REPRESENTATION AT DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (Hansard, 14 May 1984)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
With this we may take Government amendment No. 206.

§ Mr. Brittan
The purpose and effect of the new clause is, I believe, fairly obvious and I hope that it will receive a general welcome from the House. It implements the undertaking given in March, subsequently amplified in Committee, that accused police officers should have the right to be represented by a lawyer at first instance disciplinary hearings at which they are liable to be punished by loss of job or rank.
Subsection (1) embodies the principle in a straightforward way. It provides that if the officer has not been given the opportunity to be legally represented it will not be possible for him to be punished by way of dismissal, requirement to resign or reduction in rank. The formula differs slightly in form, but not in effect, from that which was described to the Committee and embodied in an earlier version of the clause. This is a simpler and clearer version.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that when an accused officer elects to be legally represented he may choose whether that representation is to be by a barrister or a solicitor. Subsection (3) provides the corollary to the preceding subsections; if an officer has been offered a lawyer, the heavier penalties will be available, but if he has not been offered a lawyer those penalties will not be available, but he may be represented only by a serving police officer.
Subsection (4) requires me to make regulations under the Police Act 1964 to specify the procedure for notifying an accused officer whether he may be legally represented, and the timing both of the notification and of his reply to it.
60 The right that we are giving is a right not to lose job or rank without having had the opportunity of legal representation. Obviously, if the officer decides not to take up the offer of a lawyer, those punishments must still be available. Accordingly, subsection (5) provides that if the officer has had the opportunity of being represented by a lawyer and either fails without good reason to give notice of his decision or gives notice that he does not wish to have a lawyer he will still be liable to be punished by loss of job or rank.
Subsection (6) provides that when an officer has given notice that he wishes to be legally represented the case against him may also be presented by a lawyer.

§ Mr. Dubs
We support the new clause, as we did in Committee. We believe that a police officer who faces disciplinary charges that are liable to have serious consequences for him should be legally represented. That is a basic right of police officers.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who bore the burden of the debates in Committee, on the extraordinary patience that they have shown in dealing with this complex matter.
I know that it was not easy for the Government to arrive at this conclusion. They had to consider the other parts of the Home Office firmament who might have argued that what is sauce for the police goose must be sauce for other ganders. I recognise that the Government had a difficult task.
Secondly, Ministers had to consider other implications within the Government machine and Whitehall generally and they also had to face the reservations that I understand, though I do not share, of the Association of Chief Police Officers. In overcoming those difficulties, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have shown a great understanding of the importance of the matter to the police service.
The issue under discussion has nagged away for a long time. I will not say that it has poisoned relationships within the service, but it has not helped relationships between the ranks. I hope that the new clause will relieve the service of many of the problems—particularly the anticipated problems—that have clogged up the machinery from time to time. The new clause will bring about an improvement in the relationships between ranks and, therefore, an improvement in police morale.
I trust that the Home Secretary will be able to make the regulations speedily and will consider who is to pay for the legal representation. The Police Federation would like the public purse to bear the cost, but I think that it is inconceivable that that could be done in all circumstances.
However, it is worth noting that when an accused officer avails himself of the new right to be legally represented the chief officer bringing the charges will be represented. It is fair to remind the House that the chief officer will have his QC paid for by the taxpayer, but the accused police officer will not receive such help. It may be that this is, in all the circumstances, the best that can be achieved, but I am entitled to draw attention to that. The Police Federation from time to time is approached by its members and asked whether it will bear the cost of legal representation, and I should like my right hon. and learned Friend's confirmation that nothing will stand in the way 61 of its doing that. I believe that it already virtually has the power to do so, but perhaps the regulations would make that explicit.
This is an important step forward towards giving to the police the rights that they should enjoy within a responsible service at a time when they are much stretched in many ways, whether through picketing, terrorism, crime or whatever. I think that they will thank my right hon. and learned Friend as a Home Secretary who has given ordinary members of the police service a long sought after right, and they will credit him for doing so.

§ Mr. Brittan
I give my thanks for what has been said both by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks about the way in which this has been handled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point when making the regulations and, subject to any correction, which I do not think will be necessary, I believe that the Police Federation already has the right to pay for representation and will continue to have that right.
Subsection (6) does not require there to be representation on the part of those presenting the case against the police officer if he is represented. It does not necessarily follow that there will always be representation on both sides, although obviously in the nature of things, if the case is considered sufficiently serious for the person charged to be entitled to be represented because of the risk of the punishment, it is probable that the case will be presented by counsel or a solicitor.