HL Deb 12 July 1976 vol 373 cc48-67

4.49 p.m.

Report stage resumed on Amendment No. 1.

Lord DERWENT

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister is going to ask leave to speak a second time. I hope not, because if he does I shall object, which I am entitled to do under Standing Orders. This is a Report stage and it has always been the custom in this House—which is sometimes broken—that, if possible, except to ask for clarification of a point, people do not speak after the Minister, and the Minister has no right to speak a second time any more than any other Member of the House, unless of course it is his Amendment. In this case, it is not his Amendment, that weare discussing, so I hope that the noble Lord will not ask leave to speak again.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am in something of a difficulty. Before I stood up I looked around the House. Nobody rose. I am now put in the rather difficult position that, as 1 have been asked a number of questions, it will appear to those who asked them to be more than mildly discourteous if I do not answer. I was going to ask the House whether I had its leave to answer, and I hope to do so briefly, otherwise I do not see how the rights of those Members of the House who have spoken are to be safe-guarded.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, it is within the rights of a Minister of the Crown to speak again, with the leave of the House.

Lord DERWENT

Yes, my Lords, but I am objecting to leave being given. It is most unusual for leave to be given, and we must keep some kind of order.

Lord PANNELL

My Lords, the objection can only be an impoliteness to the Minister. I spent 25 years in the other place and never knew leave to be refused. Therefore I do not know why courtesy in the House of Lords should fall below courtesy in the other place.

Lord DERWENT

My Lords, the Minister can always speak again when it is his own Amendment. In the other place I understand that usually they have two Ministers.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I think that the position is quite clear. If the House wish to hear the Minister answer the questions, with the leave of the House he will do so. If the noble Lord wishes to object, we shall have to divide upon it.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to press this matter to a Division?

Lord DERWENT

No, my Lords, I shall not press it to a Division but I do not think that this situation ought to occur again.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I will just say this to the noble Lord. I am sure that the point which he has made is not aimed at me in particular because, as I pointed out to the noble Lord—if I may have his attention for a moment—I attempted to respond to the questions which were asked and I will now do so fairly expeditiously.

My noble friend raised a question regarding an article which appeared in the Sunday Times about a case in the new Merseyside police authority area. It is a complicated matter. I was in correspondence with a Member of another place upon it but I do not think that it would be appropriate to become involved in the details of the case. All I would say is that I can assure my noble friend, as I did earlier by either a nod or a shake of my head, that the Home Office was not consulted before an assurance of immunity was given. As I say, it is a complicated matter and all I would say to my noble friend is that once again it emphasises the difficulty in which the police themselves can be placed in complicated police complaints cases.

My noble friend referred to the fact that the former chief constable of Merseyside, Sir James Haughton, is now Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. I very much welcome what my noble friend has said. It is the view of everybody who has had any contact with Sir James Haughton that he is a police officer of the highest ability and integrity.

What I am now about to say I do not wish to be related to the case in Merseyside. However, I would emphasise to my noble friend that it is only by having a new form of police complaints machinery as set out in this Bill that some of the problems involved in difficult cases affecting the police service, where members of the public complain against the behaviour of individual police officers, can be satisfactorily dealt with. All I would say to the noble Baroness who spoke subsequently is that when she examines Hansard tomorrow I hope she will find that I am right in saying that I have consistently said during both today's proceedings and the previous debates which we have had on this Bill that the objective of the Government—and I think the objective of us all—must be to be fair both to the public and to the police. Of course that is the position. It would be ludicrous if one created a new complaints system which took into account the interests of the individual complainant—and it is right that those interests should be taken into account—but which totally ignored those of the police service. That would be an absurdity. In this Bill we have attempted to create a system which is fair to all.

If I may conclude as I began, what we are discussing is the noble Viscount's Amendment and it is essential to come back to the point of what he is suggesting to the House this evening. It is that in the exceptional circumstances—and I would point out to the noble Baroness that "exceptional" is the word used in the Bill—where the Complaints Board take the view that it is right for a tribunal to be set up the Government believe that two members of the Board should sit with the chief constable. The noble Viscount says that a member of the Board should be there to ask questions only and to address the chief constable, presumably at the end of the proceedings. That is the difference on one aspect of the noble Viscount's Amendment.

On the second aspect the difference is that the Board have the reserve power to insist that disciplinary proceedings should be taken in a case where the deputy chief constable has decided that they should not be taken. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I take the view, as does my right honourable friend, that cases of this kind will be extremely exceptional. Nevertheless, they may take place. All I would say to the House is this. How can anybody believe that the public interest can be safeguarded by a system whereby a chief constable sits alone to consider proceedings initiated by the Complaints Board in a situation where he is aware that his own deputy chief constable has decided not to initiate proceedings? How in a situation of that kind could the complainant be satisfied?

Once again I would say to the House that it is essential to bring this long debate to a conclusion. If at the end of this Bill there is still widespread public argument about whether the complaints machinery is fair to all concerned, frankly I think we shall have failed. What we have to do is to demonstrate to the reasonable public that the complaints machinery is fair and to demonstrate also to all members of the police service, from chief constables to members of the Police Federation, that it is fair. I believe that this objective is much more likely

to be ensured if the noble Viscount decides not to press his Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has indicated his anxieties about the noble Viscount's Amendment, and so has the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I would only say once again to the House that this is a fundamental question so far as the Bill is concerned and that it would be quite impossible for us to contemplate a situation where an Amendment of this kind appeared in the final Act.

Viscount MONCK

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate any longer. I still like these Amendments and I wish to test the feeling of the House.

5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS
Amory, V. Greenway, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Barnby, L. Grenfell, L. Redesdale, L.
Broadbridge, L. Gridley, L. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Cornwallis, L. Grimston of Westbury, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Cromartie, E. Halsbury, E. Sandys, L.
Daventry, V. Harmar-Nicholls, L. Sempill, Ly.
de Freyne, L. Hornsby-Smith, B. Somers, L.
Denham, L. Inglewood, L. [Teller.] Spens, L.
Derwent, L. Killearn, L. Stamp, L.
Ebbisham, L. Kinnaird, L. Strathclyde, L.
Ellenborough, L. Lyell, L. Strathspey, L.
Ferrers, E. Mancroft, L. Terrington, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Marley, L. Teviot, L.
Gainford, L. Maybray-King, L. Vickers, B.
Glasgow, E. Merrivale, L. Vivian, L.
Glenkinglas, L. Mersey, V. Westbury, L.
Goschen, V. Monck, V. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Adeane, L. Champion, L. Fulton, L.
Airedale, L. Chorley, L. Gaitskell, B.
Amherst, E. Clwyd, L. Gardiner, L.
Ampthill, L. Collison, L. Gore-Booth, L.
Amulree, L. Colville of Culross, V. Goronwy-Roberts, L.
Annan, L. Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Hale, L.
Aylestone, L. Crook, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Banks, L. Davies of Leek, L. Hawke, L.
Barrington, V. Davies of Penrhys, L. Henderson, L.
Beswick, L. Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B. Hylton-Foster, B.
Birk, B. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Jacobson, L.
Boston, L. Douglas of Barloch, L. Jacques, L. [Teller.]
Brimelow, L. Douglass of Cleveland, L. Janner, L.
Brockway, L. Evans of Hungershall, L. Leatherland, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Faithfull, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B
Buckinghamshire, E. Fisher of Camden, L. Long, V.
Burton of Coventry, B. Fisher of Rednal, B. Lyons of Brighton, L.
Melchett, L. Platt, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Meston, L. Popplewell, L. Strabolgi, L.
Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L. Roberthall, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Noel-Buxton, L. St. Davids, V. Vaizey, L.
Ogmore, L. Samuel, V. Wade, L.
Oram, L. Seear, B. Wells-Pestell, L.
Pannell, L. Shinwell, L. Wigoder, L.
Phillips, B. Slater, L. Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]
Pitt of Hampstead, L. Stedman, B. Wootton of Abinger, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 5 [Complaints that may involve criminal proceedings]:

5.7 p.m.

Viscount MONCK moved Amendment No. 8: Page 6, line 4, at end insert:— ("(4) Where any complaint alleges that a police officer has committed an offence and notwithstanding any decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to institute proceedings against the officer, the complainant decides to institute such proceedings on his own account, no action shall be taken by the Police Complaints Board or the chief officer of police to finalise the complaints investigation and the hearing of any disciplinary charges arising there from until such proceedings by the complainant have been finalised. (5) Where during an investigation of a complaint it appears that an allegation against a police officer is such that the matter is one that is capable of being resolved by civil proceedings against the officer (or against the chief officer of police by virtue of section 48 of the Police Act 1964) the Board may, upon application being made by the chief officer of police, direct that the investigation of the complaint be suspended until such time as the civil proceedings are disposed of.")

The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I tabled at the Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, very kindly undertook to look at the matter again. Therefore I have tabled the same Amendment at this stage, although I think it is more comprehensible than the last. I beg to move.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, as the noble Viscount rightly said, I undertook to look at this, although I think he will agree that I was not an optimist when I undertook to look at it, because it seemed to me to represent a formidable difficulty. But of course, as the noble Viscount asked me to look at it, I agreed to do so.

I should like to make it clear at the outset that there is no difference between the noble Viscount and the Government on the general objective of either of these two Amendments. What this Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that court proceedings take precedence over disciplinary proceedings and, as I have indicated, we certainly agree with him in this objective, and indeed it is the present procedure.

Perhaps I may take the two matters separately. So far as criminal proceedings are concerned, whether brought on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions or privately, no disciplinary proceedings would normally be taken—if at all—until the end of the court hearing; but as I explained on the last occasion, it is one thing to work to an agreed policy on this sort of thing and quite another to make it a statutory requirement. The cardinal principle is that the final decision on how and when to act is for the chief constable. This discretion would be removed by the Amendment.

Let me give an example—and, if I may say so, I do not think it is a particularly far-fetched one—of the sort of problems which would arise if this Amendment were to be placed on the Statute Book. A complainant might institute proceedings against a police officer alleging that he had committed a traffic offence, and the hearing might be delayed. Unhappily this happens all too often in the courts, owing to pressure of business, the fact that a witness is ill, somebody is on holiday or something of that sort. Yet police inquiries might reveal serious irregularities calling into question an officer's fitness to remain in the force. It seems to me that it would be fairly intolerable if, in a case of this sort, the chief constable was powerless to act promptly, yet it is our fear that he would be if this in fact was the language of the Statute.

So far as civil proceedings are concerned—and that is the second subsection of the Amendment—the noble Viscount said that he did not want complainants to use the complaints machinery as an alternative to civil proceedings, or as a "dummy run" for later proceedings in the civil courts. But the difficulty is this. If the deputy chief constable, who, I must repeat, is the person who makes a decision in matters of this sort, does not know or suspect that a civil action is to be brought, he must cause the complaint to be investigated in the normal way. But once it is known that a civil action is pending, it is already normal practice to defer investigation of matters which would be the subject of court proceedings.

As the noble Viscount will recall, I quoted at some length the Home Office guidance on this point, which made it clear that, as in the case of criminal proceedings, there could be circumstances in which investigation of the complaint and the preferring of disciplinary charges ought to proceed. I have indicated that I feel it would be far better if the noble Viscount were not to press this Amendment. I think grave problems would be created and, if I may say so, the Amendment would inhibit not the Complaints Board, but the chief constable. I am quite sure, in the light of what the noble Viscount said on the previous Amendment, that in fact that is not his intention.

Viscount MONCK

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for looking into the matter. He has obviously given it a long think, although I doubt that in the recent spell of weather it has been a cool think. I am very grateful to the noble Lord opposite, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Complaints regulations.]:

5.13 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 9:

page 6, line 39, at end insert— ( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring Chief Officers of Police and the Police Complaints Board to furnish to the relevant Police Authority such information as may be defined therein to enable them effectively to discharge their duty with regard to Police complaints under section 50 of the Police Act 1964.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This Amendment is very similar in intention to one moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, on Committee stage, but there are two differences. First of all, this is an Amendment to a different clause; and, secondly, there is a very important difference in the drafting, because while this Amendment still attempts to meet the responsible feeling of police authorities, it is also worded in a genuine attempt to meet an. objection voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he was replying to my noble friend during Committee stage. May I explain very briefly what this Amendment seeks to do.

My Lords, Section 50 of the Police Act 1964, which is referred to, lays a duty on police authorities, without giving any clear powers enabling them to carry out that duty. Section 50 of that Act says: Every police authority in carrying out their duty with respect to the maintenance of au adequate and efficient police force … shall keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints from members of the public against members of the force are dealt with by the Chief Officer of the police. Therefore, it is extremely relevant to this Bill. The position has not been wholly satisfactory since that Act reached the Statute Book in 1964, and I submit. that it will be even worse if this Bill becomes law, because there is now the Board, which is an addition to the pattern. Admittedly, police authorities will receive annual reports from their chief constables. Section 12 of the 1964 Act says: Every chief constable shall, as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year, submit to the police authority a general report in writing on the policing during that year of the area for which his force is maintained. Presumably that can cover also the specific matters referred to in Clause 50, but very late in the day. Subsection (2) of the same Section says: The chief constable of a police force shall, whenever so required by the police authority, submit to that authority a report in writing on such matters as may be specified …". It then goes on, in subsection (3), to give the chief constable power where he considers such a report would contain information which in the public interest ought not to be disclosed, or is not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority, he may request that authority to refer the requirement to the Secretary of State;". That is not a very satisfactory pattern, particularly in the light of the new provisions of the Bill we are now discussing. Of course, an off-hand chief constable—I am not suggesting there are many, but there could be one who is not on the best of relations with his police authority—could in fact rely on that power to a larger extent than Parliament intended when passing the 1964 Act. I think we ought now to consider a reference to the Board as well as to the chief constable.

My Lords, my Amendment contains certain words which may be puzzling to those who have not followed this very carefully. Why have I included the words, … such information as may be defined therein…"? I thought that when regulations were drafted to cover this point, there should be power for the Government to exclude certain matters such as details of individual cases of complaint with which it has never been the tradition of the county police authorites or watch committees to concern themselves, and where it would be a pity if they should begin to do so now. None the less, they should be given power to call for information of a rather more general kind, and also to do it without having to wait for it to be included in the annual report. This is in no sense intended to be an intrusion into the chief constables' responsibilities or the Board's responsibilities, for individual cases.

I hope the House will be clear on that, and not think that I am just trying to get round that point by bringing in other words. I am trying genuinely to meet the objection voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, during Committee stage. If these words are in the Bill, then a chief constable and the Board would be protected from any unnecessary interference by a police authority which might develop an over-fussy frame of mind. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that it has not been a tradition for police authorities to concern themselves with individual cases of complaint, which is clearly the responsibility of the chief constable, and I agree that it is a mistake to start now.

My Lords, during our discussions, the noble Lord has spoken many times of the balance between the different interests concerned, and very difficult it has doubtless been. Most of the discussion has been about the balance between the associations representing the different ranks and levels in the police force, and the general public, and, to a lesser extent, the new Board. Less than due attention, I submit, has been paid to the position of police authorities, which have very great responsibility in their areas, a position made no easier by the recent local authority re-organisation. At present, there is a delicate balance, too, between the Home Office and the counties; that is between central and local control. The setting up of a further central body; that is, the Complaints Board, is bound to alter this balance, albeit to a small extent, against the local link.

My Amendment does not in any way intend to seek to increase the influence or to widen the field of influence of the police authorities, or to add to their powers. The Amendment simply makes their position, as set out in the 1964 Act, clearer, at a time when it is very important that any uncertainty should be cleared up. If their position is made clearer, then the general position is helped at the same time.

However, there are some people in the country who are in favour of a more central control of our police. It is said that there is some opinion in the Home Office leaning that way. Hence there may be advisers to the Minister who may think that this effect of the Bill, increasing the central control slightly at the expense of the local people, could be no bad thing, because if it is not going to be so very long in any case before we have one national police force this Bill might be bringing that situation one day nearer. But there are some who think otherwise and would prefer to see the present system continued.

I believe it is true that in an increasing number of counties today the more enterprising county councillors tend to belittle membership of the police committee or the police authority, whose work is becoming more and more that of a rubber stamp. That is a pity, and it is something that we should not allow to go further. This Amendment is intended to redress the trend. It is intended to be fair between all authorities and associations, whether central or local, and I hope it will receive wide support. I beg to move.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Inglewood has explained the aims of this Amendment so clearly that I think there is very little that I need add. I hope the House will consider the points he has made and will support the Amendment. The starting point is that the police authorities have a statutory duty under the Police Act 1964 to inform themselves as to the way in which complaints are being dealt with and to satisfy themselves that this is satisfactory. To enable them to do so they were put in the position of receiving information as to the procedures from the chief constable or the chief police officer. I should like to confirm what my noble friend has said, that there is no intention in this Amendment to give the police authorities any new responsibilities or any new functions, or to add to their present functions in any way, but solely to enable them under the new provisions of this Bill to carry out their existing statutory duties. I think I mentioned on the Committee stage—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, confirmed this—that it is the Home Secretary's view that they should continue to have their statutory responsibilities as laid down by the Act of 1964.

So the only question is, are any of the changes made under the new procedure such as to make it more difficult for them to obtain that information? It seems to me they are, because under the old procedure the chief constables only could provide the information the police authorities required. Under the new procedure it will not be precisely the same information, and it seems to the police authorities that if they are to continue to fulfil these functions adequately they will need some information, as heretofore, from the chief constable or chief officers, but also some information from the Police Complaints Board.

I think my noble friend's Amendment is much better than the one I put forward because my Amendment said, a little loosely, that they should receive "any information" from the Complaints Board. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, with his usual courtesy and firmness, tapped me down on that, and pointed out that there would be some information which would be utterly irrelevant to the carrying out of the functions of the statutory authority and which they would not require. I saw at once that in that respect my Amendment was faulty in its drafting. I think my noble friend has put this right by the inclusion of the words: The Secretary of State shall make regulations … such information as may be defined therein to enable them … —that is the police authorities— effectively to discharge their duty with regard to police complaints under Section 50. That seems to me to put the matter entirely in order.

I hope very much the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will say that this would simply be putting the statutory authorities in the position in which they have been to obtain such information as is required. If that information can be wholly provided by chief constables all the better, but, from what they tell me, they think that there will be some information that they will require from the Complaints Board. As this Amendment is drafted it seems to me that there will be no risk of their asking for or having to be given information which would be irrelevant to their function. Therefore, I support without hesitation the Amendment my noble friend has proposed and would support him in very strongly pressing this Amendment.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I want to add only a word on this. I must say at once that I am another of those who believe that there should be local police forces rather than a national one, and anything which tends in that direction is a good thing. Whether or not the way to do it is by regulation is something that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will tell us. I wish to emphasise that I believe that the principle that underlies this Amendment is absolutely sound. There will be occasions when, in the course of looking at disciplinary complaints, which they may never actually deal with in the tribunals themselves, or generally being on the scene, the independent members of the Board will be able to put their finger on some organisational problem or some matter of general application in the area of the police authority which the police authority ought to know about at once. It certainly ought not to have to wait for the Board's annual report to find out about it. It certainly ought not to have to rely solely on the chief constable relaying the information in accordance with his existing statutory duty.

I should have thought that the public confidence which we all hope will repose in the Complaints Board would be greatly increased if they could be seen to be taking up matters of principle, issues which do not go to the individual cases but which go to the duties and responsibilities of the police authority. If they were seen to be taking those up with the police authority as a matter of standard liaison and intelligent co—operation, I believe this would be a good thing.

As my noble and learned friend said on Second Reading, the police machinery is an elaborate vehicle. It has got five wheels already and it is now getting a sixth, so it becomes an articulated vehicle; no doubt it has "long vehicle" written on the back. What I want is for all its wheels to spin smoothly round, and I believe my noble friends have put their finger on an important point in seeking to ensure that smoothness.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am certainly on this occasion looking with even greater care to see whether any noble Lord is on his feet. Perhaps I may first of all deal with the point of principle raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and which may conceivably be in the minds of some of his noble friends and indeed in the minds of some of the police authorities. I would make it absolutely clear that the Government's position is the one already stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. There is no enthusiasm for a national police force so far as the Government are concerned.

This matter has been discussed on many occasions within the Police Service. I have now been the police Minister in the Home Office for over two years, and I am bound to say that I can think of few ideas which would be less desirable than the creation of a national police service. I think there are many things central Government can do but I do not think a wise central Government would want to take over from the local police authorities responsibility for the local police service. There is an important issue of principle here; it is very important to keep the police near to the people. I think our system of control is the right one and it would be highly undesirable to move away from it. Let me make that clear right at the outset.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord to elucidate. I entirely agree with what he says; I think it would be disastrous to move towards a national police force. I was not quite sure whether he was implying that there was something in this Amendment which was moving towards that.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

No, my Lords, not in the least. It was only that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, touched on some fear of centralisation, and I wanted to push on to one side any suggestion that there was any sort of takeover so far as we were concerned. But we do not like the idea of proceeding as this Amendment would have us proceed. I gave some of the reasons on the last occasion when the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, put down an Amendment, not in precisely the same language but in fairly similar terms, and our position has not changed since then.

The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, believes that there is some risk that the local police authority will not have the same amount of information as hitherto available to them. I do not think that this is right. There will still be an obligation to maintain a register of complaints; the same register as exists at the moment, which is held by all the police forces in this country. That will remain. The overwhelming majority of complaints will also be dealt with exclusively by the chief constable. As was said on a substantial number of occasions during the last debate it will be a truly exceptional matter when a tribunal is set up. Therefore, although the Complaints Board will have possession of a considerable amount of relevant and interesting information, I am not sure that they will have such a quantity of information as to make it desirable to have an enactment of this sort.

There was one point which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made on which I very much share his opinion, and that is that it is right for us to remember that local police authorities have had no locus in so far as dealing with individual complaints is concerned; they never have had, and it would be undesirable if they were to have, for the most obvious of reasons. Having said that, I think that the noble Lord was just mildly unfair when he suggested that the views of the local police authorities had not been listened to sufficiently carefully during this now protracted period of discussion and negotiation. They have. They have been involved in the discussions since the present Government came into office, and I believe that they were involved as members of the Working Party when the noble Viscount and his friends were in office. Their view has been listened to. Indeed, I had the pleasure of meeting them not so long ago to discuss certain questions relating to this Bill, but the problem was that the proposals which the police authorities put forward did in fact get them involved in individual complaints made against members of police forces. That is why we were not able to agree with them. They have not had such a position in the past. We did not consider it right for them to become involved now. Although it is always unfair to pray in aid the views of the police service when they help your case and ignore them when they do not, nevertheless it is only fair to say that that view on this particular matter was shared, so far as I am aware, by the representatives of all the police organisations. Therefore, that is the reason why we have not been able to agree with the views of the police authorities so far as their proposals for this Bill were concerned.

May I come to what we have in fact attempted to do. We recognise that the police authorities have a clear responsibility laid down in Section 50 of the Police Act 1964 and in no way is it the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or myself that we want to whittle away that responsibility. Indeed, we have changed the Bill to some extent to make quite clear what the new responsibilities of the police authorities will be, to supplement the power they have under Section 50 of the 1964 Act. I hope not to weary the House by going through these points again. I dealt with them on the noble Viscount's Amendment in Committee.

However, I should like to remind the House what steps the Government have taken to underline the police authorities' role. First of all, under Clause 8(2) the Bill empowers the Board to report to the Secretary of State—that is, the Complaints Board—on any grave issue coming to its notice in the course of its work. A copy of any such report will be sent to the police authority and the chief officer concerned. Secondly, under Clause 8(5) the Board will be required to provide each police authority with a copy of its annual report, supplemented by statistics relating specifically to complaints in its police area, and any general information which the Board considers should be brought to the notice of that police authority in connection with its functions under Section 50 of the 1964 Act.

Thirdly, the Government have undertaken that current Home Office advice to chief officers on the information to be supplied to police authorities in connection with their responsibilities under Section 50 will be revised, in consultation with police authority representatives, to take account of the activities of the Board. Fourthly, we have also given an undertaking that no regulations will be made under the Bill relating to complaints and the activities of the Board without full consultations with the Police Advisory Board, on which of course the police authorities are represented. Fifthly, should the police authority representatives desire separate consultations with the Home Office on regulations or on other matters arising from the Bill and falling within the Home Secretary's responsibilities, these would obviously be arranged wherever possible. But again I come back to the point I made earlier, that neither the police authorities nor the Home Secretary himself will have any power to intervene in the decisions of the Board in individual cases.

It is always a pleasure to look back at speeches made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and I did so on this occasion because I thought that he ended his speech on the last occasion we discussed this matter, in particularly happy language when he decided not to press his Amendment. I hope not to embarrass him, but it is so elegantly expressed that I will repeat it.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, before the noble Lord does that, will he remember that my Amendment was not a terribly good one and was not as well drafted as my noble friend's Amendment? If I ended on that happy note it was because I was a little conscious of that fact—I mean, happy note to the noble Lord. As I never read my speeches, I have not the least idea what he is going to quote.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the noble Viscount is, as ever, modest. He made it clear that he was sorry but he would have preferred to have the language of his Amendment spelled out in the Bill, but the point of principle to which he addressed himself on 30th June at column 861 of the Official Report really comes to the centre of this particular issue. He said: If it is their"— that is, the Government's— intention that the powers"— that is, the police authorities' powers— will not be diminished, then those powers need not be diminished. However, we should still have preferred to have this spelled out in the Bill. I attach importance to what the noble Lord says. I know that he does not make these statements light-heartedly And he then ended by withdrawing the Amendment. I think that the central question is what is the intention here. I can perfectly understand the attitude of the police authorities who feel that they would like some sort of further guarantee, but, as I have tried to indicate, we have gone a long way down the road with them. We have written into the Bill additional safeguards so far as their position is concerned, but in the final analysis it is, as the noble Viscount said on the last occasion we debated this matter, a question of what will be the spirit underlying the new relationship between the Home Office and the police authorities. That, far more than the language of the Statute, is what will be the central question.

I have endeavoured to point out to the House that we have safeguarded, in my view adequately, the position of the police authorities under the Bill. We are anxious to ensure that they continue to play a most valuable part in the administration of the Police Service in this country, but we do not believe that it is necessary to add to the language of the Statute in the way set out in the Amendment, and for that reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, say that in his view we should keep the police near the people. That is very important. I did not want to be unfair in the one remark for which he criticised me and I must say that by the time he had concluded his speech, which was extremely charming though not convincing, he had said nothing against either the purpose or drafting of the Amendment. I came to the conclusion that he was really in favour of it, except that because he sits on the Front Bench opposite he could not put it in more specific terms. I am encouraged to think, therefore, that I should press the Amendment, not least in order to give Lord Harris a chance to support it in the Lobby.

5.42 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS
Adeane, L. Glasgow, E. Monck, V.
Alport, L. Glenkinglas, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Amory, V. [Teller.] Goschen, V. Newall, L.
Arran, E. Gray, L. Northchurch, B.
Atholl, D. Greenway, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Barnby, L. Grenfell, L. Redesdale, L.
Berkeley, B. Hanworth, V. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Birdwood, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L. Sandys, L.
Broadbridge, L. Hornsby-Smith, B. Sempill, Ly.
Cathcart, E. Hylton-Foster, B. Somers, L.
Clitheroe, L. Inglewood, L. [Teller.] Spears, L.
Cornwallis, L. Killearn, L. Stamp, L.
Cromartie, E. Kinnaird, L. Strathspey, L.
Daventry, V. Long, V. Terrington, L.
Denham, L. Lyell, L. Thorneycroft, L.
Derwent, L. Macleod of Borve, B. Vickers, B.
Drumalbyn, L. Mancroft, L. Vivian, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Marley, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Merrivale, L. Westbury, L.
Praser of Kilmorack, L. Mersey, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Fisher of Rednal, B. Oram, L.
Ampthill, L. Fulton, L. Pannell, L.
Amulree, L. Gaitskell, B. Peddie, L.
Avebury, L. Gardiner, L. Phillips, B.
Aylestone, L. Gordon-Walker, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Banks, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L. Popplewell, L.
Birk, B. Hale, L. St. Davids, V.
Boston, L. Harris of Greenwich, L. Samuel, V.
Brockway, L. Henderson, L. Seear, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Houghton of Sowerby, L. Segal, L.
Champion, L. Jacobson, L. Shephard, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Chorley, L. Jacques, L. Shinwell, L.
Collison, L. Janner, L. Slater, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Kirkhill, L. Stedman, B. [Teller.]
Crook, L. Leatherland, L. Stow Hill, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Davies of Penrhys, L. Lyons of Brighton, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Melchett, L. Vaizey, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Meston, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L. Wigg, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) Murray of Gravesend, L. Wigoder, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L. Northfield, L. Winterbottom, L.
Fisher of Camden, L. Ogmore, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 11 [Disciplinary charges in criminal cases]:

5.49 p.m.

Viscount MONCK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10: Page 10, line 28, at end insert ("or of an offence against discipline which taken alone would not constitute a criminal offence.")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in connection with this Amendment I received on Saturday morning at breakfast a very courteous and comprehensive letter from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, so comprehensive in fact that he even burst into French. He kindly informed me that the Government were endeavouring to table an Amendment of their own for Third Reading. Therefore, while awaiting with interest what they will bring forward, I do not propose to move this Amendment.