§ 3.10 p.m.
§ Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
§ Clause 2 [Police authorities for counties and county boroughs]:
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to put it beyond doubt that in county boroughs the town clerk is the person to take or defend any legal proceedings on behalf of the watch committee. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, after ("council") insert ("or town clerk").—(Lord Derwent.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 32 [Local inquiries]:
§
LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
(6) Any person attending any inquiry held under this section may be represented by counsel, solicitor or any other person.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to one moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Stonham, to which my name was affixed. I believe that when this point was discussed in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, gave an assurance that the matter would be considered.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he was not here. I said that I would have another look at it, which is not quite the same thing.
§ LORD SILKINI think it is a distinction without a difference. All I said was that there was a promise to consider. I should be very glad to have the result of that consideration, or further look, if the noble Lord prefers that expression. The short point is that Clause 32 provides for inquiries to be held into the conduct of certain police officers or others. Such inquiries may have very important consequences to the people concerned. They are asked to come before the inquiry, and questions are put to them. Many of them, however, are unaccustomed to dealing with matters of that kind before tribunals. They may be asked questions which are of great consequence to their future, and may even have consequences 401 on their liberty. It was felt—and the Law Society, in particular, felt very strongly—that such persons should have the opportunity to be represented by counsel, a solicitor or any other person, particularly if their interests were going to be vitally affected. This Amendment seemed to me earlier, and seems to me to-day, a most reasonable Amendment. I do not propose to take up any further time in arguing it, because in my opinion it is self-evident that a person appearing before an inquiry, whose interests may be prejudicially affected, should have the opportunity of being represented before that inquiry. I should be very interested to know what the noble Lord has to say on the Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, the result of my further consideration is that I hope to be able to explain the position more clearly to your Lordships than I did last time. I think the first thing I should say is that it may not be quite realised how wide are the terms of Clause 32. These inquiries ordered by the Secretary of State can be on any police matter, and will not necessarily be confined to so-called offences by or complaints against the police. The terms are very wide. These inquiries will be similar to those under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and the point here, as I said last time, is that there are no parties to these inquiries.
If it is clear before an inquiry starts—and one must remember that in charge of the inquiry is an experienced barrister or lawyer—that somebody in his personal capacity is going to be involved, he can, as is the case with inquiries under the 1921 Act, apply in advance to be legally represented. I would point out that if during the course of an inquiry somebody is unexpectedly personally involved, not only can he or she apply to be legally represented, but it is the duty of the lawyer in charge of the inquiry to see that anyone who may be adversely affected has pointed out to him there and then that he is entitled to be legally represented, and he may well advise that person that this should in his own interests be done. My Lords, that is how these inquiries work over the whole field at the moment, and the type of inquiry 402 for which this clause provides is really no different. As I say, applications for legal representation are normally made before the inquiry starts, because it is known that somebody is personally involved and may be at risk. But there is nothing to prevent its happening during the inquiry.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, may I stop the noble Lord at this point? The person who thinks he is going to be affected may make an application to the tribunal for permission to be legally represented. Am I to gather that if such an application is made the tribunal is legally bound to grant such an application, or that it is within the discretion of the tribunal?
§ LORD DERWENTIt is within the discretion of the tribunal, as it is in all inquiries of this sort. But it is the duty of the person in charge of the inquiry to see that permission is given, if there is a possibility of the man's being adversely affected. We feel that it would be quite inappropriate, and I might say unprecedented, to confer an absolute statutory entitlement to legal representation in inquiries of this sort. There are no parties and nobody may be involved, and for every witness to be entitled without applying has really never been done and would be inappropriate.
Where there are parties to proceedings before a statutory tribunal—there can be parties or actual sides—the parties are usually entitled to arrange for legal representation, but at an inquiry under Clause 32 there will be no parties in the ordinary sense of the term. All the persons appearing, whether or not their conduct is in question, will appear as witnesses, so that it is up to the person holding the inquiry to see that the witnesses are protected. Where application is made and he thinks that the applicant's interests are affected, the person in charge must give permission, and he may well decide himself before application is made to advise a witness that he is, perhaps, at risk and should be represented. That is the position, and I think that witnesses will be fully protected in the same way as they would be in the case of an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. I hope, therefore, in view of what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he said at one stage of his speech that if the lawyer holding the inquiry thought that one of the witnesses was at risk of being prejudiced by the course that the inquiry was taking he would be under a duty to advise him that he was entitled to be legally represented. If the procedure is, in fact, going to be that under the 1921 Act—and I have no doubt that my noble friend's words will be read carefully when inquiries of this sort are being set up, in order to see that the procedure is right—then the witness will not be entitled to be legally represented; he will be entitled to ask for legal representation. I hope that, if that is the case, nobody will be misled by what my noble friend has said.
§ LORD DERWENTI am very grateful to my noble friend. He is quite right. Perhaps I may repeat, in particular, that the person who is holding the inquiry will at all times take care to see that witnesses are alive to the opportunities for legal representation where he thinks this necessary—that is, where he advises. If somebody applies on his own behalf for legal representation, the person holding the inquiry must consider the point; and if he considers that the person applying is at risk (I am not a lawyer, and perhaps I am using the wrong term, but this is what a layman would call it), then he will give that permission. That is the effect of the working of the present system under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 64 [Interpretation, repeals and transitional provisions]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)My Lords, there is a mistake on the Order Paper. The extent of the mistake will be immediately apparent when I call the next Amendment: Clause 64, Amendment No. 3, Lord Derwent.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, the mistake is that the Amendment is not down under my name—a printer's error. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 go together. They are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 31, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision in any local Act, including an Act confirming a provisional order, or in any instrument in the nature of a local enactment under any Act, where it appears to him that that provision is inconsistent with, or has become unnecessary or requires modification in consequence of, any provision of this Act or corresponds to any provision repealed by this Act; and any statutory instrument made under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")(Lord Derwent.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 65 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 17, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Derwent.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 1 [Combined police authority constituted as committee of constituent council]:
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to clear up a doubt. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 34, after ("of") insert ("the council of").—(Lord Derwent.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 7 [Amendments of Police (Scotland) Act 1956]:
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 really go together. Amendment No. 6 is drafting and No. 10, when we come to it, is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 3, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("(4) and (7)").—(Lord Derwent.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 go together, and they should be read in conjunction. They are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 56, line 15, at end insert—
| ("The Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960. | In section 2(8), for the words 'a standing joint committee or water committee' there shall be substituted the words 'a police authority which is a committee of the council of a county or borough'.")— |
| 8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 63. | (Lord Derwent.) |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 10 [Enactments repealed]:
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 31, column 3, leave out ("2(10)") and insert ("2, in subsection (8) the words from 'and any proceedings' to the end, and in subsection (10).").—(Lord Derwent.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the repeal of The Special Constables Act, 1914. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 60, line 50, at end insert—
| ("13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 11. | The Special Constables Act 1923. | In section 5 the words from 'and the' to the end.")— |
| (Lord Derwent.) |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 10, column 3, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("(4) and (7)").—(Lord Derwent.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.