HL Deb 16 December 1959 vol 220 cc456-81

4.14 p.m.

EARL WINTERTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry into the organisation and administration of the Metropolitan and provincial police forces will be announced; and whether these terms of reference will include consideration of the causes of the increase in crime. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is going to make an important announcement in reply to my Question about the terms of reference of the Committee or Commission (I am not sure which it is) that is to be set up. I hope it is not being unduly conceited to say that the fact that this Question of mine was put on the Paper may have had some slight effect in accelerating a decision, because it is some time ago since the Home Secretary announced that he was going to set up a Committee or Commission, and only to-day, I understand, is the announcement going to be made. In those circumstances I do not ask my noble and learned friend to reply to any of the points which I am going to put forward in connection with this Question: I should be quite satisfied if he would be so kind as to say he will take note of them and pass them on to the appropriate channels, because he will naturally want to read out in full the decision.

I want to make one slightly personal observation, and it is this. No one could have a greater admiration for the Home Secretary, both as an individual and as a statesman, than I have; he is an old friend of mine of more than 30 years' standing. However, I do not know whether the rest of your Lordships would agree with me when I say that, in my opinion, in public life nothing is more immoral than if you sincerely disagree with any statesman, whether he is of your own Party or of another Party, than to refrain from expressing that disagreement because of personal friendship. I am afraid that in the course of my observations I must make some comments of a not too favourable nature upon the control of the Home Office during the present Home Secretary's tenure of it.

I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a curious fact—what I would describe as a complete contrast. I raised in your Lordships' House the very questions which in another place the Home Secretary said would be the subject of consideration by the inquiry, and I had most valuable support. I was supported, for example, by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Labour Opposition, and no fewer than three newspapers said that they agreed with what I had said and that the answer of the Minister (I would say in parenthesis that I do not blame the Minister, because he was obviously reading from a brief given to him by the Home Office) was most unsatisfactory. It seems strange that there should be this astonishing contrast. Months later the Government agree to exactly what I asked for and was refused in your Lordships' House in the summer.

There could be two explanations of this, one of them most unfavourable to myself and to your Lordships' House and the other very flattering. The unfavourable one would be that the Government might say:"Well, this was only raised by an old and unimportant Peer, and, after all, it does not matter much what the House of Lords says or decides; it is only when the Commons start chasing the fox that we have to take steps to get away." The flattering one, of course, would be that the Government were impressed with the almost unanimous support which I received in your Lordships' House for the points which I put in favour of some form of inquiry, in view of the very grave circumstances with which we are faced, both as regards the shortage of police and the amount of crime that there is in the country.

The next point that I want to make is an even more delicate one. I have consulted one or two in high places—not in this Government, but who occupied high positions in former Governments—who like myself have been in the Cabinet, not confined to one Party, and they are unanimously of the opinion that for one man to sustain the burden of the most onerous office in the Government, except perhaps that of the Premiership and of the Foreign Office—more onerous in a way than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of the human problems with which he is faced—and at the same time to be Leader of the House of Commons and also Chairman of the Conservative Party places an almost impossible burden upon a Minister. They go on to say—and some, at any rate, of the persons whom I have asked are very friendly with and, like me, greatly admire the Home Secretary—that they think that the reason for delay in reaching decisions in a number of matters is due to this impossible burden which the Home Secretary is carrying at the present time.

Let me mention two matters where there should have been a decision a long time ago. One of them is the question of whether or not it is possible to have a corps, or whatever one likes to call it, of people, enlisted for the purpose—not policemen—who will deal with traffic offences and traffic control in London. Suggestions to this end have been made again and again. I understand from what looks like inspired statements in the Press that the energetic Minister of Transport has persuaded his colleagues that at least a corps to deal with motor offences—I used the words"traffic offences" by mistake—is under consideration. Why was not a decision reached in this matter a long time ago? Why wait all this time, when the situation is getting worse and worse?

The next point is this. Everybody knows—and no Minister can deny it—that the main reason why you cannot get policemen in the Metropolitan Area and in some provincial areas is due to two causes. They are that the pay and emoluments are not sufficiently attractive to compete with industry, and the housing situation of married police is profoundly unsatisfactory. I worked in a curious colleagueship with a Member of another place, Mrs. Braddock, and we raised this question of housing the police on two or three occasions. She gave another reason, and gave examples of what happens in some provincial towns, where the housing authority absolutely refuses to help the watch committee or the chief constable in providing accommodation for married constables, mainly on the ground that people in the housing centres do not like to have policemen living among them. Why was not this dealt with months ago? It is said that it is very difficult to get policemen, and an almost impossible task. What a scandal it is that in this Metropolitan Police Area we should be short of 3,000 men at a time when crime is rising continuously!

The Army and, to a lesser extent, the R.A.F. were faced a few years ago with exactly the same position. They could not get recruits, and the recruits who did come forward were of a bad character—I mean, of course, voluntary recruits. Then, as a result of the energy of various Defence Ministers—and I think great credit is probably due to Mr. Sandys—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was induced to give such terms of pay and emoluments that an astonishing thing has happened. I understand that to-day the Army is quite satisfied with the recruits, both as to quantity and quality. Why cannot the Home Secretary and the police authorities do the same thing? Why has not anybody asked them about it? There is a feeling in the Conservative Party that you must not do anything to criticise the present Home Secretary, because he might be the next Prime Minister. But if things have happened under his administration which require criticism, then they should be criticised. I do not know any answer to the two points that I have put forward.

My third point is this. It was denied by the Government spokesman, when I raised the question in the summer, that there was any real difference of opinion between those whom I called redemptionists and the deterrers—the redemptionists being those who believe that the prime object of punishment and imprisonment should be to redeem the prisoner, and the deterrers who believe that the prime object was to prevent crime from being committed, and, if it was committed, to make the penalties and punishment so unpleasant that it would deter people in future. I am on very delicate ground, but it would seem that there is some evidence that distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, such as the present and the former Lord Chief Justice, are on the side of the deterrers. They have advocated severe penalties, and one at least has suggested the use of the birch. I think it is pretty obvious that the Home Secretary is slightly, at any rate, on the side of the redemptionists. If he is not, I do not understand this state of affairs.

Some years ago I had the honour of representing in another place—a curious position for a Tory, but I was asked to do it—the Prison Officers' Association. When I was at the Home Office I visited a number of prisons, and I was immensely impressed with the quality of the prison officers. I deeply resent the attacks made upon them in some quarters. It is an open secret—and nobody can deny it—that some form of corporal punishment for physical assault on warders was put in the Criminal Justice Act at the request of the Prison Officers' Association. I saw the other day some most disturbing figures. There may be an explanation, and I hope the Committee of Inquiry will go into the matter. In a number of cases where the visiting magistrates had advised that there should be birching or some form of corporal punishment, the Home Secretary had refused to confirm, or had refused to accept, that advice. Of course, there may have been medical reasons for this, but, if so, it seems strange that it should not have been put before the visiting magistrates. In the last debate we had appropriate tributes from more than one noble Lord about the magistrates of this country. I should have thought that visiting magistrates were perfectly capable of deciding whether the prisoner should, or should not, have corporal punishment. The failure of the Home Secretary to confirm this order in several cases has caused a certain amount of perturbation.

I turn to the next question with which I wish to trouble your Lordships, and I hope it will be taken into consideration by the Committee. I think that here no Party issue arises. Noble Lords on both sides of the House will agree with me that one of the great difficulties of the police, and one of the reasons why they find it difficult to deal with the more serious crimes, is the multiplicity of offences of every kind which we have on the Statute Book to-day and which are constantly being added to. A rather ridiculous situation has arisen in the case of some of these provisions. To use a vulgar phrase, there was a great"Ha, Ha," and feeling of self-congratulation in another place and in your Lordships' House, when we passed the Litter Act. As any of your Lordships who use Waterloo Station will agree, it is a complete and absolute dead letter. People throw down every sort of filth in front of the railway police on duty there, and there has not been a single conviction so far as I know. Passing these Acts which cannot be enforced, or which are difficult to enforce, makes the position of the police very difficult.

In order to make matters worse, an astonishing proposal has been made by the most reverend Primate, in which he wants to make adultery a crime. I do not wish to attack the most reverend Primate on this occasion—I have done so on many other occasions—and in fact he has been the subject of ferocious attack by Sir Alan Herbert, the Daily Telegraph and a Canon of St. Paul's, who thought he was mad. But I would say quite seriously that I do not think the most reverend Primate could have thought very carefully over the result of his action. I believe that the number of divorces for adultery runs into four figures. Of course, there are plenty of other reasons for divorce. If this law had been put into operation a year ago then, of course, it might have had a deterrent effect in the future, but there would have been at least another 1,000 people in prison. I do not wish to offend anybody, but it might indeed include some Members of your Lordships' House, to judge from what one reads in the newspapers.

Can noble Lords conceive the sort of situation that would arise? Presumably if the law was to be enforced there would have to be an adultery squad at Scotland Yard in the same way that there is a fraud squad. Then what a wonderful opportunity this would give to the popular Press to attack people in prominent positions, including people in your Lordships' House! I can see the sort of headline,"Member of adultery squad interrogates Duke: what was he doing during the week-end when the Duchess was away?";"Member of the adultery squad interrogates well-known Peer: why did he go to Paris without the Countess, and who was the girl he took with him?". I mention this as showing how fantastic is the suggestion that such an Act should be passed, and because it illustrates my point that one of the difficulties of the police—this very over-worked body, especially the C.I.D.—is the multiplicity of laws.

I have only three other short points to make, and here probably noble Lords opposite will find themselves in dissidence with me, but I think I shall have sympathy on this side of the House. I believe, and I have some evidence from those who are much better equipped to judge these matters than I am, that harm is being done to the maintenance of law and order by the sympathy in many quarters, some of them very respectable and high-minded, shown for actual criminals and also for agitators who encourage people to break the law. I will give two or three examples: Marwood and Podola, in the matter of sympathy with criminals; the astonishing attitude which many people took up about Archbishop Makarios in the days when he was condoning, by refusing to condemn them, the murders of British subjects; the way in which Members, outside your Lordships' House I hope, make a sort of martyr of Dr. Banda and suggest to the Government that they are almost behaving like the, Government of some of the Iron Curtain countries.

I think that this is doing harm, and that it is doing harm to those who use this argument. A respected member of the Labour Party said the other day that he thought the Opposition had lost votes at the Election by stressing so much the position of Nyasaland and Dr. Banda; they had given the impression that they were on the side of lawbreakers. An amusing friend of mine in another place said,"I only hope the Socialist Party will continue with their black lobby'; that is the best way I know for them to lose the next Election." That is the sort of attitude—the attitude of consideration for those who break the law or encourage others to break the law—that obviously makes it more difficult for the police in this country and the forces of law and order generally to impress upon the public, and especially the young, how necessary it is for them to have regard to the need for self-discipline.

Now my last two points, which are very short ones, are these.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, I feel I must protest about his suggestion that we on this side of the House have sympathy with law breakers, in particular, Podola.

EARL WINTERTON

I never said so.

LORD SHEPHERD

That is what it sounded very much like to me and my friends just now. I hope that if I am wrong the noble Earl will make it perfectly clear that that was not his intention.

EARL WINTERTON

I never mentioned noble Lords opposite. If the noble Lord had listened he would have heard me say I was not referring to anyone in this House. I do not say for a moment that the Labour Party as a whole had sympathy with Podola or Marwood, but a number of Members in the other place—and owing to reasons of etiquette I cannot say who they were—showed, I suggest, undue tenderness in the Podola case, and suggested, which was proved completely wrong, that he had been beaten up by the police. They showed a sort of sympathy, not with the crime but with the criminal.

LORD SHEPHERD

If the facts then appeared to point to the position that he had been beaten up, surely it was right and just and honourable for Members of Parliament to raise a voice of protest?

EARL WINTERTON

If they thought so; if they were so foolish in face of all the evidence as to think something had happened which had not happened, of course they were entitled to do so. In regard to the other question, the agitators, I do not think the noble Lord would deny the sympathy shown by his Party with various agitators in various places. I want to leave that subject and come to my last two points.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, before the noble Earl goes on, can he not see that there is a very great distinction between sympathising with Mau Mau murderers, which we on this side never did, and sympathising with the victims of gross brutality in Hola camp? That is the great difference. That is the attitude that we on this side of the House took up.

EARL WINTERTON

The noble Lord will not mind my speaking very frankly. He and I have been Members of another place and I will answer him as I would have answered in another place. It would be a little more honest on the part of the Opposition if they showed less excessive sympathy with what I admit was a deplorable incident, Hola Camp, and more sympathy with the victims of the various Governments behind the Iron Curtain. That is my answer to the noble Lord. I am very glad noble Lords differ from me. One of the objects of this debate was to bring out the difficulties of the police, which I think to some extent have been increased by the attitude that some Members—not of noble Lords opposite, but their Party—have taken up.

My last two points are these. When I raised this question originally I pointed out that there were no effective means for either a policeman aggrieved by the action of a watch committee or a chief constable, or a member of the public similarly aggrieved, to get any redress. I said that if he wrote to his member on the local council, the member would merely refer the matter to the chairman of the watch committee or the chief constable, and nothing would happen. I said that this differentiated the position from what happens in London. It appears to me that I was not quite accurate in saying that there was this great differentiation, because the most astonishing thing happened the other day.

Here no Party issue arises. Members of another place, irrespective of Party, were concerned at the way the Chief Commissioner settled a case out of court for £300, the result of which was that neither the civil servant who had originally alleged that he had been seriously assaulted, nor the policeman who denied the assault, was able to have his position considered in court which is, after all, the only place where it can be considered. The Home Secretary, as noble Lords who read his answers will see, was very anxious to make it clear that he did not necessarily approve or disapprove of the Chief Commissioner's action. He merely said that the evidence was conflicting. Of course the evidence would be conflicting unless it went to court; it was bound to be conflicting; the police said one thing and the aggrieved party something else.

He then went on to say that the Home Secretary could not direct the Chief Commissioner how he should act. The only thing he could do would be to dismiss him. This is the most difficult and delicate subject of all, and not, I am glad to say, one on which I think there is any difference of opinion on either side of the House. I sincerely hope that this Committee or Commission will examine this most difficult question. I fully realise that nothing could be more calamitous than that either a Chief Constable in the Provinces or a Chief Commissioner should be made the victim of political spite or any other form of spite, as happens in some countries, and be removed; and no doubt it is right to give him as firm a tenure of office as possible.

But a most interesting situation arises. I will not attempt to cross the"t's" and dot the"i's", but in more than one police area there has been under the present police head a steady increase in crime, a failure to recruit sufficient policemen and various incidents. If the men, whether they be Chief Constables or Chief Commissioners, who occupy these posts had been distinguished soldiers, sailors or airmen, probably they would have been removed. It is a well-known fact, as so many of your Lordships who have had the immense experience of Service life know, that a high commander in any of the three Services may not in the least be personally responsible for a defeat or for a scandal, or whatever it may be, under his command, but that does not prevent him from being removed, either in peace time or in war. So, therefore, these gentlemen are in a unique position. I do not know how it can be dealt with. Obviously, it is a matter which it is not for me to deal with; it would be for the members of the Inquiry and for those of your Lord ships with high judicial experience. But I think it is a most important question.

My Lords, that is all I have to say, except that I sincerely hope that this Committee will go into the question of the enormous number of police forces and of the smallness of some of them. Since last I spoke on this subject in your Lordships' House I have been told of one police authority consisting of 22 men in all. How can you expect to get efficiency in so small a force? In such a force there is so little chance of promotion that you cannot get the best men. I still think that there will have to be a far more drastic attitude towards merging. I greatly hope that the Commission or Committee will also go into the question of the relationship between inspectors of constabulary and the provincial police forces, because we had some rather disturbing replies from the noble Lord who replied for the Government last time on that subject. He said that they were not responsible for discipline. This is, of course, mixed up with the position of the officers. I am greatly obliged to so many of your Lordships who have listened to me, and I shall await with great interest what the noble and learned Viscount says as to the terms of reference of the Inquiry.

4.44 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I wish briefly to ask the noble and learned Viscount three questions, in the hope that he will be able to say whether they will be included for consideration in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which I understand is to be appointed. Before doing so, I should like to make two brief references to what the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said, although I shall endeavour not to follow him in most of his remarks, because I do not imagine that most of the subjects he dealt with could possibly be within the terms of reference of the Inquiry. One is in respect of myself, because I think I was the only Member of your Lordships' House who tabled a Question with regard to the condemned, and now deceased, murderer, Padola. But my Question, which was adjudged to be sub judice, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will remember, I did not pursue; it was tabled merely with the object of trying to get some information long before there was any evidence on the subject. I think that if the day ever comes when any Member of your Lordships' House refrains from asking for information on a subject of that kind, when it appears likely that there may have been some injustice, then it will be a very bad day for all of us.

The second point is that the noble Earl complained (if I do not put it too strongly) about the fact that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary had, in a recent case, reversed a decision of the visiting magistrates at Exeter gaol awarding corporal punishment to a prisoner for an assault—

EARL WINTERTON

I said"recent cases". I said that there were several cases, not merely one.

LORD STONHAM

It does not alter the purport of what I am going to say. That was the case that I had in mind, when visiting justices awarded corporal punishment to a prisoner adjudged guilty of an assault on prison officers. I do not believe that any noble Lords on these Benches will condone, support or do otherwise than condemn such acts of brutality. But I hope that, even if this matter is included in the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry, they will not in any respect interfere, or attempt to do so, with the prerogative of Her Majesty's Home Secretary in this matter. I should have thought that visiting magistrates do their best to fit the punishment to the crime. It is then the duty of the Home Secretary to fit the punishment to the prisoner. In addition to that, he has to take other matters into consideration. I would remind your Lordships that in regard to a court-martial, when there has been a sentence of death, that sentence is always subject to promulgation. I should have thought that was exactly the relationship of the Home Secretary in matters of this kind.

The first question that I want to address to the noble and learned Viscount is whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission will include the question of the pay of police officers. In my humble submission, the whole of the work of the Commission will be virtually useless unless it tackles this important question. We are all used to referring to our policemen as"wonderful." It is a sort of cliché. But it is a cliché which in many ways does a great deal of harm. Our policemen are not wonderful, and the public know it. Our policemen are, and always will be, ordinary working men, of average intelligence and superior physique, who are under discipline. They do their duty, often in the most dangerous circumstances, nearly always in the most unpleasant circumstances, and even ordinary routine duty in blazing sun, freezing cold and pouring rain. In that respect they are wonderful; they are just as wonderful as miners, steel workers and farm workers who do their job. In other words, they are ordinary men—with this difference, that they are ordinary men with power.

To-day, these men are being paid far less than many of their counterparts in industry. In my lifetime, within my memory, that represents a radical change. When I was a young man it was a common thing for a stiff-built chap from the countryside to come to the Metropolis or to some other town, and become a member of the police force. He was paid a higher wage than his counterpart in industry; he enjoyed a superior status in society, and a pension. In many respects he was like the old time railwayman, far above his industrial counterpart. In the rural community he may have been an ordinary policeman without promotion all his life, but he stood out and enjoyed a dignity and respect which, unfortunately, in the main part, policemen do not enjoy today. One basis of that is that they have lost a lot of that status. Unfortunately, a young policeman starting at £9 a week must, because of his profession, mix with a lot of unpleasant people—many of them moneyed people, who, because they are on the wrong side of the law subject him to temptations and corruptions which he may not be able to withstand. Therefore, I regard this item of pay as absolutely fundamental. The deplorable increase in offences committed by police officers which we read about in the Press virtually every day is confirmation of what I say.

The second point I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is this. Will there be an inquiry into the investigation of complaints by the public against the police; and will it be enacted that when such complaints are made, and thought worthy of investigation, they shall not be investigated by police officers? The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, and others who have had experience in another place, will know that on occasions we have had to submit a case to the Home Secretary. I will not give the details now, because I have not given notice to any former Home Secretary, but it has happened to me on several occasions that I have known—and not only because I have had the evidence: I have been told by the police—that a man has been"framed". Knowing that, I have taken all possible evidence to the Home Secretary and asked for an inquiry. That has been immediately granted, and within about ten days I have had a letter telling me that nothing can be done. As I have known that there has been no time for an inquiry I have gone back to the Home Secretary and insisted on an inquiry; and that has been carried out by police officers, with the same result. I would submit that justice must not only he done but must be seen to be done; and it cannot be done if, in inquiries of this kind, a police officer makes an inquiry about other police officers. It must be carried out by an independent civilian.

The third and final point that I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount concerns the question of promotion and relations between the Criminal Investigation Department and uniformed officers. It is the case that after three or four years a bright young constable can be transferred to the C.I.D. There he may wait ten years before he becomes a sergeant; and it may be 20 years before he becomes an inspector. Meanwhile, the not quite so bright man still in uniform may have become an inspector within 10 or 15 years. So there is the situation that the C.I.D. man of greater seniority and experience is in a position of inferiority to the uniformed man, because the uniformed many always takes charge in the division. That leads to friction and unfortunate circumstances, and I hope that it is a matter which can be inquired into. Above all, however, I hope that the question of pay can be looked into. I believe that the Royal Commission can do a very useful service, and even if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack cannot say to-night that these points will be dealt with, I hope that they may be considered and put before the Commission.

4.53 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, will he permit me to ask him one or two questions, which I can promise him will not be very exciting but are wholly relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. Will the Royal Commission be able to solve the age-old question which is continually and increasingly disturbing the public, and make clear who is responsible for the enforcement of the law? I ask that question because if there is a sad and wholly wrong thing in a democracy, it is for the law to be into disrepute; and, as I have said in your Lordships' House and all over the country, the road tragic laws of this country are in disrepute today because of a lack of enforcement.

I am told—with what truth I should like the noble and learned Viscount to tell me—that there is only one authority who can enforce the law, or bring a case so that the law can be enforced; that is, the authority of a chief constable. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount: is it right that a decision on whether prosecutions are brought for infringement of the Road Traffic Acts should rest wholly and solely with a chief constable? There will soon be 12 million motor vehicles being driven on our roads, and if a decision does rest with the chief constable it means that the law can be enforced in a different manner in every town or county through which one goes.

It is commonly supposed that one cannot park a motor car where there is a"No parking" sign. The obverse is sometimes accepted—that one can park where there is not such a sign. That is not true. One cannot park one's car anywhere if, in the opinion of those who have responsibility for the enforcement of the law it causes, or is likely to cause, an obstruction. I quite agree with that; but there is no uniformity. One chief constable will hold one view, and the chief constable of the next town will hold another; and if you have safely parked your car in a side street in one town and are prosecuted when you do the same in the next town, it is no defence to say,"The police let me do that in the town I was in last night." So I would ask the noble and learned Viscount: Is this to be one of the points to which this Royal Commission will give attention? Is that possible?

All power to the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport! He excites my admiration, and I hope that he succeeds in bringing the traffic in every town under his control—although I do not know whether he knows what he is up against. But until that happens, can we have some guidance? If only we knew the crimes we can commit, under the Statutes which Parliament churns out by the thousand, by statutory instrument, every time we sit behind the steering wheel of a motor car, we should never get behind a steering wheel; and yet those provisions are unenforceable. Is that right? Is it good? I do not pretend to supply the answer. I am only asking a question of the noble Viscount. Will it be within the powers of this Royal Commission to say to Parliament:"Before ever you pass any more laws for goodness' sake see that they stand some reasonable chance of enforcement."? There were put into the Road Traffic Act provisions affecting cyclists which were the same as those affecting drivers of motor vehicles. There are 20 million cyclists, however. How can any police force ever enforce those regulations with fairness to 20 million people? That is my simple question. Will such matters as the enforcement of law and who is responsible, the uniformity of enforcement and the possibilities of enforcement, be subjects with which this Royal Commission will deal?

4.59 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think it would be for your Lordships general convenience if I were to deal first with the first half of the Question of my noble friend, Lord Winterton: To ask Her Majesty's Government when the terms of reference will be announced … because I have the honour to announce the terms of reference which answers that point. Perhaps then I may deal with questions in regard to these terms which have been asked by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lucas of Chilworth; then deal with the second half of the Question which is on the Order Paper; and, lastly, say a few words in answer to the general points raised by the noble Earl, and particularly in answer to his attack on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I have known the noble Earl for 40 years, and one of the great honours which I think I possess is to have been a friend of his for the last 25. And I am sure that he would be the first person to hold in supreme contempt a Minister who heard an attack like that made on a colleague and did not reply to it.

EARL WINTERTON

Hear, hear!

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, if I may therefore deal with the matters in that order, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made a statement in another place this afternoon about the proposed inquiry into the organisation and administration of the Metropolitan and provincial police forces. The statement was as follows—and I quote:

"The Queen has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission on Police with the following terms of reference:

"To review the constitutional position of the police throughout Great Britain, the arrangements for their control and administration and, in particular, to consider:—

  1. (1) the constitution and functions of local police authorities;
  2. (2) the status and accountability of members of police forces including chief officers of police;
  3. (3) the relationship of the police with the public and the means of ensuring that complaints by the public against the police are effectively dealt with; and
  4. (4) the broad principles which should govern the remuneration of the constable, having regard to the nature and extent of police duties and responsibilities and the need to attract and retain an adequate number of recruits with the proper qualifications.
"I am glad to be able to announce that the Right Honourable Sir Henry Willink, Bart., M.C., Q.C., will act as Chairman of the Royal Commission. I hope to be able to announce the names of members of the Commission shortly."

That is the Prime Minister's statement.

If I may now deal with the points that were raised in anticipation by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think that the first point, the question of pay, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will appreciate, is covered. I want to make the position quite clear, because I know the interest he takes in this matter. He will remember what I said about the broad principles, because the noble Lord is well aware that there was a detailed consideration by a Committee under my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey in 1949. Now this Inquiry, of course, is directed to the main point which the noble Lord put before the House: the broad principles which should govern the remuneration … having regard to the nature and extent of police duties and responsibilities and the need Ito attract and retain … recruits. … It is the broad principles; and it seemed to me that that was what the noble Lord had primarily in mind. The second paint which he raised concerned complaints by the public against the police. I read again the words in the statement that I have just given your Lordships: … ensuring that complaints by the public against the police are effectively dealt with. It would be wrong for me to go further. But clearly the Royal Commission will have the opportunity of considering exactly the point which the noble Lord raised. I think that is the correct way to put it at the moment.

The third point, with regard to the question of the C.I.D. and the uniformed force, is, of course, one of the matters of the"control and administration" of the police mentioned in the Commission's terms of reference. I am sure that the members of the Royal Commission will read this debate and have it in mind; and, in addition, I am sure that many other bodies which the noble Lord mentioned will also have this point in mind. Again, it is for the Royal Commission to interpret their terms of reference, but one must apply common sense to this matter, and I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied that the matter will be brought to their atten tion. I think that that deals with the three points. At any rate, I have tried to deal with them fully and without any equivocation.

With regard to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, of course, that is the very wide point of whether one believes in local or central administration. I should prefer—and I hope the noble Lord will not take it amiss—not to express any view to-day, because the terms I read were very wide—"the arrangements for their control and administration"—and I should prefer to leave that point. May I put it this way? The noble Lord is, so far as I know, perfectly correct in saying that the prosecuting authority (apart from those cases where it is a matter for the fiat of the Attorney General, or some cases where it is necessary to get the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions) is the chief constable. As the noble Lord knows, the classical argument (I am not going to discuss it at all to-night) over that is that he should not be subject—whether the police authority is the Home Secretary, in London, or a local watch committee or the standing joint committee of a county council—to political or extraneous influences in deciding whether to prosecute. I hope the noble Lord will not think I am discourteous—I do not think he will—if I do not enter into that question, but clearly it is a constitutional matter of great importance.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Could he answer just this simple question? Will it come within the purview—if I am not asking an improper question—of those terms of reference, as he would interpret them, to cover the point?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, when one is Lord Chancellor, and therefore the opinions of the office, whatever be the value of the individual, have a certain weight, it is rather difficult to begin to interpret the terms. I would rather not attempt that to-night. It is not through any lack of desire, but because it would be rather difficult if I did.

I have dealt with the first two parts of the Answer I had in mind for the House. The next part of the Question of my noble friend Lord Winterton was whether these terms of reference will include consideration of the causes of the increase in crime. My Lords, in regard to that part of the noble Earl's question, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the causes of crime are not a subject which can be conveniently examined in conjunction with the structure of police administration. The noble Earl, with his immense Parliamentary and administrative experience, will realise that the Royal Commission will be vitally concerned with the structure of police administration, and the constitutional position of the constable, which covers the relationship of the police and public and the police and Parliament. The Royal Commission may consider—it is a matter for them but they may consider—that police powers and police practice are relevant to the relationship of police and public and to other matters within their terms of reference. Causes of crime (we have debated them so often in your Lordships' House) obviously involve a profundity of other matters, including religion, ethics, education, youth service, recreation and penology, to name only a few—apart from the question of the efficacy of detection. That is the third part of my answer.

Now I should like to deal with the attack by the noble Earl on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The first ground of the attack that he made was that my right honourable friend had three offices: Home Secretary, Leader of the House of Commons, and Chairman of the Conservative Party. My Lords, I venture to make three answers to that. The first is that my right honourable friend is one of the ablest and most hardworking people that I have ever met in my life.

EARL WINTERTON

We all agree.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The second is that it is not for me to criticise a combination of offices decided upon by the Prime Minister. However, when I was Home Secretary I was also Minister for Welsh Affairs, which involved visiting that delectable Principality—I see my noble friend Lord Aberdare is here—some 25 times a year. My Lords, I do not think that the offices are too much.

The third point is that I am very surprised to find my noble friend Lord Winterton as a leader of the work-shy movement. One of the most depressing features of modern life is the way people are afraid of hard work. I think that the more work that you get, the more the human mind responds. It is like a motor car engine: the more it is"revved up" by hard work, the more easily it takes hills in front of it. I hope my noble friend Lord Winterton will believe that this is a most serious view, on which I have tried, successfully or not, to conduct my own life: that is, that the more responsibility you have, and the harder the work in front of you, the more you are trained and able to do hard work. I have always found that my right honourable friend Mr. Butler is an adherent of the same school of thought, and I have no doubts about him on that score.

Now the noble Earl took two examples. One was the delay in establishing traffic wardens. Of course, whenever it is suggested that anything should be done, it is always possible to say why it was not done earlier. I hate relying upon my memory, but I spent hours and days and weeks, with the constant assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, considering road traffic Bills in this House, and I should not have thought—I do not want to put it too high—that traffic wardens was one of the matters which was stressed in our discussions. I do not say that it was not mentioned, but I do not think it was one of the key points. And the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will agree that we all did our best to consider the problems of London traffic and the suggestions which came from every quarter of the House.

The other example was with regard to police houses. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, referred to a campaign in regard to this matter, in which he assisted, before October, 1951. I can tell him, with the greatest possible respect, that he is out of date on that point. I do not want to make it appear as if I was pleased with myself, and I hope your Lordships will not take it that way, but I became Home Secretary on October 26, 1951, and I can tell the noble Earl that I was fully aware of this problem, and that I did my best. Of course, because it was my best does not mean that it was any good; but I did my best, and I certainly increased very considerably the number of police houses available both in London and in the country. But what I did is unimportant. What is important is that the police authorities of the country were very much alive to that point, and have been doing their utmost to deal With it; and I think my noble friend Lord Craigton will agree that the same applies to Scotland, which was outside my jurisdiction.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? He has given—and I am very much obliged to him for giving it—a full, somewhat"round-the-wicket" answer on this point, but I asked him a very direct question: are the appropriate police authorities, including the Police Federation, satisfied with the housing accommodation available to-day, especially as regards married men?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope not.

EARL WINTERTON

That is my whole point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have never known anyone—any politician, or anyone—who has been satisfied with housing conditions, and I hope I never shall. I certainly am not; and no party in the country, and no person, will be until we have advanced a great deal further. Of course there is a great deal to be done. We all agree on that. All that we disagree on is the best method of doing it. But we agree that there is much to be done, and I should never dream of saying that people were satisfied. I was not satisfied, and I should hate the noble Earl to think that I was satisfied. I am only saying that I did my utmost to deal with the problem, and that the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department consider it one of their main problems, on which they are always working and on which they have done the utmost within their powers.

The noble Earl gave his reasons with regard to the lack of recruitment. This is a matter which will be considered by the Commission; and, therefore, I am not going to argue it. I will merely repeat something that I have said before. It is on record in both Houses, and it will be for the Commission to consider it. I will not go beyond what I have said before. I have always thought that one of the difficulties was this: we are dealing with a situation in a modern world, with light industry fully employed, and with very pleasant five-day-week jobs available. Against that, you have the choice of a disciplined service; and that choice was in front of a group of people who, for a number of years, included many who had served during the war-time period in a disciplined service, and felt that they had served quite a long time. There is always this difference between a disciplined service and another, that it does not merely affect the man himself, but affects the girl he is going to marry, who knows that he will always be on call to the service and that they will never entirely be able to shape their own lives, even on the short range, because of that. I say only that these are the two difficulties which I have always said myself are existing difficulties. I say no more about them, because I am sure the Royal Commission will consider them.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, might I say to my noble friend—and this will be my last interruption—that he has not dealt at all with the point I made. Every argument that he has just used applies equally to the Army, and yet the Army has got recruits, because it has so greatly improved pay and emoluments. He does not seem to like that. I am making an attack not on the Home Secretary but on the tenure of his office. I want to know why the Home Secretary has not done for his Force what the Service Ministers have done for their Forces.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, if the noble Earl will give me a little time, I will come to that point. Do not let him worry about interrupting me. I have given an undertaking to the House that I like interruptions, and I am waiting with the keenest expectation for some noble Lord to beat the record of the most reverend Primate, who interrupted me nine times in one speech.

To revert to the point, the noble Earl did not say that the total strength of the police force is greater than pre-war, which is the position. I am not accusing him of deliberately making a bad point. The success in the county forces has to be balanced against the difficulties which we have found in the big cities; and we have also to consider the different kind of life—the absence of travel and so on—which the police have, as compared with the Services. The noble Earl has still to face the point I have made: that overall there are more policemen in the Force than before the war. If we take the latest figure, after National Service is changed, I think we have more men in the Service.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, has the proportion of police to population gone up? That is the only point that matters: the proportion of police to the population, which has greatly increased in the years.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have not that figure in mind, nor has the noble Earl. I gather. After all, this is not in his Question. I am answering the best I can, and I do not have the figures of the comparative proportion. He cannot very well blame me, because I have had no notice of it. What I say is that the general figure shows an increase. I do not suppose that the noble Earl knows whether there are certain corps in the Army or certain parts of the Services in which there is a decrease—that is the comparative point. I do not know. I am trying to give him from memory and an accumulated store of information the best answer I can.

The next point is one on which I nearly despair of getting ad idem with the noble Earl, because we have had it before. The noble Earl will make an artificial dichotomy between deterrence and redemption. Whatever defects I have, I have had to study penal treatment very hard, and I believe that since 1895 we cannot make that dichotomy. The object of penal treatment is both deterrence and reformation, and a penal treatment which did not include both factors would be useless. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will acquit me of trying to avoid his argument. I simply think that his premise is so utterly false that I cannot get into the rare hypothetical sphere in which only his argument would apply.

The next point on which he attacked my right honourable friend was on the fact that he came to a different conclusion from the visiting justices. One thing that would bring the administration of this country crashing down in ruins is if Ministers avoided doing their duty; and one of the duties which, rightly or wrongly, Parliament has placed on Ministers is to review other people's decisions. Once a Minister reviews a decision, he does his best to come to the right conclusion; and once a Minister starts looking over his shoulder to see whether that decision would please the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, he is bringing into the decision a factor which is not only wrong but dishonest and unworthy.

The next point the noble Earl made was about the multiplicity of offences which Parliament creates. It is a sad fact about Parliament that it has gone on producing Acts creating a multiplicity of offences ever since the Industrial Revolution. The noble Earl (I thought I knew, but I looked it up, because one always has to confirm one's thoughts) was a member of the Government from 1937 to the beginning of the war, for some three years. I was then a very young private Member of another place, and I regarded the noble Earl with a reverence which is almost as great as that I have for him now after so many years; but I do not remember any dramatic brake being put on the Parliamentary output of legislation involving new offences during the years when the noble Earl was in the Government. Therefore, I do not think there is anything in that point.

The noble Earl went on to deal with the Litter Act which was passed by your Lordships' House. I do not think that I ought to go into that matter. Then he dealt with the recent suggestion of the most reverend Primate. It would ill become me to assume any responsibility for any suggestion of the most reverend Primate in regard to the criminal law, and I am not going to do it now. Nor do I think that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has any ministerial or other responsibility for suggestions for increasing the number of criminal offences made from that quarter. The noble Lord then got on to the question of whether there were Parties in the State who encouraged criminal activity. I am not going to enter into the private war between him and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on that point. I am not even going to enter the argument. I would say only that this is also something for which my right honourable friend has not so far been given responsibility.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend again. He seems to think that the whole of my speech was directed to an attack on the Home Secretary. Nothing of the sort. I was drawing attention to a number of matters which I hope will be considered by this Commission. I never suggested that the Home Secretary or the noble and learned Viscount should bring in a Bill on adultery. The noble and learned Viscount must not be so sensitive about his right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Earl will read his speech he will see that he began by saying that he was going to draw attention to a number of facts on which he disagrees with the Home Secretary. It was he who introduced that point. After he said that, he produced these points as making criticisms of my right honourable friend. That is how it will appear. I can tell the noble Earl that I do not care how he puts it now, but if someone attacks a right honourable colleague of mine in the way he did, he is going to get the answer from me; and the answer he has got from me is that when his attack is analysed there is nothing in it at all. That is my concluding remark in the fourth part of my speech.