§ Mr. Mike O'BrienI beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 13, line 26, after 'rank', insert
', or made subject to a permanent ban on promotion, or is fined a sum exceeding one week's pay'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 67, in schedule 3, page 62, line 31, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 33 and insert
'The costs of an appellant shall be defrayed out of the police fund of the relevant police authority unless the tribunal directs otherwise'.No. 69, in schedule 6, page 80, line 8, at end insert'nominated by the appropriate staff association.'.
§ Mr. O'BrienHere we seek to challenge the Government's view of how the Police Act 1964 should allow appeals. The Government suggest that appeals to the police appeals tribunal would be allowed only when an officer has been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank. An appeal to the tribunal would not be allowed when the officer was fined or subjected to a permanent ban on promotion.
In my submission, this creates an anomaly. Let us consider an allegation of improper conduct made against an inspector and against a constable and based on exactly the same facts. Suppose that the allegation is proved in the first hearing, and the inspector is demoted. Suppose that the constable is fined £700. Both appeal to their chief constable, and are refused.
The situation of the two officers then diverges, because the inspector is entitled to appeal to the police appeals tribunal. He wins. His demotion is reversed; but the police constable cannot appeal to the police appeals tribunal, so he has to pay the £700 fine. In effect, he remains convicted of that disciplinary offence. Such an unjust result cannot be sustained in all conscience. The matter should not be left like that. The amendment seeks equity and justice in police disciplinary rules. If he refuses to support the amendment, the Minister will have to justify allowing such an anomaly to exist.
On amendment No. 67, the Bill reverses the current position whereby the appellant is liable to pay the costs, including his own, only if the Secretary of State should so direct and he is required to give a reason for doing so. The 244 effect of the Government's provision would be to discourage officers who have been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank—and who have therefore already suffered a severe penalty—from appealing to the police appeals tribunal. Many officers will be concerned that they will not be able to afford an appeal, which would undermine police confidence in the disciplinary system.
Surely, my proposal is the best course of action. Where an officer has made a legitimate and arguable appeal, where there is a real case, his costs should be paid by the police authority; where the case is frivolous, the tribunal may direct that he loses his costs. The amendment would enable the police appeals tribunal to stop frivolous appeals and prevent waste of public money but, at the same time, it would allow officers to exercise their legitimate right to appeal.
9 pm
The Government's proposal creates injustice by deterring an officer from exercising his right of appeal. The clause contains no commitment even to pay an officer's costs when he wins a case.
Amendment No. 69 seeks to place in statute the principle that staff associations will be represented on the police appeals tribunal. In principle, the Government do not demur from that suggestion and appear to accept it. If that is the case, let us include it in the Bill and ensure that staff associations have that safeguard. I therefore ask my hon. Friends and Conservative Members to support the amendment, the police and justice in police disciplinary rules.
§ Mr. ShersbyI had intended that my name should appear on the amendments with that of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), but unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding in the Public Bill Office, that did not happen. I want to make it clear, however, that I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks on these important amendments.
I want particularly to concentrate my attention on amendment No. 67, the purpose of which is to retain the existing position whereby an appellant's costs are defrayed out of the relevant police authority police fund unless the tribunal decides otherwise. I want that position to continue. The Bill will have the effect of providing that an appellant police officer shall pay the whole of his or her costs unless the police appeals tribunal directs otherwise. As the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North said, that is a reversal of the current position whereby the police fund meets the costs unless the Secretary of State is minded to direct otherwise.
I greatly regret the proposed reversal of the present position and the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to introduce the proposal. The clear effect of the Bill's provision will be to discourage officers who have been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank, and who have already suffered a severe financial penalty, from appealing to the police appeals tribunal. Obviously, they will be deterred because they will not know whether they will receive their costs.
Many officers will plainly be unable to afford the cost of an appeal, and that could have a serious effect on confidence in the police discipline system, which, as all hon. Members know, is vital to the way in which our police service operates. I must ask why my right hon. and learned Friend has made this proposal. To my knowledge, the 245 Government have not produced any evidence to show that the appeal system has been abused. If they had, we might have addressed our minds to the problem. I certainly have not seen any evidence of abuse.
The House knows only too well that police officers face an inordinate number of problems on the street. Individuals are prone to making allegations for malicious purposes. Many villains have nothing to lose by making serious allegations against police officers, and they do so.
By refusing to allow the payment of an appellant's costs, the Bill runs contrary to the spirit that has pervaded the relationship between the Home Office and the police for many years and adds to the pressures facing police officers. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a considerate colleague. He is regarded in all parts of the House as a great supporter of the police service. If he is unable to accept amendment No. 65, will he at least assure the House that costs will be awarded to an officer who wins his or her case?
In other such cases, an individual might apply for and receive legal aid. A police officer cannot apply for legal aid and will not know until a case is completed whether his or her costs have been awarded. If an officer wins, it is only fair and reasonable for costs to follow. That would at least offer some assurance to officers who are genuinely worried by this small but significant change by the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North and me some assurance that will enable us to tell the Police Federation and other staff associations that the Government are mindful of the changes that the Bill will make if it is enacted.
§ Mr. Charles WardleI listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), but I was not convinced by their arguments. I shall first address amendment No. 65 before dealing at greater length with amendment No. 67, on which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman dwelt.
It was originally envisaged that the tribunals would provide police officers with access to external review in situations where employees have access to industrial tribunals.
No one can argue that we have not listened to the arguments of the staff associations or Opposition Members. One example of our readiness to meet possible sources of genuine concern is the fact that we have already introduced a Government amendment adding reduction in rank to the matters that may be appealed to the tribunal—a matter which, in outside employment, might be interpreted by industrial tribunals as constructive dismissal.
Amendment No 65. suggests that the review should cover a number of matters. A permanent ban on promotion is not a matter on which the Home Secretary can make regulations, so there is no need to consider rights of appeal. Fines, at whatever level, are essentially internal matters. If a large fine were to be imposed—I do not comment on whether fines will continue to be part of the pattern of police personnel arrangements—the officer could appeal to his chief constable that the amount concerned was out of all proportion to his offence. If the chief constable did not 246 agree, it would be fair to conclude that the officer's actions were regarded gravely by the management of his or her force and that the amount ordered was not unfair.
I do not therefore see a role for the new police appeal tribunals in internal matters; nor, as a matter of practicality, would I wish to see such an elaborate and expensive system burdened with such relatively trivial issues that would prejudice and could delay the consideration of more substantive cases.
§ Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)I did not serve on the Committee that considered the Bill and therefore I am not aware of all the intricate matters that were debated in Committee, but I understand that last year 1,916 complaints were made alleging incivility by police officers, many of which were made in London. I understand also that as the acts of incivility committed by police officers were not criminal offences and were not in breach of codes of practice, they will no longer be referrable to the Police Complaints Authority. Instead, they will be dealt with by the police internally. There will be no civilian oversight. Is that in the public interest? Is it true that the Bill will have that effect when enacted?
§ Mr. WardleIn short, the answer to the hon. Gentleman, who has just joined us—I am glad that he has—is yes.
I move on to amendment No. 67 and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North. An appeal is justified only if there is some substantial injustice to remedy. When appellants challenge the decisions of those who are appointed to take them, it is not unreasonable to require them to have sufficient confidence in the rights of their cases to be prepared to meet their own costs. No one is suggesting that they should bear the costs of the tribunal as a whole or those of the police force.
The outlay for an appeal does not have to be substantial. The stronger the grounds of appeal, the less special skills are required to present them. Whatever the grounds, an appeal tribunal will be willing to listen to appellants if they appear by themselves or with a friend. If they choose to employ professional advice, that must be a matter for them. If an appellant has a substantial or complex legal point to argue, I think that the appeal tribunal—however that were done—would grant him or her costs. It would almost certainly do so if the case were good enough for the appellant to win.
I cannot value highly the importance of any appeal in which even the appellant has so little confidence in the likelihood of winning that he or she is unprepared to fund the costs. If that is the position, I cannot understand why the appeal should be made. There must be a degree of commitment.
The amendment would result in the appellant's costs being paid in every case where the tribunal did not direct otherwise. That means that anyone who had been dismissed, required to resign, or reduced in rank could appeal at virtually no risk of incurring any cost no matter how clear the evidence against him and irrespective of how heinous the offence for which he had been disciplined. It is obvious without me saying more that such an arrangement would have a tendency to encourage appeals. If someone has nothing to lose, why should he not lodge an appeal? That is what happens now.
247 In cases in which the appeal has been considered to be without merit, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has generally regarded the expectation that costs will not be given against the appellant as being so strong that it would be unreasonably harsh to make a direction as to costs. That is not to say that that will always be the position. In one recent instance the appeal tribunal advised that the appellant should be required to pay his own costs as the appeal was entirely without merit. As a result, the appellant's costs were not met by the police fund. That case serves to illustrate the point that is made in the present draft of the Bill. Two of the factors to which the tribunals should give their attention are costs and whether there is sufficient merit in the appeal to justify payment of the appellant's costs.
The present draft of the Bill deliberately reverses the current expectation that an appellant's costs will always be met. In future, the appellant will pay his or her costs unless the tribunal directs otherwise. A tribunal would make a direction in any case where the appellant won his appeal, but it might do so in cases in which it considered that the appellant had had a substantial case to argue which it was valid to bring before the tribunal.
The arrangement that we propose is not an unusual one. It is the normal practice at tribunals that appellants bear their own costs. Industrial tribunal cases are fought on the basis of the appellant's own costs, as are teachers' appeals against a barring order made by the Secretary of State for Education. That is the position in most other actions that are brought before tribunals. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
I recognise that the purpose behind amendment No. 69 is to put it beyond doubt that the fourth member of the police appeals tribunal, whom we added recently to take account of the concern that we did not have the balance completely right, should be selected from a list provided by the staff associations. The argument has already been put to me on the basis of the English provisions and the amendment refers to the Scottish forces. As I have said, while the detailed provisions have not yet been finalised, we intend to work closely with the police authorities and staff associations in drawing up the appropriate procedures and we are confident that this process will suffice to address the concerns which underlie the amendment. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienI am sure that the House will recognise that the Minister failed to deal with the anomaly regarding the inspector and the constable that I put to him. In addition, he was not prepared to give the assurance sought that persons who win their appeals will receive their costs.
§ Amendment negatived.