge of a commitment that I gave in Committee. Without it water companies would not have the power to set up subsidiaries for the purposes of any overseas activities. We have now corrected that and the amendment will allow that power to be held.
    Mr. Wigley: May I ask the Minister to clarify something that has arisen in Wales and, I believe, recently in the north east of England and in Northumberland? No doubt the price of water in both areas is just as contentious. The local water authorites have been moving towards the possibility of selling water overseas, notably to the Arab countries. I think that the Northumberland water authority has done the pioneering work and that Wales is looking into it. Will the amendment have any effect on the right of water authorities to negotiate direct sales? Is the Secretary of State's permission needed to go ahead with such sales?
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I think the hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee an undertaking was elicited from the Government that arrangements for water authorities to operate overseas would be scrutinised carefully by the Secretary of State and would require direct approval for certain types of investment overseas. The amendment refers purely to water companies and therefore the hon. Gentleman's point is not strictly relevant.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 6, at end insert—
    "(5) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance as to the criteria by reference to which he will determine any request for consent under this section."
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    When the Bill was in the other place it was put to us that the consent procedures under clause 5(2) were an important protection both for private sector consultants, who should be safeguarded from unfair competition, and for consumers, who should not have to stand the risk of irresponsible, or perhaps unlucky, overseas activities by water authorities and water companies. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) referred obliquely to that earlier.
    The first draft of the guidance was produced to show how the Secretary of State would exercise his consent powers under the clause. The intention was to provide just those two forms of protection. The draft was placed in the Library and has been the subject of consultation with the water industry and the consulting engineers. A broad measure of agreement has now been reached on the final text of the guidance, which will be issued shortly.
    It was also put to us that the guidance should be underpinned by statute, thus imposing a requirement on the Secretary of State to issue it and inhibiting frequent amendments to it. We accepted that point, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 6

    ARRANGEMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 7, leave out clause 6 and insert the following new clause—
    "6.—(1) The following section is substituted for section 15 of the principal Act—
    "Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions
    15.—(1) It shall be the duty of every water authority and of every relevant authority whose area is wholly or partly in the area of the water authority to endeavour to make arrangements for the relevant authority to discharge, as respects their area, the sewerage functions of the water authority.
    (2) Schedule 4A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of supplementing this section."
    (2) After Schedule 4 to the principal Act there are inserted, as Schedule 4A, the provisions set out in Schedule (Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions) to this Act."
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 17, 20, 21 and 22.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    These amendments insert a new clause 6 and a new schedule into the Bill, which together will amend the legislation on sewerage arrangements between water authorities and local authorities. Hon. Members will recall that in Committee there was substantial debate on proposed amendments, under which water authorities would no longer have had a duty to seek to enter into sewerage arrangements with the local authorities, thus reversing the trend of the 1973 legislation.
    The amendment restores the position of the 1973 legislation, retaining the duty to try to enter into agency arrangements with local authorities. The many provisions in the schedule and new clause were widely discussed in Committee and on Report. I believe that these arrangements will enable water authorities and local authorities together to ensure that sewerage is in future carried out as effectively and efficiently as possible.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 7

    ARRANGEMENTS BY WATER AUTHORITIES FOR REPRESENTATION OF CONSUMERS' INTERESTS
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 6, line 35, at end insert—
    "(10) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any guidelines issued by him for the purposes of this section."
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any guidelines that he issues under new section 24A of the Water Act as to the way water authorities should prepare reports on arrangements to represent consumer interests.
    Mr. Denis Howell: This is the one amendment on which I should like to comment. The Bill is of far-reaching consequence for the structure of the water authorities and I regret that in another place so little progress was made in amending it more than was done here in Committee and on Report.
    It is astonishing that from a Conservative Government we should have a Bill that is so fundamental in its change, and which removes all the traditional rights of local government over the control of water authorities. This is a puny amendment, but it is the only one of any substance on which we can comment.
    The Minister has at least acceded to some of our other requests, for which I thank him, but I speak now about the real nature of the change in the powers of the water authorities. The Bill is a direct consequence of the tremendous clamour throughout the country that the Government would reduce water charges. It will do nothing of the sort. It is part of the confidence trick played on the nation at the last general election, and it is to be put on the statute book, possibly in the dying days of this Parliament, to prove that something has been done about that wholesale complaint. The Bill will not reduce water charges by a penny, and no one can claim that it will.
    It removes all local authority representation as of right. I know that there will be some local authority members, which we welcome, but they will be chosen by the Minister. The Opposition believe that if we are to have local elections—we are having them this very day—we should at least pay more than lip service to local democracy. When the electors choose their Councillors, their representatives should as of right have a place on these regional water authorities.
    Added to that, for the first time in the history of the water industry, there will be no press access as of right to any meeting of the regional water authorities. The other place is full of press barons, but although they all complained about the removal of the press when the matter was discussed in this House, not one thought it right to preserve the right of the press to attend these meetings. That is an astonishing lapse. With the exception of Lord Ardwick, the press barons did very little about this.
    There is to be no public access as of right to these committees, because the water authorities are now to be given a managerial function instead of the public operation that existed previously. In addition, there will be no consumer representation as of right.

    371
    Although the Secretary of State will now lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the guidelines to be issued to each regional water authority, that does not take us very far. We still do not know how many consumer councils will be established in each regional water authority area. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is not here today, said in Committee that the divisional consultative committees
    "must have the chance to question and criticise."
    When asked about the guidelines, the hon. Gentleman said:
    "we are still consulting about the guidelines, and it would be premature for me to announce a result" .—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B, 14 December 1982; c. 261.]
    Five months later, we still do not know the results of the consultation, although I acknowledge that the Government have at least taken power to tell us some time in the future. That is half a step forward.
    I am disappointed that the consumer councils, inadequate as they are, will have no right to nominate members of the regional water authority and no right to choose their own chairmen. The chairmen will be appointed by the very regional authorities which the consumer councils may wish to criticise. That is not satisfactory.
    We do not oppose the Lords amendment. It goes a short way down the road that we wish to travel, and we shall have the right to return to the matter when the guidelines are presented to the House. However, it is a sad business for local government democracy and for the water industry.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: The amendment ameliorates the terrible damage that the Bill will do to every citizen's interests in the water industry. The extent of the amelioration is still unknown, because we shall not know what the guidelines contain until they are placed before the House. I shall outline some of the hurdles that the guidelines will have to clear. They are more formidable than even the Under-Secretary realises.
    Millions of people will be going to the polls today and, for the first time in our history, the local elections will not be the means of accountability of those who provide the water supply. Water companies remain, but the great municipal water undertakings of London — the Metropolitan water board — Manchester and Birmingham, built up by local authority and municipal enterprise, had a structure of accountablity to local citizens. The Conservative Government, who claim to be the champions of individual liberty, have snatched that accountability away from the people, and every Conservative Member must admit that to the electors.
    The Under-Secretary may be able to tell us what the guidelines might contain. They could contain a requirement on water authorities to consider local authority representation on the consumer bodies. The councils will be virtually toothless. They will be appointed by the regional water authorities, which will even appoint the councils' chairmen. Surely local authorities should have an input. If the water authorities do not provide for that of their own volition—clause 7 is very weak—the guidelines should suggest that they do so and, if necessary, the Government should require them to do so.
    On Report, we debated not only the important services of water supply and sewage disposal but the interests of
    372
    conservation, recreation and navigation. Although my amendments, which I had hoped would produce a comprehensive structure of consultation, were not accepted by the Government on that occasion, they have at least admitted that some aspects of the parent Act in respect of conservation functions must be covered by the consultative committees, but they will have a big remit. Even with the guidelines, the Severn-Trent consultative committee will have a vast area and many functions with which to deal. Therefore, the guidelines must be exact. They must set a high standard.
    2 am
    I give an example with which the guidelines should deal. It is almost a moral parable of the problems that will be encountered. The river Thames is the best managed river in Britain—perhaps in the world. For 200 years its authority has been in the hands of local people. At one stage every riparian Member of Parliament was a member of the old Thames Commissioners which preceded the Thames Conservancy. A few months hence that will disappear for the first time in 200 years to be replaced by a Whitehall-appointed board.
    One of the features of the river Thames and the statutory undertakings required of it is a minimum flow over Teddington weir. It was reported to me recently that the Thames water authority has had it in mind to apply to the Government to have that statutory obligation taken off its shoulders. I made inquiries of the chief executive of the Thames water authority, and indeed that turned out to be so. I inquired of him what the Thames water authority would do about replacing the current statutory requirements. That has happened while it still has—notionally at least—an elected authority.
    In a couple of letters the chief executive of that authority, Mr. Fish, declined to say what quantitative system his authority was proposing to replace — a quantitative limit laid down by the House. If a functionary of the Thames water authority, before it becomes a wholly appointed subsidiary of Whitehall, refuses a Member of Parliament a quantitative description of something that it is proposed to replace, what will happen in future?
    I shall not make uncomplimentary remarks about that gentleman, whom I have met and with whom I have discussed matters, but I pose the question: if there is such arrogance already, what will the new consultative bodies be up against? I leave that to the Minister's imagination.
    I went further and asked the chief executive for figures, which he declined to give me. Instead, he sent me a consultative paper, from which I can now quote, about what the Thames water authority did from last July in consulting the groups concerned. It was stated to the then elected members:
    "Clearly, it would be impractical to give the individual views of each organisation consulted and therefore an attempt has been made to summarise the responses received. As might have been expected, the views expressed ranged from quietly acquiscent to mildly hostile. However, it would be fair to say that whilst a number of organisations, particularly those with navigational interests, had some misgivings, no insuperable technical difficulties were identified."
    It then gives one or two matters that required consultation, and goes on to say:
    "However, in many instances the assurance of more refined control procedures based on integrated river management, overcame a large number of the perceived problems."
    Hon. Members will be aware of such managerialese. Not a single figure was quoted to the people who were

    373
    protesting. I do not know whether this was a description of their misgivings, whether the problems were perceived or real, or whether, in many instances, the "refined control procedures" met the perceived problems. It does not say "in all instances", or speak of the instances where the perceived problems were not met.
    I have gone into this subject at some length because the river Thames has some of the best-known, best-managed, strongest navigational, recreational, conservationist and fishing lobbies in Britain, and the water authority likes to think of itself as the leading water authority not only in Britain but in the world. It boasts about how good it is in all these matters, but its attitude is what the consumer bodies are up against. These bodies must be effective.
    The Government's reputation in this respect will not loom large in any coming contest, but the reputation of some Ministers will depend on how effective these consumer organisations are. Their effectiveness will depend almost entirely on the nature of the guidelines that the Secretary of State has yet to lay before the House. The Under-Secretary had better have a close look at the guidelines. They had better be well drafted, and come down heavily on the side of the consumer and user of water services, including water-space, conservational, recreational and navigational interests. Those bodies will meet much bureaucracy, as I have illustrated by the moral example or parable of Teddington weir.
    In this respect water saving is important. Many of the things that the Thames water authority wishes to do could be achieved by better saving than by what it is doing. We all know of the devices that are on the market. The Plumbing journal of spring 1983 contains advertisements for water-saving devices that might solve its problems.
    I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to a written question of mine. He said that any request from the Thames water authority for such a reduction, diminution or removal of
    "the statutory minimum flow would be the subject of a public local inquiry if there were objections."—[Official Report, 3 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 28.]
    That is where the structure of public inquiries comes in. There could be many places in other parts of the country where statutory controls would not exist, and the water authorities cold ride rough-shod over any representations made by the consumer bodies. Therefore, the guidelines must be good.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: By leave of the House, I shall comment on the points that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have made. I fully recognise the importance of the guidelines. The amendment would endorse the proposition that was carried in the other place about the publication of the guide Lines, which will happen. The guidelines were laid in the House on 22 November 1982, and there have been a number of significant changes to them in Committee, as hon. Members will be aware, and since then, in discussions in the other place. It is because of that that we seek a further period of consultation.
    I remind the House of the significant changes that have been made. First, the meetings of the committees shall be open to the press and public. Secondly, the committee chairmen shall be selected by the committees themselves, and not by the water authorities, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath suggested. Thirdly, where the committee does not appoint a member who happens to be a member of a water authority, arrangements will be needed for the water authority to be formally represented at the committees' meetings.
    Fourthly, water authorities shall appoint to the committees the nominees of the local authorities That means that they are required to do so unless there are outstanding reasons for not doing so. Fifthly, there should be separate arrangements, as I announced in the House previously, to appoint a committee at the regional level to bring together the representatives of the water authority and the sporting, recreational, amenity and conservation interests in the area. Lastly, existing arrangements for liaison on conservation matters must continue.
    Those are significant changes to the guidelines. They underline the importance that we attach to these committees, to provide them with the type of locus that the hon. Member for Newham, South wanted. I assure him that revised guidelines will be placed before the House very shortly, with a short period of consultation, and that when they are finalised they too, if the amendment is accepted, will be placed before the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 23 agreed to.

Mundic Block Houses (Repairs Grants)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
2.10 am
Mr. David Penhaligon: I take the opportunity presented by this Adjournment debate to raise what I believe is a problem unique to my part of the country. On the whole, houses in Cornwall are built not with bricks, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, but with concrete blocks. What is required to produce a concrete block is obviously concrete and a bulk or fill material to go with it. The vast majority of houses that have been built by this method over the years have used for that fill material the waste produced by the china clay industry. I emphasise that, as far I am aware, there are no problems with the china clay waste built houses. They have served the county well and are likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
However, in the 1920s and 1930s several hundred houses were built not with the china clay material as the fill but with waste from some of the old tin mines. In particular, the waste from a mine known as the East Wheal Rose mine in Newlyn East was used quite extensively. According to Dr. Nixon of the Building Research Establishment, who made a report on this phenomenon in August 1979, for reasons of chemistry—which I confess I do not totally understand—the fill material from the mine at Newlyn East contains quantities of arsenic, lead and antimony, and the sulphides of these metals react with the concrete over a period to form gypsum. A block so affected has no strength whatever. In Cornwall that block is known as a "mundic" block, and it is the obvious effect of a block with no strength on a person's home that I wish to discuss in this debate.
In effect, it is a time bomb in people's properties. Some of these blocks have been in houses for 20 years. They perform perfectly satisfactorily, and then suddenly deteriorate. Some houses are now 60 years old and appear to the layman quite satisfactory, but previous evidence suggests that it is quite possible that they will, in effect, explode—not in the physical sense of an explosion, but they lose their strength and deteriorate.
I have seen examples of block no stronger than dry beach sand. Certainly one can pull it apart with one's bare fingers. No instrument is necessary. One can grab the material with one's fingers. There have been structural collapses, and there are many properties in which there is substantial structural danger. In some properties it affects one wall and in others just a few bricks within a wall. It manifests itself initially usually by the property being damp. One sees cracking on the outside of the walls. It is a serious problem.
One asks how many there are. I put a question to the Minister a few weeks ago, and the Department of the Environment replied that it believed that there were 300, concentrated mainly in the Truro area. I believe that there are more.
Since my interest in this matter has become known within the county, I have had properties affected by mundic block drawn to my attention in Truro, Perranporth, Camborne, Redruth, Newquay, Falmouth and Penzance. Properties seem to be affected in the whole of Cornwall, except for the St. Austell area where the china clay waste material is available and one presumes that the tin mine
376
material was never used, and the Caradon area, which is the area nearest Plymouth, which is the part of Cornwall furthest from the old tin mines. It is not a new problem. I have been aware of it since I was a boy.
I believe that the old Truro rural district council used this material in a number of council houses that it constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. On the whole, the council gave up repairing them. It demolished and replaced them. I believe that there is another block which has reached that stage and which is to be replaced.
One block in Ladock, for reasons that no one has ever explained satisfactorily, was not demolished but sold to a builder with the structural problem admitted. Unfortunately, somehow between that builder owning the block and it coming back on the market, the fact that the properties had mundic block was forgotten. The council never put it on the search details. I now have constituents living in houses—originally council houses—which are affected substantially by mundic block. I feel that that block is a disgrace.
It is not the main problem that I wish to draw to the attention of the House. The biggest problem is in the private sector. During the months since it has been mentioned in the local press, dozens of people have come to see me. They found their houses were a bit damp, had them investigated, and discovered that their £30,000 houses were worth £5,000 or, in some cases, virtually nothing.
When one meets one's constituents, the despair that this recognition imposes on people, the feeling of hopelessness and the realisation that a lifetime of saving to purchase a property and decorate it nicely for retirement is wasted, has to be seen to be believed.
I have not been optimistic. I have not told my constituents that I believe that there is an easy solution, but I was somewhat encouraged by a press release from the Department of the Environment on 14 February 1983 when the Minister announced the start of a scheme for financial help for those who owned Airey houses. From my interpretation of the press release, it seems that the Airey house problem is not dissimilar to the problem that exists in my constituency. Substantial help is offered to Airey house owners to try to rectify the structural faults. It amounts to up to £10,500 outside London and £14,000 in London.
The press release refers to 2,000 properties being affected so the Government are clearly expecting to spend a considerable amount of money to help people who face difficult problems.
I am asking the Minister to provide a similar scheme for the unique problem of mundic blocks. I believe that the matter is urgent. The vested interest to remain silent has led to an underestimation of the problem in many ways. If the Minister or I were unfortunate enough to own one of these houses, we would not be tempted to get it on the front page of the local paper so that everyone would know that we had a mundic block house, in which case the chance of finding some other poor soul to whom to sell it would be zero.
I know of one recent case where a building society wrote off a constituent's mortgage because it was agreed by the building society that it owed a duty of care to the mortgagor as it had not located the mundic block when granting the loan.
That decision has had repercussions. Building societies are now reluctant to lend money on any property in my

377
constituency built between 1920 and 1940. A constituent recently told me that he had been refused a mortgage on a property which appeared perfectly sound, with no sign of any deterioration, because a chemical analysis of one of the concrete blocks revealed an arsenic content of 800 parts per million and someone thought that that might be a mundic block which might eventually deteriorate. As I understand it, no one really knows whether an analysis of 800 parts per million is serious. The scale of the fear about this can thus be imagined.
The excellent Government repairs grant scheme, under which a useful sum has been spent, stipulates that for help to be given the house must have been built before 1919. That produces an ironic situation in my constituency, as at one end of the street a house built in 1910, but by no means in bad repair, is eligible for grant, while a house at the other end of the street that is virtually falling down due to Mundic block is not eligible even for the £3,600 grant because it was built in 1925. That is a very sad irony for the people affected by it.
The "pre-1961" scheme provides that up to £6,375 can be provided for repairs and improvements so long as no more than 70 per cent. of the total goes on repairs. In other words, 30 per cent. must be devoted to improvements. Very few of the properties about which I am concerned need any improvement. They are excellent properties, beautifully decorated, magnificently cared for and well equipped, but for the fact that they are in danger of falling down. Therefore, although that scheme has helped one or two people, it by no means approaches the full magnitude of the problem.
I cannot over-emphasise the fears building up in the area about these houses built between 1920 and 1940. I seek three undertakings from the Minister. First, a Government sponsored survey is needed to ascertain the extent of the problem in the county. Secondly, an attempt should be made to develop a test whereby one can predict fairly confidently whether a person's property is likely to be affected by Mundic block collapse. Thirdly—by far the most important but in no sense a party political matter — my constituents look to the Government for some sign that the Government are at least prepared to consider a scheme similar to that announced for Airey houses. If the Minister can give any assurance that the Government are moving in that direction, or are interested in doing so, he will do a great deal for the well-being of many of my constituents.
This is a substantial problem in my area and, tragically, it is not likely to go away. Indeed, one fears that this may be only the first mention of it in the House, as I suspect that the problem will be with us for some time yet.
2.22 am
The Under Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): No one in the House could fail to be impressed by the cogency with which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) put his case, as he invariably does on matters affecting his constituents, and by the peculiarity of the problem that he has described and its traditional value in providing houses in his area. He also rightly raised some of the consequences involved in any attempt to identify and to provide assistance for the problem that he has described. I shall concentrate on the mechanics of such assistance and whether this might be available in a form that would help the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
378
I must tell the hon. Gentleman at the outset that my remarks are unlikely to be particularly encouraging to him, but the facts must be put on record at this point. The fundamental question that he raises is whether improvement grants could be made available for repairs to houses built with mundic blocks. That is the root cause of the problem.
There are various types of improvement grant. The home improvement grant and the intermediate grant are already available for any dwelling produced before 2 October 1961. The intermediate grant is for the provision of standard amenities and so is unlikely to be appropriate for the case in question. The hon. Gentleman conceded that. Improvement grants are aimed at general improvement rather than repair, but they can include an element for repair and replacement. In cases where substantial and structural repair is needed, up to 70 per cent. of the grant can be given for repair and replacement. The grant is given at the discretion of the local authority.
I must emphasise that there must be works for improvement as part of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman recognised that in the vast majority of the housing stock to which he referred, such improvement is, frankly, not necessary. A dwelling would certainly not qualify for an improvement grant if the only problem was one of disrepair. I suspect that that is the condition of most of the dwellings referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It appears from what we have heard about mundic blocks that they would generally not be likely to qualify for improvement grant. Also, in order to qualify for an improvement grant, and owner-occupied dwelling outside Greater London must have a rateable value of less than £225. I do not know whether the mundic block houses would qualify on this basis or not. Special grants 'which are intended to deal with specific problems in houses in multiple occupation are not, I think, appropriate here.
The type of grant which on the face of it would he the most appropriate is the repairs grant. Before the Housing Act 1980, repairs grants were available only in cases of hardship in housing action areas and general improvement areas. We decided to make repairs grants more generally available to deal with the increasing problem of structural disrepair in the existing housing stock. The 1976 English house condition survey showed that this problem was at its worst in houses built before 1919. Since resources available for grants were limited, we decided that we should concentrate our efforts there to prevent older houses from falling into unfitness and having to be demolished.
The 1980 Act provides for repairs grants to be made for repairs of a substantial and structural nature to "old dwellings". The meaning of "old dwelling" is to be defined by the Secretary of State by order. The current order came into effect on 29 September 1982 and defines "old dwelling" as a dwelling which is or forms part of a building erected before 1 January 1919. It would be possible by a further order to extend the range of dwellings eligible for repairs grants and specify a later date of construction. Such an order would require the consent of the Treasury. Owner-occupied dwellings are also subject to a rateable value limit as in the case of improvement grants. The mundic block houses will not under the present order be eligible for repairs grant because they were, I believe, built after 1919.
In reply to a question from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on 10 November 1982, my hon.

379
Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that he was, without any commitment at that stage, considering whether to make the cut-off date for repair grants later than 1919. That matter has now been reviewed and, in a further reply to the hon. Member for Keighley, my hon. Friend said:
"We have been giving careful consideration to this matter. The conclusion we have reached is that, for the moment, there should be no change in the cut-off date for eligibility for repairs grants. The results of the 1981 English house condition survey show that 93 per cent. of the properties in substantial disrepair were in fact built before 1919."—[Official Report, 27 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 500.]
It is true that the latest English house condition survey did show an increasing problem of disrepair in the inter-war housing stock, but it has been decided that, given limited resources, the 1919 cut-off date should not be changed. The greatest problem of disrepair is still concentrated in the pre-1919 stock and for the time being efforts must be concentrated there. Regrettably, I must say, therefore, that the cut-off date for repair grant cannot for the present be changed in such a way that it will benefit the owners of mundic block houses.
The hon. Member may be inclined to pick up this point and ask if, even if the cut-off date cannot generally be varied, there is any chance of making a specific variation which would just apply to the mundic block houses alone. Section 71(3A) of the Housing Act 1974 does provide for the definition of "old building" to be prescribed by order by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury. It is possible by a further order not only to redefine "old building" generally but also to redefine it to apply to a specific category of dwelling. I am not persuaded, however, that the circumstances of this type of house differ in kind from other examples of deterioration in houses built between the wars, so as to justify a special order in the case of mundic houses alone.
The Carrick district council has asked that the problem should be dealt with in another way—by permitting the council to assist owners in the same way as it may assist owners of Airey houses under the scheme introduced on 14 February 1983. The hon. Gentleman referred to that matter. One component of that scheme is that repairs grants are an option by which the local authority may at its discretion help owners. That component of the scheme was in fact effected by a special order of the type just mentioned. It applied a new meaning to "old dwelling" specifically for dwellings of the Airey type. It also varied the rateable value limit to cover these dwellings. But this
380
variation was made because the circumstances in the case of Airey houses seemed entirely exceptional in both the scale and the spread.
The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made a further statement on 8 February this year on the subject of deterioration in Orlit and other prefabricated reinforced concrete houses as a result of carbonation of the concrete and the use of chlorides in its manufacture. In his statement, the Minister again made it clear that although, on the evidence then available, the combination of circumstances in the case of these houses was not the same as that thought to justify special assistance to the owners of Airey houses, he would be ready to consider any new fact that might emerge in the light of the technical data on prefabricated reinforced concrete houses which he was asking the Building Research Establishment to gather.
While I have considerable sympathy for the owners of mundic block houses, I cannot at the moment offer any promises about changing the legislation in such a way that they can be assisted.
I note the three points raised by the hon. Gentleman. He asked for a survey of the problem. I shall report that request to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I fully understand that until the problem is assessed it would not be feasible to discover whether it is sufficiently widespread to warrant special arrangements being made. I have considerable sympathy with the idea that a research operation would be a sensible use of my hon. Friend's powers, and no doubt he will give that suggestion consideration. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.
On the two other points that the hon. Gentleman raised — the tests of properties to determine whether the difficulty of the mundic block will occur, and assistance, I cannot go further than what I have already said. We are presently unable to meet the hon. Gentleman's requests. However, the Building Research Establishment is currently investigating many of the characteristics of building components. It might be possible to invite it to examine this problem also, but that again is a matter for my hon. Friend, not for me. Suffice it to say that the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put the points, with such clarity and force, means that we shall certainly consider all that he has said. If it is possible to go further than I have suggested, my hon. Friend will write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Three o' clock.