POLICE BILL

HL Deb 17 June 1976 vol 371 cc1446-96

6.30 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It deals with an issue which has been the subject of considerable discussion over a long period of time. Its central purpose is to introduce an independent element into the present procedures of the handling of complaints by members of the public against police officers.

I believe that it would probably be helpful if I were first of all to discuss the background to the proposals now before the House. The complaints issue was, of course, one of the many important matters before the Royal Commission on the Police in 1959. The Commission concluded that the police dealt with complaints thoroughly and impartially but it proposed certain improvements in the system. The result of those changes was the procedure which is currently followed and which will, to a very large extent, continue to he followed when the new scheme comes into operation. There was, however, still pressure from many quarters for the introduction of an independent element and in 1972 the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration recommended that a lay element should be introduced into enquiries into complaints against the police.

A Private Member's Bill to give effect to that recommendation was introduced in another place. In discussion on that Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who was then Home Secretary, announced his intention to reconsider the whole question of complaints against the police and the Bill was withdrawn. A Working Group was then set up, including representatives of the Home Office, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police and police authority representative bodies. It considered a number of representations and suggestions. In its report (published in March 1974), the working group did not reach any agreed conclusions, but set out the various proposals it had studied and the considerations relevant to any decision on the procedure for handling complaints.

That report was considered very carefully by the present Government—who had just conic into office—particularly as regards the proposal for an ex post facto review, which was favoured by some members of the working group. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, when Home Secretary, had himself expressed a preference for some form of ex post facto review. But the present Government came to a different conclusion. It seemed to us that an effective independent element, commanding public confidence, must be brought into operation while a complaint is being dealt with. It is not sufficient merely to have some kind of inquest after the event. Such an inquest would not alter the outcome in any way so far as action taken by the chief constable was concerned. On the other hand, if it is to be argued—and some have argued this—that such a review should alter the outcome, the result would be double jeopardy for the police officer concerned. There are very large numbers of people, not only within the police service, who feel strongly that double jeopardy must be avoided. Indeed, one was the noble Lord, Lord Carr. In other words, after a final decision had been reached on the case by the chief officer, and the police officer concerned had been told that disciplinary proceedings were or were not to be taken against him, the matter could be reopened and the officer would be put in suspense once more. For these reasons, the Government do not consider any of the various ex post facto schemes that have been put forward as at all satisfactory.

If there are any lingering doubts on this issue. I recommend your Lordships to read paragraph 42 of the Working Group's report, which points out some of the consequences even under one of the more moderate ex post facto schemes. As I said, notwithstanding the contents of paragraph 42, many of those on the working group were in favour of an ex post facto review but they pointed out in paragraph 42 that one of the drawbacks of this type of scheme would be that a cloud could hang over the reputation of a police officer who had been complained against and that he would have no redress whatever because all the review would achieve would be a conclusion that there had been some mishandling of the procedure of the investigation. There would be a report to that effect and a rather ugly suggestion could be made that a police officer who had already been cleared was in some way guilty. At that stage, he would have no opportunity to take action to clear his name. That is one of the reasons why we have come down against all the various forms of ex post facto review. Another is that I do not believe that such a scheme would satisfy public opinion. In my view, it would satisfy neither the interests of the police service nor those of the complainant.

In those circumstances, I think it right to come now to the Government's proposals. The scheme which we have devised and which is contained in this Bill not only comes into play before a final decision is taken on a complaints case, but is carefully designed so as to avoid double jeopardy for the police officer concerned. In devising the scheme, we have also been careful to observe our central principle that the initial investigation of complaints must remain in the hands of the police themselves. The police alone, in our view, have the necessary skill and expertise for the task of investigating complaints.

We have also sought to maintain the position of police authorities who have an existing statutory responsibility to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints are dealt with in their area. Some have taken the view that police authorities should themselves constitute, or be a large part of the independent element under our scheme. However, in our view, the functions of police authorities are not compatible with the kind of functions which it is suggested the proposed Police Complaints Board should perform. It has indeed been a long accepted principle that police authorities should not be involved in individual discipline cases (except those of the most senior officers) and I am sure we are right to maintain that principle. The new scheme will provide an independent element in the handling of the disciplinary aspects of complaints by members of the public against the police. It does not indicate that the Government believe that the police at present deal with complaints other than thoroughly. It does, however, recognise that there is unease—and this was explicitly recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, when he was Home Secretary—that the disciplinary aspects of the present system are largely in the hands of the police themselves.

I turn now to the details of the scheme. At present, when a complaint is received from a member of the public, it must, under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964, be recorded and an investigating officer must be appointed. When the investigating officer has completed his inquiries, he makes a report which is usually considered by the deputy chief officer of the force concerned. Unless the deputy chief officer is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed by the officer concerned, he must refer the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his decision whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought against the officer. Subject to this, the deputy chief officer considers whether the investigation has revealed disciplinary offences. Charges for such offences may then be preferred and dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Police Discipline Regulations.

The new procedure which we propose begins after all the requirements of Section 49 regarding the recording and investigation of the complaint have been complied with, and after any reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director's rÔle is thus not affected by the new scheme. Under the scheme. an independent statutory body—the Police Complaints Board—will be established. It has been agreed. after much discussion in another place. that their members. who will be both full and part-time, should be appointed by the Prime Minister. The Board will be concerned only with complaints which have been dealt with under Section 49 of the 1964 Act and have not been withdrawn and only with complaints against officers below the rank of assistant chief officer. The Board have no locus in relation to other matters of internal police discipline, nor in relation to the criminal, as opposed to the disciplinary, aspects of complaints.

When the deputy chief constable receives the report of an investigation into a complaint under Section 49, he will be required, subject to any necessary reference to the Director, to send to the Board a copy of the complaint and of the investigating officer's report. To these he will add his opinion of the merits of the complaint and indicate whether or not he has brought disciplinary charges. If the Board agree with the decision not to prefer disciplinary charges they will tell the complainant so, and the officer concerned will be told by the deputy chief constable. If they disagree, they will recommend to the deputy chief constable the charges which they think should be brought. If he does not accept the recommendation, they may in the last resort direct that the charges be brought nevertheless. They will, however, be obliged to consult the chief officer before doing so, and I should expect that in the vast majority of cases any difference between the Board and the deputy chief constable will he resolved by discussion.

Where the deputy chief constable has preferred disciplinary charges and the officer does not admit the charges, the Board will decide whether the case is so exceptional that it should he heard by a disciplinary tribunal. This tribunal would consist of the chief officer of the force concerned, sitting with two members of the Board who have not been previously concerned with the case, and in a case where the Board have directed that charges be brought, a tribunal w ill always be held unless the officer admits the charges. But the overwhelming majority of disciplinary cases will in future he heard exactly as they are now, with the chief officer sitting alone and coming to a conclusion on the facts, and where he finds the case proved, determining punishment. When a tribunal sits, the three members will decide on the issue of guilt or innocence, but the chief officer alone will determine the punishment. This procedure will ensure that the chief officer will continue to be seen as the source of discipline for his force.

There are certain exceptions to this scheme. As I have already indicated, complaints against senior officers will continue to be heard by police authorities, and complaints which have been withdrawn will not go to the Board. Nor will the Board have any functions in relation to cases where disciplinary charges have been preferred, and the officer concerned admits them. The sole question then to be determined is that of punishment which, as I have said, is exclusively a matter for the chief officer. But the Board will receive certain information about such cases in due course when they are completed.

I mentioned earlier that there had been a number of Amendments to the Bill in another place. These have resulted in improvements to the detail of the new procedures, but the only substantive addition to the scheme, as I have outlined it, is that the Board will have a power to make a special report to the Home Secretary on any matters coming to their notice which they consider should be brought to his attention because of their gravity or of other exceptional circumstances. The Board will be required to send a copy of any such report to the chief officer and the police authority concerned.

I turn now to describe briefly the detailed provisions of the Bill itself. Clause I sets up the Police Complaints Board with at least nine members, full or part-time, appointed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Clause 2 provides for the reference of cases to the Board. This is subject tothe provisions of Clause5, which make it clear that reference to the Board comes only after any reference to. and decision by. the Director of Public Prosecutions on the question of criminal proceedings. Subsection (1) deals with the submission of cases to the Board by the chief officer. Subsection (2) provides for the three exclusions from the requirement to refer cases to the Board. I have already dealt with these in some detail.

The Board's powers in relation to cases referred to them are set out in Clause 3. In this connection they will he able to request the police to provide them with such additional information as they may reasonably require. As I explained earlier, the Board will he able to recommend. and, in the last resort, direct that disciplinary charges he brought in cases where none have been preferred and they disagree with this decision. The Board must consult the chief officer before giving a direction to bring charges and they must give written reasons for the direction. In determining whether to recommend the bringing of charges. the Board will be required to have regard to guidance, parallel to that given at present to chief officers, in regard to the bringing of charges where a case has both criminal and disciplinary aspects. This is to avoid the officer concerned being put at risk twice for the same offence. The detailed provisions for disciplinary tribunals arc set out in Clause 4.

Clause 5, which is a new clause added in another place, relates to complaints that may involve criminal proceedings. The first part of the clause contains the provision making it clear that such a case will not be referred to the Board until after the Director has reached his decision. At the same time, we have sought to meet a point which was made to us during discussion of the Board's functions under Clause 3. This was that information might become available to the Board which was relevant to the question whether a criminal offence had been committed but had not been put to the Director. We agreed to include specific provision allowing the Board to request the chief officer to pass on to the Director any information which appeared to be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings, but not to have been seen by the Director.

Clause 6 contains the regulation-making powers of the Bill relating to complaints. These will allow provision to be made for aspects of the scheme which are not covered in the Bill itself. Clause 7 allows for arrangements to be made between the Board and authorities, other than police authorities, which maintain bodies of constables. We had originally envisaged an entirely voluntary provision. However, it became clear that there was strong feeling in another place that more was needed. We have accordingly introduced a default provision—it is in subsection (2) of the clause—under which, if no arrangements have been made in respect of a particular force within 12 months, the Secretary of State may make such arrangements by order. We intend at the Committee stage in this House to table an Amendment to reduce this period to six months. This is in line with an undertaking which we gave to the friends of the noble and learned Lord in another place.

Clause 8 makes provision for reports by the Board. These are of three kinds. First, the Board will be required to report to the Secretary of State on any matters relating to complaints which he asks them about. Secondly as I have indicated, the Board will be able to report to him on any grave matters which they think should be brought to his notice. Thirdly, there will be a regular annual report by the Board. A copy of this will be sent to each police authority, supplemented by any statistical or general information relating to their particular area which the Board think should be brought to their notice. The Board will also be under a duty to keep the working of the new scheme under review and to report on it to the Secretary of State at least once every three years. Clause 9 makes disclosure of information by members or staff of the Board a criminal offence, with certain specified exceptions.

Part II of the Bill contains amendments to the existing disciplinary provisions. Clause 10 relates to the power of the Secretary of State to make discipline regulations under Section 33 of the Police Act 1964, and in particular, it makes new provision for the hearing of charges in certain circumstances by a chief officer from another force. Clause 11 deals with a particular aspect of the problem of double jeopardy, which I referred to earlier.

The last substantive provision of the Bill is Clause 12 which deals with appeals. It gives effect to a change of policy which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last July when he put forward the new complaints scheme. He intends in particular to exercise more frequently his power to appoint one or more persons to hold an inquiry into an appeal. The clause modifies the existing appeal provisions to allow for this, generally to give more flexibility, and also to take account of appeals from the disciplinary tribunals to be set up under the Bill. At the same time we have taken the opportunity to remove the power of the Home Secretary to increase punishment on appeal. In practice this power has not been exercised for a very long time.

As noble Lords will no doubt he aware, this Bill has had a protracted examination in another place. During that time various alternative schemes were proposed and were exhaustively examined. There was the proposal, as I indicated a few moments ago, that local authorities should operate as the independent element. I think this was a profoundly unsatisfactory idea. It was greeted with no enthusiasm from the police organisations concerned, and I do not think it would in any way have reassured public opinion. Police authorities have an important and valuable public duty to serve, but it does not lie in this direction. Secondly, there was the Ombudsman idea; that is to say, an ex post facto review brought into play at the initiative of the complainant. I have spoken a little about this in my speech this afternoon, and we shall no doubt go into it in more detail in Committee, but for the reasons I have outlined the Government are not attracted by this formula. There were also suggestions in another place for involving the Board in police investigations into the complaint.

As I have indicated, in the end none of these alternatives was accepted in preference to the Government's scheme, not least because they did not commend themselves to those, particularly in the Police Service, who will have to make the new scheme work. I would suggest to the House that the time has now come to bring this lengthy public debate to an end, and to bring an end, too, to the current uncertainty. In that spirit I commend this Bill to your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill he now read 2^a—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

6.52 p.m.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, I am sure the House would wish me to begin by thanking the noble Lord for his lucid and compendious exposition of the Bill, for which we are grateful; and if I myself should be perhaps a good deal less lucid, and conceivably a little less compendious, I hope the House will hear with me, having two factors in mind. The first is that police discipline has never been a speciality of my own; and, secondly, that I have been sitting judicially in another capacity in Whitehall almost continuously for the last three or four days. I should also like to apologise if my preliminary reaction to the Bill is rather more harsh and adverse than I could have wished, and I hasten to say that if that is so it is not because I wish to score any Party points over the Government, because I regard this as a field which is singularly inappropriate for Party warfare. Nor is it designed to score any personal points over the Home Secretary or his representative in this House. Both are known to me personally—the Home Secretary for many years—and both are persons for whom I have a very great deal of personal regard and liking. But, having said that, I end with an adverse judgment on this Bill.

Of course, the thing has to he seen against the background of something which I have said before: the enormous increase in legislation which we see year after year passing through the Parliament of this country. I remember the pleasant little debate that we had quite recently on the Statute Law Revision Bill, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, took some credit for the fact—and for good reason—that under his régime, as indeed under mine and under the régime of the present Lord Chancellor, there were numerically fewer Statutes on the Statute Book in each case than the number we had inherited from our predecessors, so that it looked at first sight as if we were reducing the volume of legislation with which the unfortunate profession and the unfortunate public has to deal. But I am afraid this is a specious view, excellent as the work of the Statute Law Revision Committee has been, because, side by side with the reduction in the number of Statutes, the pages and pages of additional Statute Law with which we are confronted has continued to increase, flowing through Parliament as if it were a cloaca maxima. One therefore has to start with a slight prejudice against legislation. Is this Bill really necessary

Now certainly, despite the noble Lord's encomium, it has hardly been received with a chorus of approval from any quarter: but, rather characteristically, despite the unpopularity of their measure, the unpopularity has not deterred Ministers, and they have carried through the Bill with minor Amendments, but rejecting all the major Amendments which were proposed in another place, rather as if this was a main Government measure to protect the pound and get us out of our economic difficulties, which the noble Lord has not claimed for it yet. Your Lordships will be aware what the Association of County Councils have said about it. They have said: The Association have little confidence in the scheme as it now stands. The proposals are cumbersome, expensive and could damage police morale. Moreover, in the Association's view, … reliance on a centralised Board as proposed does not even serve the objective of setting up a new, independent clement", which the noble Lord quite rightly referred to as its main object. Alternative schemes as suggested by the Association would he far more effective to this end. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities have been hardly less scathing. They have said: The Association consequently urged that the present system for dealing with complaints against the police should, with any necessary modifications, be maintained, rather than the setting up of an entirely new body, and that locally elected representatives of the public interest—i.e., elected members of police authorities—should he appropriately involved: e.g., as a filter of complaints. The Association is disappointed that the Home Office is unable to accept that local authority members form an appropriate independent element for hearing complaints against the police, and thus for Board membership ". We have also seen disquieting reports that if the Bill finds its way on to the Statute Book there may be serious resignations among the senior officers of police. This would he a very sad event should it take place, and I should like to say to any senior officers who might be disposed to act in this way that I hope they will not do so. whatever they might think of the Bill. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is of course known to most of us, including myself. and in my opinion he is one of the most talented heads of the metropolitan police that the metropolitan police has seen for many years. He has had to cope with great difficulties. There is the mounting tide of criminal behaviour. violence included.

If I may say so with discretion, we have all read in the Press of the serious cases of criminal behaviour by some members of the metropolitan force which have either come before the courts or been otherwise dealt with in public, and this must. have caused him, as well as the public, grave difficulty and grave anxiety. Although not every noble Lord will agree with me, I must say he has also had to cope, as I believe, with an extremely archaic form of legal procedure which is badly in need of reform. in my judgment, which tends to protect the criminal without assisting the truly innocent. Therefore, he has all our sympathy: but whether he be involved or whether any other senior officer be involved, I hope very much that they will not pursue to the point of resignation any doubts they may have about the value of this Bill. This is not a time when one ought to put one's personal criticism of Government policy in front of the urgent requirements of the public interest in dealing with crime and in supporting the morale of the police force.

Reading the reports of another place, On this measure. in Committee particularly, I am bound to say that what impressed me most was the absence of any real, coherent philosophy behind the Bill. Of course, it is easy to say in connection with complaints against any professional body that the internal disciplinary organs of that body should not at the same time be prosecutor, judge and jury in their own case. I saw, about this very Bill, comment to that effect in one of the national newspapers over the weekend. Stated like that, one can hardly dispute the proposition. It is like saving that sin is a bad thing—with which. hope. we all agree; except, of course, those which we are tempted ourselves to commit. But it is precisely this kind of approach to disciplinary questions which led both the Bar Council and The Law Society in their very different fields to introduce a lay element in their disciplinary bodies.

If we were simply discussing whether an independent element was desirable in the disciplinary organisation of the police, I suppose we should all be of one mind—like my noble friend Lord Carr, to whom the noble Lord referred—in saying: " Yes, Why not? It will reassure public opinion." But there remains for discussion exactly what form the independent element should take. It certainly will take, if we are coherent in our thinking, a different form in different cases. What we are discussing this evening is what form it ought to take in relation to the police. On that, I would say. let us think a little about the subject matter of complaints against professional men and women in any walk of life and then try to apply it to the police force.

Most of us have appeared before disciplinary tribunals in a professional capacity at one time or another, and when I sat where the noble and learned Lord is now sitting I also saw a good many complaints against members of my own profession and even the Judiciary. So far as I have seen professional complaints, they really must fall into one or more of three categories. Either they allege a crime against the person involved, in which case I think we should all have to say. and the noble Lord has accepted, that although the independent element is indispensible, in disputed cases it must take the form of criminal proceedings before a criminal court and in serious cases before a judge and jury. Secondly, it can result in the claim which would give rise to a demand for compensation payable to the com- plainant by the body concerned or the individual concerned. But there, again, I venture to point out to those who talk about this matter without thinking it through, that where there is a complaint resulting in a claim for compensation, that is to say, for behaviour which, whether criminal or not, is also tortious or a breach of contract, in the end the independent element must he provided by the ordinary courts of law, the county courts or the High Court. Those are the only bodies which can award reasonable compensation.

Of course, there is an intermediate class of claims. This is the third category. That must be those which do not involve either a crime or a claim for compensation; that is to say, purely breaches of discipline, or, alternatively, those which form the basis of a claim for crime or compensation and which must be the subject of preliminary investigation before the matter can be disposed of by the authorities of the body concerned. It is really in that third category alone that the independent element is up for discussion today.

If there were to be a complaint against a policeman for committing a crime there must be a preliminary investigation: and if there is a prima faice case he must be prosecuted and punished in the ordinary way. If there is a complaint against a policeman which is going to give rise to a claim for compensation based on either tort or contract, there must again he a preliminary investigation because the police authorities must know whether to accept or to dispute the case: but it must be decided, if disputed, by the courts. It is only to " police "—if I may use the word in inverted commas—the validity of the internal investigation that you are concerned with the independent element in the police procedure. It is precisely for that reason that I consider that one looks for two quite separate things. neither of which can he provided by the body which is in question on this Bill.

The two things are, first, an Ombudsman-like factor which would see that the procedure in given cases has not gone wrong, or does not go wrong as a general rule; and for that purpose I must say that concerning the personal future of the officer concerned. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that double jeopardy is not to he allowed. On the other hand, as regards private compensation, if the authority is to pay and becomes responsible, if a mistake has been made, the authority must acknowledge the mistake and pay it. Broadly speaking, I should not have thought it is every case which needs separate scrutiny, but those cases in which the complainant feels he has not been given a fair deal or where the Ombudsman-like authority, possibly on the instigation of an MP, thinks an independent investigation is necessary.

This would yield a totally different type of independent lay element from that proposed essentially in this Bill. It would also be much cheaper because it would not involve the heavy centralised structure which is to cost us—so the Bill says somewhere, but I cannot lay my finger on it—£300,000 a year and which the County Council's Association, I think, estimate at£l million a year—" peanuts ", was the word the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, used late one night this week: but still, from the point of view of the Conservative Party Which is less liberal than he, something which is well worth saving even though it may in comparison With our total expenditure be somewhat trivial. This, to my mind, casts doubt on the central citadel which the noble Lord was seeking to defend, therefore, on the Second Reading of the Bill.

There are one or two special factors relating to the police to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is that the police is a disciplined body and therefore one must do nothing to undermine the authority of the chief officer of the police. I rather question—although I think it more for Committee than for Second Reading—whether it can be said that this Bill particularly safeguards that principle. The second, which is a point I have not made but which arises out of Clause 10 of the Bill, is that, side by side with the need for an independent investigation on behalf of members of the public, I personally feel that something not of the same kind but still fulfilling part of the same functions of the Courts Martial Appeals Court ought to he there to defend the officer who may himself have been the object of an injustice from his superior officers in the disciplinary chain. This, I think, is part of the subject-matter of Clause 10. I noticed the other day—and I am not going into detail because I should be breaking confidences if I did so—that the Home Secretary came in for criticism because he had reinstated a certain officer who had been dismissed from the force by a chief constable.

It would not he appropriate for me to discuss the merits of this case, but I happened to discuss it with the Home Secretary. It immediately came to my notice that, when one heard them from his lips, the facts were quite different from what they had been when one read them in the paper. I do not think I am breaking confidences here. I said, " Why did you not say so? " He replied, " Because the custom has always been that we never give our reasons ".

Is that right, my Lords? Would it not have been in the interests of the Home Secretary in such a case to disclose the real facts, or to have an independent body which disclosed them for him, and gave reasons why he had allowed an appeal? This Bill does not impinge on that, except marginally at Clause 10. I do not think that the right body is being put into a position to reassure the public. I think an ombudsman-like function would he better. Secondly. I should like to see a body to which an officer could appeal if he had been the victim of an injustice by the purely internal discipline of the force. much the same as an officer or a private in the Army can demand a court-martial if he finds the commanding officer subjected him to an injustice.

There is one other thought that I ought to put forward before I arrive ponderously at my peroration. It is this: I wonder whether we have ever thought about how ninny wheels there are to the policeman's coach. One is always being told that one should not add a fifth wheel to a coach. Let us count the wheels of the vehicle with which we expect the police to carry us along on the road to law and order. First, there is the Home Office itself. The Home Secretary has direct responsibility for the metropolitan area with its sponsoring responsibility for the rest of England and Wales, although not of course for Scotland or Northern Ireland. That is the first wheel. The second wheel is the police authorities spread up and down the Kingdom, and partly —though not wholly —reflecting the views of the local authorities concerned. The third wheel is the inspectorate, introduced by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, under the Home Office hut independent of it. Then there is a fourth wheel, the Judiciary, responsible for such things as the Judges' Rules and of course the courts, the ultimate form of resort for complaints. The fifth wheel is the chief officers of the police forces responsible for discipline and morale to their respective authorities.

To this coach, with five wheels already revolving, the Government now propose to add a sixth wheel in the shape of the Police Complaints Board proposed in this Bill. In support of this they have produced no evidence that the present machinery, devised as recently as 1959 and sanctioned in the last resort by right of appeal to the courts, is working badly. I do not believe that it is working badly. In so far as it may be theoretically open to objection, what is wanted, as I have ventured to suggest, is something quite different from what is proposed: namely, an ombudsman-like function and a courts-martial appeal court-like function. This Bill provides neither.

What are we to do with it, my Lords? That puts the House of Lords in something of a dilemma. If this were an effective second Chamber, elected by proportional representation to represent the regions, we could throw it out on Second Reading. If I were a Member of the Commons, I should certainly have voted against it on Second Reading. But what are we to do now'? So far as I can see, nothing will alter the principle of the Bill by amendment on Committee. In particular. I do not think, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that any discussion of the ombudsman-like suggestion that I have made at Second Reading could be acceptable to the Government because it undermines the whole fabric of the Bill. It goes against its whole philosophy. We doubt whether we could have a valuable debate, except perhaps on the question of whether one of the clauses should stand part of the Bill. Those of us on this side of the House will take counsel with our friends in the other place and with various bodies to see whether we can " tinker " with it by improving it in detail. But I am bound to say that were it not for the constitutional amenities which we normally observe, I would vote against the Bill on Second Reading.

7.16 p.m.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, I desire to make only a few observations in order primarily to indicate the attitude of my noble friends to this measure at this stage. In saying that. may I say at once that I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, that this is not really a Party measure. In the other place some interesting fleeting alliances of political opposites considerably enlivened the proceedings.

We on these Benches want to support this Bill at this stage; we should like to look carefully at it in Committee to see whether improvements can be made. We come to that conclusion although we are in the rather strange position of realising that the 1964 Police Act operates entirely satisfactorily where it is operated by chief officers of police who have the zeal, determination and enthusiasm, for example, of Sir Robert Mark, to whom tribute has already been paid this evening. I do not believe that any complaint can he made as to the way in which that Act has been operated or of the standard of discipline that is thus imposed in the police force.

The difficulties which arise arc two-fold. One is that, unhappily, though perhaps inevitably, not every chief officer of police can share the same zeal and determination as Sir Robert Mark. The other difficulty arises from a growing feeling that where a complainant has his complaint dismissed. he is liable to feel a grievance when he finds that the complaint has been dismissed by a similar body to the one against which he has complained. In an increasingly participatory democracy the answer has come to be that there must be representation of the consumer or of the public in ways that perhaps a few years ago were not contemplated. Where it will all end, I do not know. I suspect the day may come when I shall go into the Old Bailey and find myself before a tribunal of three judges, one of' whom has been elected by the occupants of Wormwood Scrubs.

My Lords, we accept this present scheme, cumbersome though we think it is, because it is difficult to find a better alternative. We do not accept the contention that was put forward on one side of the other place, that the powers of investigation should be removed from the police into some unknown, untried and untested body. On the other hand, we have found it difficult to accept the suggestion which has been canvassed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, this evening, of an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner type of person who would carry out an ex poste facto investigation which inevitably would considerably prolong the proceedings and would, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, give little satisfaction to the public. I suspect that if it were tried out it would give very little satisfaction to the police, either.

When one talks about prolonging the proceedings, one is led to observe that the Government's proposals carry the danger that they may lead to delay of one sort or another in dealing with complaints. It is obvious that if a police officer is suspended pending an investigation he is, for practical purposes, of no use to the force during the length of the investigation. If he is not suspended, perhaps because the matter is regarded as a trivial one, nevertheless it is difficult to see how a man can operate with 100 per cent. efficiency if he knows there is some sort of complaint hanging over his head. It will be necessary to look with very considerable care at the Bill in Committee, primarily to ensure that the procedures which are envisaged enable complaints to be disposed of rapidly and efficiently.

If I sound perhaps a little less than enthusiastic in welcoming this Bill this evening, it is because that is the way I feel. The view we on these Benches have formed is that, given the nature of the problem, the solution the Government are putting forward is perhaps, in outline, the least unsatisfactory that can be devised. To that extent and for those reasons, we shall therefore support the Bill.

7.21 p.m.

Lord NUNBURNHOLME

My Lords, I ask this House to grant to me the same indulgence that it always gives to maiden speakers. It has not been easy to find a Bill on which to make my maiden speech, because very few Bills recently before your Lordships have not been controversial. I was tempted to address your Lordships upon farriers and their trade, but I found that although horses have always been my greatest source of pleasure, I knew very little about the subject. Again, I was intending to speak on forestry, but I discovered that three other maiden speakers were ahead of me. and it seemed to me that a fourth maiden in one day might test your Lordships' indulgence a little too far.

This Bill deals with one aspect of police discipline—the method and procedure of dealing with complaints by members of the public against the police. It takes from chief constables and police authorities the power to discipline their own members and gives that power to an entirely independent body, the members of which may not be, and must never have been, policemen. When a complaint is made by a member of the public against one or more policeman the appropriate superior police authorities will not be allowed to put their own house in order, and may therefore have great difficulty in keeping their house in order. An independent hoard will see the papers regarding every complaint made and will have the power to make a chief officer of police initiate disciplinary action, even if he is of the firm conviction that there is no case to answer.

I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that this Bill may have an adverse effect upon police morale. No one who even lightly scans the crime figures in this country today can view them with anything but alarm. Crimes of violence, mugging. vandalism, robbery of all kinds, hijacking, terrorism and kidnapping are on the increase. In combating crime, we are almost entirely in the hands of our police force. Theirs is the responsibility and the means of keeping law and order. We have to trust them to a large extent. Our police force has always been the envy of the world and is greatly appreciated and trusted by a large majority of the British public. It is essential that police morale should be high.

In many ways, police discipline is similar to military discipline. The policeman and the soldier are both governed by a separate Act of Parliament, which applies in the main only to him, and to the civilian public in only very rare and exceptional cases. Two examples come to mind when military law applies to a civilian: one is the court-martial. A court-martial has the power to subpoena a civilian to appear before it as a witness. Furthermore, the president of a court-martial can commit anybody to prison for a period of 21 days. There is another occasion when military law applies to civilians; that is, to civilians who are part of a soldier's family or dependants, including also his servants, when he is abroad on active service. But this military law applies only when expressly stated in the Manual of Military Law.

The lives of both policeman and soldier are ordered as to their daily procedures down to the smallest detail by a set of regulations which apply solely to themselves. Both are subject to the law of the land to the same extent as any other citizen; both are subject to their particular code of discipline which is executed by a superior officer or a superior authority of their own kind. In other words, their discipline is a self-discipline. Military summary discipline is a private matter. It is not open to the public, and the results are not available to the general public, under normal circumstances. Courts-martial are open to the public and their results are published. But the members of a court-martial are soldiers. There is a judge advocate-general whose duty it is to advise the military authorities on all courts-martial evidence and charges, but the ultimate decision lies with the soldier. Occasionally, and in fact often, a judge advocate will sit on a court-martial but his duties are merely to advise the court as to the law, and the finding is purely a military one for the soldier. I would suggest to your Lordships that a soldier is better able to be impartial and fair to his own kind than anyone else might be. In fact, some lawyers regard courts-martial as the fairest and most just law of the land.

I suggest that the same thing applies to police discipline and procedure as it now stands. I served for many years as a professional soldier in the Household Cavalry, (the Blues) and, recalling the various colonels under whom I have served, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that not one of them would have taken kindly to an outside independent civilian board telling them which of the men under their command they were to discipline and what charges were to be laid against any individual in their regiment. As to a Board demanding in writing the reasons for or against preferring a charge and what punishment was inflicted, I can tell your Lordships' House that the reports would have made interesting reading, and quite possibly might have contravened the Obscene Publications Act! In fact, I feel certain that the majority of commanding officers I have known would have resigned rather than suffer what they would have termed civilian interference in a strictly military matter. They would have taken the view that they could put their own house in order and keep it that way; and I know that many chief officers of police hold the same opinion.

I should like to quote to your Lordships a passage which appeared in the Daily Express a few days ago in their " Opinion " column. It says: Sir Robert Mark is the best police chief London has had in many a year. He is contemplating retirement at the earliest possible moment when he is 60 in March. Sir Robert is in no mood to remain in office once the police complaints Bill becomes law. It appears that Sir Robert Mark wants nothing to do with this Bill, and my information—which is reliable but, I am afraid, confidential—is that many other senior police officers are of the same opinion. They share that opinion with the Association of County Councils, many other associations of elected representatives, the police authorities, chief assistant and deputy chief constables, chief constables, the Superintendents' Association, the Police Federation and a large section of the popular and responsible Press.

This Bill deals with complaints against the police. At this time the work of the police has never been more difficult: their workload is heavy and they are undermanned. Society itself at this moment is not stable. Certain sections of our society refuse to recognise the authority of the police, or even the fact that they have a job to do. Although these sections of society are in a minority, they tend to live in communities and ghettos which makes the work of the police in those areas difficult, if not hazardous. If a young man or woman joins the police force today in certain districts or areas of this country, he or she must be brave. determined and dedicated. It is not unusual for certain groups in society today to demonstrate, and during the course of such demonstrations the police may have to take action to preserve the police and protect members of the public who are about their lawful business.

It sometimes happens that a policeman is injured and arrests are effected, and the result may he a complaint against police brutality. Every such complaint, and any other complaint, is investigated by a police officer who normally holds the rank of superintendent, who will, as a matter of principle, be an officer from a different division or police force from that of the police officer against whom the complaint has been lodged. This is time consuming but necessary. At the moment, the investigating police superintendent is responsible to the chief constable. In future, he may be responsible to the Police Complaints Board.

A policeman has the right, as has any citizen, to protect himself. He may use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect an arrest. But when fists are swinging and bottles flying, no one can expect a policeman to deal gently with a ruffian who has just kicked his teeth in. The primary task of the police force is " the prevention of crime ", but it is also to bring evil doers to justice. If every time the forces of law and order bring a hooligan to justice, or, as my old man used to say, to his senses, they are made the subject of a complaint which is dealt with by other than their own kind, then we may find it difficult to recruit and keep the type of policeman that we need.

I have never had occasion to make a serious and responsible complaint about the police: I have known very few people who have ever made such a complaint. There have been occasions when I have considered that the police have acted with excessive zeal, such as the occasion when I turned up a one-way street in the wrong direction and narrowly escaped a collision with a police car coming the other way. On another occasion I parked my car in St. James's Square and forgot to put the necessary coin in the meter. It cost me £21³50 to retrieve my car from the police pound at Hyde Park Corner. At the time I considered this expensive, especially as I visited my club in St. James's Street for only a few moments in order to refresh myself. But it was I who parked the car and I who failed to put the money in the meter, and there was no cause for complaint on my behalf. But the police receive many complaints and a great deal of unnecessary rudeness from members of the public who have their cars towed away. Be it to their credit, they shrug them off and pay no attention. There is evidence that a few legislators in both your Lordships' House and another place have had reason to reflect on the advisability of having put on the Statute Book what is commonly called the Breathalyser Act. My information is that the majority of complaints which are made against the police are frivolous and vindictive.

There is another kind of complaint which is entirely different and very serious. I refer to bribery and corruption. In these cases, the police are subject to the criminal law in exactly the same way as any other citizen and the police force has its own department to investigate such complaints. This department is called A.10, and consists of senior police officers of great experience whose honesty and reputation are impeccable. It would be hard to find a body of men better able to investigate police corruption than A.10. If there is the slightest evidence that a police officer has committed a criminal offence then this Bill hardly applies, because the police officer may be the subject of criminal proceedings in a court of law in which case the Complaints Board would probably have no jurisdiction. In the event of a police officer being found guilty of a criminal offence, or of conduct which the Army would describe as unbecoming to an officer and gentleman, it is almost certain that his chief of police would sack him.

I would quote to your Lordships the case the other day of the police officer who was found guilty of sexual perversions with a small boy. He was sacked by his chief of police and later reinstated. There was a great deal of police disquiet, but the matter was resolved in the end by the officer resigning. This Bill also upholds the ancient maxim of Common Law that a man shall not be tried or punished twice for the same offence. I think that that has been dealt with adequately by previous speakers.

It is essential that in all matters concerning complaints against the police justice must not only be done but he seen to he done. and there must he no suspicion that the police are covering up charges of brutality, bribery, corruption or any other complaint by a member of the public. But I wonder whether it is necessary for the police to he forced to wash all their dirty linen in glaring publicity. The police themselves will deal far more effectively with their own black sheep than any civilian board, which has never had business dealings with or knowledge of police procedure.

If this Bill becomes law, experienced police chiefs who are now responsible for police discipline and have the knowledge to recognise a genuine complaint when they see one, will be answerable to and under the control of a lay board. They feel that this will undermine their authority and have an adverse effect upon police discipline in general. It is estimated that the Complaints Board may have to deal with as many as 15,000 complaints in one year. If the law fails to give to every hardworking policeman the support he deserves from frivolous and unfounded complaints, then we may find that many policemen will he unwilling to perform their duties fully for fear of disciplinary action by the Police Complaints Board. The police force is opposed to this Bill, as are many other sections of society, and I suggest to your Lordships that we must think most carefully before passing it. I am much obliged to your Lordships for the patience and indulgence that you have shown to me this day.

7.37 p.m.

Lord GARDINER

My Lords, apologising for turning my hack on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, it is my privilege to be the first Member of your Lordships' House to he in a position to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, on his maiden speech. It was brief, and it was no more controversial than a maiden speech may properly he, particularly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hai'sham of Saint Marylehone, has already pointed out, this Bill was not treated below in any way as a Party Bill. The noble Lord spoke with evident knowledge of the subject, and I am sure the whole House will he anxious to hear from him again, soon and often. I think I can promise him the latter, because yesterday, as your Lordships know, the Bill in another place to abolish the House of Lords failed to secure a Second Reading by a very narrow margin of 15 votes, so presumably we are here for some little time yet.

This Bill has two peculiarities. First, it should be, I am sure, very welcome. As the right honourable gentleman the Member for Penrith and the Border, Mr. Whitelaw, made plain in the other place—though I must not, of count. quote him—it is very necessary now, and I think now more than ever, to maintain and if possible strengthen public confidence in the police. There has for some years been feeling strongly expressed that this confidence would he greater if improvements were made in the way in which com-plaints made by members of the public against the police were dealt with. As has been said, it was the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who first announced as Home Secretary that his Government would initiate legislation to deal with this, and each Government have since taken the same view. So on the face of it, in all quarters and among all Parties this should he a very popular Bill and I congratulate the Government for having introduced it.

The second peculiarity is that, as was said in another place, it is a Bill which has hardly a friend in the House. This is a curious mixture. It had one friend in the other place—the Chief Whip, as appeared at the Report stage of the Bill. Otherwise, it apparently had hardly a friend. The first reason for this is that if the object of the Bill is to increase public confidence in the police force, in particular in relation to what happens when a citizen makes a complaint against the police, it is odd that the complainant is dropped from the Bill. The first thing that F should have thought one could expect is that instead of having to make his complaint to his enemy at the police station, the complainant could make his complaint to the Police Complaints Board.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, that, I should have thought, with great respect, he can do.

Lord GARDINER

My Lords, then I missed that the complainant had any legal right to do so, but that may be so. imagine it is a matter of administration.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

The point is that anybody can correspond with I he Board. Then the Board would communicate directly with the police force concerned, which would investigate the complaint. Just as under the new as under the existing procedure a person can make a complaint to a police station, so under the new procedure he can go first to the Board if he so chooses.

Lord GARDINER

My Lords, I am much obliged. I should have anticipated that the Bill would make that plain and give that right. I appreciate that everybody has the right to write a letter but there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that the appropriate procedure would be for the complainant in the first place to send his complaint to the Board, Secondly, there are no provisions giving any right to the complainant to appear before the Board or their tribunal, or to say what his complaint is, or to call his evidence. I think I am right in saying that about the only reference in the Bill to the complainant is the effect upon a police officer if the complainant withdraws his complaint.

Throughout, Justice has been very concerned about this Bill, for this reason. In a certain number of cases the person who is convicted complains that he has been framed by the police: either they have deliberately lied in their evidence, or they have planted something on him, or they have suborned the witnesses for the defence, and it has subsequently transpired that what the accused said was perfectly right and has been proved to be so. There has been a disquieting number of recent cases where it has had to be admitted that men who have spent years in prison never committed the crimes of which they were convicted. Sometimes a man may discover this before his trial and try to deal with it at his trial. More often he realises it only as the trial proceeds and then he relies upon his appeal.

Justice is concerned with the lacuna which exists between the police investigation and the Court of Appeal. The two seem never to meet. I do not want to exaggerate the number of these cases; nor where innocent men are convicted are they necessarily men of hitherto exemplary character. On the contrary. Some of them are men with several convictions—it may or may not be that this is why they were originally prosecuted —but on this occasion they did not commit the crime with which they were charged. These cases can arise from many motives. The police may believe initially that a certain man committed the crime; then they find that he did not. But they do not want to lose face, so they go on with the case. Or they may go on believing that this man committed the offence; but they realise that unfortunately the evidence is not strong enough to enable them to get a conviction. so they manufacture some evidence.

Whatever the reasons are, I do not wish to exaggerate the number of these cases. Up to four years ago there were about 16 cases a year in the metropolitan police force, as a result of which police officers were compulsorily retired, it having been shown that they were not fit to be in the force. In London alone in the last four years there have been 400 cases. This is news which is partly unwelcome and partly welcome. It is unwelcome to realise that there are so many members of the force who have had to be compulsorily retired. It is welcome in that it shows that in Sir Robert Mark we have a commissioner who is determined to root out conduct of this kind and such black sheep as every large body of men must necessarily have.

Justice believes that where cases of this kind are made out and an appeal is pending, the police investigation could proceed forthwith and the result should be made available to the Court of Appeal when it hears the appeal. The noble Lord. Lord Nunburnholme, quite rightly spoke highly of A.10. In the metropolitan police force this is largely the case, but in most of the remaining parts of the country unfortunately it is not.

I fear that I must come back to something that I have said before—which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, says, with some justification, that I am in the habit of doing. Difficulty arises from two peculiarities of our country. The first is in relation to the United Kingdom, in that there is no other Western democracy in which the police are not under the control of the central Government, through a Minister who is responsible to Parliament. It is only in the United Kingdom that, apart from the metropolitan police force, we have 42 separate chief constables, each of whom is a law entirely unto himself. From the citizen's point of view. what is going to happen depends upon where he lives, as one can see from this example. If you live in London, you have the blessing of A.42 and Sir Robert Mark. If you have the misfortune to live outside London, you do not fare so well.

The second peculiarity—here I must leave the United Kingdom—is that it is only in England and Wales that the police prosecute people. This does not happen, and never has happened, in Scotland. In every other West European democracy there is an independent prosecuting authority which stands between the police and the citizen. That is why one would anticipate that in England and Wales, where the police prosecute, complaints against the police would assume a very different character from when one is simply dealing with policemen as policemen and not with policemen who are prosecutors.

The next feature which I think is unsatisfactory is that you never know what the investigating officer has found. One would have anticipated that if the investigation report were completed before the appeal was heard it would be made available to the appellant and to the Court of Appeal. But you never know. In the case of Mr. Docherty, with which I am very familiar—as is also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—Mr. Docherty complained that he had asked for an identity parade and that it was not given to him. This was a breach of police rules. Mr. Docherty said he was on a coach with mothers, fathers and children going to the seaside for the day. He maintained that any genuine inquiry by the police into his case would have shown that he was miles away at the time. It was, after all, a very simple matter. The other people in the coach had no axe to grind. Most of them had never seen him before; but of course they would have remembered him, because of the 25 adults on the coach all were mums, apart from two dads and Mr. Docherty was one of the only two dads, and, besides, they had a sweep on the way and he won the sweep. Any genuine attempt to investigate where he was at the time must have shown the police that they had the wrong man. Thirdly, when they went to see the one woman who knew everybody because she had organised the whole thing, they told her that if she made a statement to Mr. Docherty's solicitor she need not go to court; so she never turned up.

In that case there was a first-class police investigation by an independent chief constable, who I have every reason to believe performed his task conscientiously and very thoroughly, and this was the result. Meanwhile, Mr. Docherty's appeal had been dismissed. But as chairman of Justice I wrote to the Home Secretary to ask him to refer this case back to the Court of Appeal, and by the time it was referred back to the Court of Appeal the investigating officer's report was to hand. Although it was not disclosed, the police said, " Well, we cannot support the conviction because it is quite obvious now that this man did not commit the offence at all ". At the time it seemed to me to be peculiar that neither Mr. Docherty, nor his solicitor, nor his counsel, nor Justice, nor I were ever allowed to see the report.

Supposing inquiry in a case disclosed that there was a station book, the existence of which had never been disclosed to the defence, which contained entries relevant to the charge made against the accused and quite inconsistent with evidence which the police had given and it was obvious that somebody at some time had altered the book. I do not think t hat discloses any criminal offence or a matter which should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. But would it not be vital that those facts should be made known to the accused for his appeal and at the Court of Appeal? At the moment they are not. No part of the report or the facts found are ever disclosed.

Justice is convinced that cases like this will go on so long as there is this lacuna between the police investigation and the hearing by the Court of Appeal. This, of course, has been discussed in another place. What is the Government's view? The Government's view is this: " Yes, we realise that this is a very serious problem and people really ought not to be left languishing in prison if somebody knows they are innocent, and we are very anxious to be able to deal with this ". Secondly, they said, " We could not agree to a copy of the report being made available to the accused, or for that matter to the Court of Appeal, for this reason: it is very important when there is a police inquiry that the police should feel perfectly free to express their opinions—what they thought at the time—whether or not they can prove them by evidence. They are entitled to say, Well, my hunch was this ' and if this report were to be given to the accused he would be able to bring a libel action against the policeman ".

I have told my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that Justice entirely agree with this. I think it is a perfectly fair point. We have said, " Excise by all means any matters of opinion from the Report; excise by all means anything which might reflect on police discipline or national security, but the facts found by the investigating officer ought to he available for the appeal ". I have yet to hear any sound reason why that should not be done.

Thirdly, they have said, " We must not let the policeman be subject both to the proceedings of the Director of Public Prosecutions and to some inquiry in the Court of Appeal because that would mean that the two things would be a double jeopardy'. I think this point was never really answered in the other place. It is a false point and is an argument which has a hole in the middle. The two things are not at all the same. What the appellant is seeking to persuade the Court of Appeal by the facts he produces, whether it is the station book or whatever it is, is that those facts raise sufficient doubt to warrant the Court of Appeal saying that they do not regard the conviction as being safe and satisfactory.

What would happen if the policeman were prosecuted, if it was a criminal offence, is not that at all. What the Director is considering is this: is it probable that a jury will say that the evidence is so strong that against a policeman of good character they are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed a criminal offence? Those are two entirely different things.

Lastly—and this is why the matter was never put to a decision in Committee—the Government went on saying: " This is a problem. We recognise it. We concede it. We are most anxious to deal with it. We are consulting the police about it and the Court of Appeal, and so forth ", and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers who replied to the debate at the Report stage on 20th May said: Let me say at once that the Government are not unsympathetic to the concept underlying the proposals put forward by my honourable friend the Member for Derby, North. I concede, as I did in Committee, that there can he a problem when the same or similar issues arise in the context of criminal proceedings, on the one hand, and in the context of a Section 49 complaint against the police, on the other hand. The Government would like to tackle the problem if they possibly could. Later, he said: The problem tends to arise most acutely … in a small number of rather difficult cases. Then he said: There ought to he increased flexibility between trial and appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Then he said: The position at present is that discretion on this matter rests with chief officers … there is some variation in practice … There does not seem to be the same flexibility in other parts of the country "— that is to say apart from London and A.10— and sonic of the police organisations at any rate are reluctant to move further in this direction … My right honourable friend proposes, however, to continue his discussions with those concerned, with the intention of exploring whether the practice presently adopted in the Metropolitan district might he more generally adopted Finally he said: These discussions are continuing. It is a difficult matter. I have great sympathy with what my honourable friend is trying to put forward, as, I am sure, has everyone. It would he quite wrong for someone to be convicted on perjured evidence and languish in jail as a result.… The Government are very serious about their consultations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: 20/5/76, col. 1786.] In view of that, there are two questions which I would respectfully put to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. The first is this: I have recently received a document tending to show that in the Labour Party's Manifesto for the next General Election they will commit themselves to the establishment of an independent prosecuting authority like everybody else has, including Scotland and Wales. I am old enough to know that the Labour Party is one thing and a Labour Government is another. So the question I should like to ask is, what is the present intention of this Government—which I trust will he there until 1978—apart from any financial considerations? When financial considerations are met, is it the intention of this Government to create an independent prosecuting authority?

The second question is this: How are the discussions going? Naturally, in Committee, when you are told by a Minister, " Yes, this is a problem, you have a point here. We should like to help you but it is not an easy one. We are thinking about it. We are consulting people ", you do not press the matter to a Division. But time is going by: twenty-one days in Committee, four days in the Chamber on Report stage, and all the time the Government saying, " We are thinking about it; we are consulting people ". If my noble friend has any news for us, I should appreciate it very much if he would give it to us at this stage, otherwise it may be that some would want to return to this question on Committee stage of the Bill.

8.1 p.m.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, in following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I should like first to say how much we enjoyed listening to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme. He began by telling us about the commanding officers under whom he had served. I am sure everyone of us wished to hear more. We should have liked him to give a full, subjective and uninhibited appraisal of the characters and talents of those distinguished officers. We shall look forward greatly in future to hearing him speak on forestry, the police, or the Services, or any other matter on which he cares to speak.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, sent a cold shiver down our backs by suggesting that we had had a close shave in another place in the last day or two. It would he comforting for our morale to remember that in that close shave, we were not saved from actual abolition by 15 votes, but the 15 votes prevented a Bill being brought forward which might have had the dastardly aim of abolishing us. I was interested in the noble and learned Lord reminding us that in Scotland the police do not prosecute. As a layman, I have always been interested in that idea, and must try to learn more about it before it appears in the next Election Manifesto of the Labour Party.

My Lords, I think this Bill is an unsuccessful Bill. I am going to adopt a rather querulous attitude to it. I am sorry about that, because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, introduced it to us in an agreeable way. Two or three days ago I told him, very respectfully I hope, what an excellent Minister I thought he was, if occasionally misguided. But this Bill sets out to introduce an independent element into the complaints procedures, and on a balance of consideration that perhaps is a reasonable aim. But then the Bill proceeds to acquire some of the typical features of so much recent legislation. A legitimate and simple aim has been complicated by methods dear to the heart of modern bureaucrats, whether Ministers or their advisers.

What is wrong with the Bill is not its aim, but the system it establishes. It outlines a cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming process quite unnecessarily centralised, I would have thought. Almost everyone who knows anything about these matters believes that the forecast of a cost of £300,000 a year is a gross underestimate. The Association of County Councils believes in a figure of £l million. It may he said that if £l million is required to ensure justice, then that is that. But I think it brings us hack to the question: is the £l million which may be spent on this matter being spent to the best advantage?

The situation that we have come to nowadays is astonishing. This Government, and to some extent their recent predecessors, have always talked about their wish and intention to delegate more responsibility from the centre for local decision and action. But every time an opportunity comes, so far from displaying any enthusiasm for it, they seize the opportunity to create yet another central body with a staff and organisation. This seems to be almost invariably the escape route when the Secretary of State cannot make up his mind. If only Ministers would understand more often than they do that yet another organisation may not be the best solution. What it undoubtedly will do, as these things always do, is to create more paper work and more delay.

One of the defects of the Bill is the scant appreciation or consideration which it gives to the existing responsibilities of the police authorities, who seem throughout to be tacitly played down. This really is not good enough. There seem to be few signs that the role of the police authorities is fully understood or accepted: understood it must be, but accepted. Section 50 of the Police Act 1964 places the duty on the police authorities to keep themselves informed of the manner in which complaints are dealt with by chief officers of the police. This Bill does not seem to help them in doing that. It seems no members of the police authorities are to be members of the Board; no consultation is provided with local authorities or other associations in the selection of members of the Board, and police authorities, it seems, have no part to play in the proposed tribunal. Nor is this one of those instances when only one possible solution could be devised. At least two alternative schemes have been put forward, as has already been mentioned, in a constructive spirit, but both have been turned down by the Home Office.

My Lords, the perspective against which we have to consider this matter is, I suggest, as I think my noble friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone indicated, that the evidence really does not suggest, from the number or nature of the complaints, that there is much that is seriously wrong, and no widespread public demand for change in the current procedure. So far as these procedures can be improved, and I expect they can, then surely it should he possible to introduce an independent element of some kind without such a cumbersome, top heavy and centralised organisation.

Nor does one feel that justice has been fully done to the responsibilities which chief constables and their senior police executives must continue to carry if the good morale of their forces is to be maintained. If it is insisted that some institutionalised, new procedures are required, about which one remains dubious, surely something on the lines of the more localised area complaint boards would be preferable, as suggested by the Association of County Councils, the chairman of which would be appointed not by his proposer in this Bill, but by the Lord Chancellor, and one would have thought, well worthy of more consideration than that scheme seems to have obtained. Such a scheme, which would be more decentralised, should mean quicker work up and, consistent with their responsibilities, involve the police authorities more directly in this matter. In matters like this, surely prompt procedures with minimum delays and mini- mum recourse to a central body is what is most desirable.

A scheme for a police complaints ombudsman, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, was put forward by Mr. Michael Alison in another place. That provides a far simpler answer. Admittedly, ex post facto the ombudsman principle is really working rather well. I was one of those who did not like it when it was first put forward. I thought it was going to introduce a tremendous number of complications and delays, and not produce good results. But the scheme has a good record, and I believe that the public now understand the system and have accepted it. Speaking absolutely personally, it is a solution that attracts me in this case.

I think the noble Lord. Lord Harris, mentioned the Working Party set up in 1973 by the then Home Secretary to consider how an independent element could be introduced. I think he said that no single recommendation came out of it. But that Working Party did enunciate two principles, I understand: first. that the role of the police authority in handling complaints should not be diminished hut should be enhanced: and, secondly, that the responsibility of the chief officer for the discipline of his force should not he undermined. Neither of those principles seem to me to be promoted in this Bill, but rather the reverse.

My Lords, I believe this is a misconceived Bill in practice, though its aims. I am sure, are perfectly genuine. I see the same trouble as my noble friend Lord Hailsham. If the Bill is to receive a Second Reading, as I imagine it will, I think we are going to have a very difficult task in devising and introducing to it Amendments which really are required to meet some of its present defects and disadvantages. I think that task will he very difficult because of the nature of the Bill itself. When the time comes, we must do our best to see what we can do to improve it.

8.11 p.m.

Lord AYLESTONE

My Lords, I should like to add my personal congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Nunburnholme, on his maiden speech. He has very clearly demonstrated his deep regard for the police, a regard which I am sure we all share equally with him. I have just one or two points to make on this Bill. I feel that on the Second Reading of a Bill entitled " Police Bill " we perhaps ought to say something in the way of tribute to the police, which has the respect of the House, and it has not yet been said. I was rather horrified to hear that Sir Robert Mark, whom I have the honour of knowing—he was the chief constable of a Midlands city I represented in another place for something like 22 years—would be likely to resign if this Bill became law. I do not think that a man of the calibre of Sir Robert Mark would take such a step over such an action as the passing of a Bill of this type. I hope not, in any case.

My Lords, it cannot be too often said how much we the public appreciate the tact, the ease, the understanding with which the police carry out their difficult, dangerous and very often unpleasant duties. Their duties vary, as we know, from controlling a demonstration, usually rowdy, often unruly, to within a few hours perhaps attending a bad traffic accident, from a domestic " punch-up " in a home to conveying the sad news of the death of a near relative in an accident to the family. In fact their duties are numerous; they are limitless; and it is almost impossible to describe them all in detail. They perform all these duties within the confines of a desciplined force and, in my view, without a disciplined force the tasks that they perform could not be performed at all, and the police force as we know it could not exist. A disciplined force is essential. An undisciplined force would be an unhappy one. In fact that is true of almost every organisation one can think of; without discipline an organisation is unhappy. We have seen that in so many fields, and, if I may add this without being controversial, it goes for political Parties too. I feel that nothing that Parliament does should undermine the discipline of the police force.

We are indeed fortunate in having these many years since the days of the peelers ", a police force in this country which is so grown up that it is independent of, not motivated by, and has no allegiance to, any political Party whatsoever. This is not true in other countries. It is something we should perhaps remember when we are discussing our own police force. But there are some people in this country who do not think as we do. I am not quite sure whether the expression " the fuzz " is supposed to be derogatory or whether it is a term of endearment. One thing I am certain about is that it is an Americanism, and that is about all I can say about it.

The Bill which is in front of us now is about discipline within the police force, and only that part of discipline which arises out of a public complaint. It has nothing to do with the day-to-day discipline that a police chief may feel necessary to bring against members of the force for a purely internal act of indiscipline. But let us face the fact that within a force of the size of the police force in this country there are what are described in common parlance as " bent " policemen. Let us accept that it is true in every walk of life, human frailty being what it is. It is with that minority of people within the police force, whether the complaint comes from the public or from within the force, that we have to deal.

The public need assurance that their complaints against the police are fully, fairly and thoroughly investigated and, more than that, a large number of them feel that the public in some way or another should be represented within that investigation. Therefore, an independent element; that is, independent of the police themselves, is called for and is necessary. But its form is the problem which we are discussing this evening. Its form was the problem which was discussed in the other place for many days. I am sure that critics of this Bill will pay lip service to the idea of an independent element dealing with public complaints, but will be somewhat hesitant about setting up the necessary machinery to achieve that end. I am not sure that any ex post facto arrangement would at all meet the position. So we are concerned with public complaints, many of which, if not most of which, will be facetious, many of them downright malicious. There has been now for a very long time a feeling that somehow or other the public should be involved in investigating these complaints.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, used a cliché which I will use again, and one that it is difficult to argue against, that under the existing procedure the police are both judge and jury in their own cause. Successive Governments have recognised this and have approved the introduction of an independent element where purely public complaints are concerned. For almost two years the present Home Secretary, following upon the work of his predecessor, has been working in this field, investigating, talking, interviewing and so on, and has come up with this Bill. There is no doubt about it that there is a feeling in the public mind that there is some unfairness in dealing with complaints, and as that feeling is there we should do our best in one way or another to allay it. I appreciate what difficulties Home Secretaries have. We have again demonstrated it tonight. But this is an honest endeavour to meet a very complex situation.

The details will he discussed in Committee stage, hut there are one or two points I would wish to make, purely about the composition of the Police Complaints Board. Many of these complaints have been voiced before. In setting up the Board, I hope that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State —I am not sure which—will not feel that he has to include representatives or delegates representing organisations, whether they he police organisations like the Police Federation, whether they he organisations representing police officers, or any outside organisations, or delegates representing any organisations. For that matter, I hope your Lordships will not feel that he has to appoint representatives of ethnic groups. One hears this point made on a number of occasions. Certainly not a " statutory woman ", nor, for that matter, a " statutory immigrant ", but rather what I see as a selection of people who represent the public as a whole and who have an understanding of the importance of seeing that justice is done and is seen to be done. From my point of view, it is quite immaterial how many of them are women, how many are men, or how many are immigrants, so long as the right people arc appointed to do the job.

I am of the view that the Board must he free of all interference from Government, and of course from politicians in their day-to-day work in considering cases. They must be independent, as our legal system is independent. I hope that both Houses of Parliament would reject Parliamentary Questions to the Board about individual cases which arc before the Board at that time. By all means a report afterwards; by all means an annual report to the Home Secretary. Should the public or Members of Parliament write to the Board about cases under investigation, I hope that the Board will he absolutely firm and reject the matter that is then under consideration. If a member of the public sends a complaint, as we understand he is entitled to, in the first place direct to the Police Complaints Board, I hope that the Board, without considering it at that stage, will pass it on to the chief officer of police concerned so that the matter can go through the normal police procedures before, as it eventually may, it has to go hack to the Board themselves.

I have said that the Bill is complex, and hope that it will he fully studied in Committee. I hope it will not encourage more complaints about the police to the Board or to anyone else, and I hope that the public will feel that the complaints are being fairly and honestly investigated. We should thereby strengthen the public belief in the knowledge that their complaints are being fully investigated, and hope that the police themselves will feel assured that their own disciplinary procedures are not being undermined. The object of the Bill is to satisfy the public that their complaints are fully investigated. I hope that they will he satisfied, and f hope too that once it becomes law, if it becomes law, the police themselves will feel that it does not undermine their authority.

8.23 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, I should first like to join in the congratulations on the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Nunhurnholme. He made some very good points and produced some good common sense. I join in hoping that we shall hear him many times in the future.

One first wonders whether this Bill is necessary at all. At first sight it has a laudable aim. It has the aim of impartiality with police inquiries, and it questions whether one policeman can judge another. I think that that was well dealt with by the noble Lord. But I question whether there is in fact a public call for the Bill. I do not believe that there is, other than by a very small minority. One looks for evidence of police condonement of corruption or malpractice, or soft treatment of their members, and I think it is very difficult to find such evidence. One looks to see whether this Bill would be an improvement on the present system. From all I have read, I am not convinced that it will, and therefore I do not think it justifies the cost involved.

The proposal is the single Board chairman with nine members, I think all of whom are paid, and every single case put up throughout the country, other than certain small numbers of specific cases, will go to the Board members. It has been estimated that the numbers will be 15,000 annually, and that, to my mind, works out at about 60 cases per working day for the Board. When one realises that each file of each case can be up to 10,000 words long, that amounts to a great many cases, and a great many words. The Board can order that disciplinary charges must he brought, overruling the chief constable, and this could lead to court cases. The strict rules of evidence which would apply in the court could easily allow policemen guilty of malpractices to be cleared, but under the rules of double jeopardy this would prohibit further inquiry by the police and further disciplining.

One compares this with the present police inquiry system by which they are able to inquire not subject to the full and difficult rules of evidence, and use their experience and judgment to assess cases, which seems to work well at the moment. As was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, in the last four years it has resulted in no less than 100 policemen in the metropolis being forced to resign each year. I must say that I was sorry to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, say that things were very different outside the metropolis; in effect, casting doubt on all non-metropolis chief constables. I do not think that that would contribute to public reassurance, and I hope that he did not mean that.

Lord GARDINER

My Lords, I was not seeking to draw a difference between them in that respect, but in the respect that outside London most chief constables refuse to start the investigation at all until the appeal is over. I should have thought the better practice was that of London.

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. According to many people the " bent policeman will benefit from this Bill, and I should like to read two short quotations from The Sunday Times The first quotation is: …if a policeman is acquitted in court he cannot face a disciplinary hearing on the same evidence. Thus a dishonest policeman —knowing that juries are reluctant to convict does not have to fear being ' leant on by his senior officers to resign. The second quotation is as follows: A good example of the proposed new law would he where a constable was accused of assaulting a prisoner: acquittal in court would leave almost no room for a police chief to act under the disciplinary code.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, may I say one thing to the noble Lord. I recognise that it is a complicated matter and I would not seek to make debating points, but I should tell him that there will he no change in the procedure in dealing with these cases under the new measure. The situation at the moment under the existing disciplinary regulations concerning a policeman is that if he is acquitted of a criminal charge he cannot he proceeded against in front of his chief constable on the same charge using disciplinary regulations. That is the situation at the moment, and it will remain exactly the same in the new measure. There is no difference at all.

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, I ant grateful to the noble Lord. I also find it extremely complicated, in spite of the fact of taking advice. It is certainly not understood by many of the associations which give advice on this. I believe that the new proposals are over-centralised, and put too much responsibility for the police on the central Government rather than jointly with local authorities as it is at the moment. I think that all these cases coming to the central Board will he very slowly dealt with, and that there will almost inevitably be a big logjam of cases leaving the police who are under question in a state of uncertainty. This could lead to damaging police morale at t particular time when there is so much challenge to law and order.

Inevitably it will he bureacratic and extremely remote from the public. We do not know where the Board will be sited. It will probably be in London but it could be in, say, Newcastle. Imagine what somebody in London would think if he had to deal with such a Board in Newcastle—and, of course, it is just as far from London to Newcastle as it is from Newcastle to London. I also believe that this will undermine the authority of chief constables, who should be responsible for the discipline of their force, remembering that their decisions can be over-ruled by the Board. I believe that in some cases it will be more difficult to discipline the guilty, and it will be an expensive operation.

In any event, I am not aware of the good effects that the Bill will have. This reminds me of " Ferrars Law quoted in this House about five years ago when it was said that every Bill had exactly the opposite effect to that for which it was intended, and I fear that this Bill will comply with that law. it will reduce the effect of the police disciplinary machinery: it w ill affect adjudication by chief constables and it will probably make the expulsion of guilty policemen more difficult. There is also a latent threat where there is no threat at the moment: in the event of a very extreme Right Wing or Left Wing Government—and while one may not think that likely now, there is nothing to stop it happening—when one considers that the appointment of the chairman is by the Prime Minister, one could get the situation where the discipline of the police was entirely political, based on the political appointment of the chairman, which could create a dangerous situation.

In my view, the present situation is adequate, scrupulously fair and should be left alone. The police are probably far more ruthless with their fellow policeman than a Board is likely to be. Perhaps inquiries could be open to examination or inspection and the idea of the Ombudsman would probably be far more satisfactory, simple and cheap. If the system has to be changed, then I like the County Councils Association scheme, or something based on it. where there would be eight boards, each with a paid regional chairman, with local authority elected representatives who would be unpaid and who would not be members or past members of the police authority. It would be a local board where people would get speed and action; it would be more efficient; it would be no more expensive and it would be local for complainants to contact. It is a complicated plan, but I do not believe that it is any more complicated than the one in the Bill. However, it would suit all interests and certainly the local authorities much prefer it.

My Lords, this Bill has no friends, so far as I know, bar the Secretary of State. The county councils do not like it, the police do not like it and members of both Parties do not like it. So far as the public-are concerned, it will be remote, undemocratic and probably open to abuse in the long run. Indeed. I do not think even the Council for Civil Liberties likes it. It is probably too much to hope that it will be thrown out on Second Reading, but I hope that it will be drastically altered.

8.34 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme. on his maiden speech. I cannot pretend that it took a form which I found wholly satisfactory, but it was persuasively put. I think I speak on behalf of all noble Lords when I say that we were very gratified to have the pleasure of being here today and hearing him make his speech and that we very much look forward to hearing him address us in future.

We have had an interesting discussion on the Bill. Nearly everybody is agreed that there should be an independent element in the handling of complaints by members of the public. I had doubts for a moment or two during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, as to whether in reality he was as wholly and as enthusiastically in favour of an independent element as was, for instance, his right honourable friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, who made it quite clear on the Third Reading of the Bill that the Opposition strongly favour of an independent element.

It is easy to say that, but it becomes a little more difficult when one asks exactly what does one mean by an independent element. I will come shortly to discuss the particular proposals of the County Councils Association and some of the other local authority associations, but I must say one thing to noble Lords quite bluntly. If they believe that those proposals will meet with universal acclaim in the Police Service, they will have a very disagreeable surprise in the next few weeks when they are discussing any possible Amendments to the Bill in Committee. One thing I can assure them is absolutely clear—and I have had the opportunity of hearing a great deal of police opinion both of the Government's proposals and of those of the local authority associations—and that is. that a very substantial number of police officers of all ranks are far more strongly opposed to the local authority proposals than they are to those of the Government. Indeed, that was made perfectly clear at the later stages of the debate in another place by the representatives of the Police Federation. Thus, as I say. though we will certainly look with interest at any proposals put down by noble Lords opposite or by those in any other part of the House, I think that they would be deceiving themselves if they think that some of the local authority proposals will meet with widespread approval in the Police Service. They will not.

I come first to the speech—and it is always a pleasure to do so—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. He spoke, as always, persuasively and, if I may say so to hint with the greatest respect, while he said. that he had had a number of arduous days sitting in a judicial capacity, he managed very satisfactorily indeed to disguise any sense of exhaustion on his part. While I very much appreciated the noble and learned Lord's personal remarks, just as they will be appreciated by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I am sure that he will not take it amiss when I say that it is a pity that we do not have with us the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, because the noble Earl has no doubts at all about the Government's proposals. On 25th November, speaking after me in the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, the noble Earl, speaking from the Front Bench opposite, after making a number of observations about the quality of the speech to which the House had just had the benefit of listening, which I will not repeat, said: We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about the Amendment to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and about the Complaints Against the Police Bill "— which had then been published; it was published several months earlier, so the noble Earl knew perfectly well what he was talking about— If I have any complaint against that Bill, it is that it does not extend to Scotland, and I should like to know whether the Government have any thoughts in that direction ". [OFFICIAL RFPORT 25'11/75, col. 152.] If by any mischance the Opposition were to force any of their Amendments to a vote in Committee, I look forward to having the noble Earl coming into the Lobby with us. If I may say so, the noble Earl got it just about right.

I come to the point which was raised with characteristic vigour and restraint—not a conflict of terms in this particular case—by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. The point in question is the position of the local authorities: that is. the proposals of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It is perfectly true that they do not like the Bill. It is also, as I have indicated, perfectly true that the police organisations do not like the proposals of the Association of County Councils. They have also made that quite clear. It has also recently been made absolutely clear that the most recent proposals which the Association of County Councils have supported are opposed to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I say that not in order to poke fun at any of those concerned but simply to point out to noble Lords that the point which some of them made, that there is in some way an easy plan which we can create and which will carry with it the universal support of local authorities, police organisations and Parliament itself, is a total piece of mythology. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of achieving an objective of that sort.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

Is not the difficulty that nobody can see, within the framework of the Bill, a way of tinkering with it? Ought the Government not to draw the obvious conclusion that they should take the Bill away and think again?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

Curiously enough, my Lords, I do not come to quite that conclusion. The noble and learned Lord will not be altogether surprised to hear that. That is not my conclusion because the Police Federation have made it perfectly clear that, if there is to be an independent element, they would prefer the Government scheme. That point has not been made by anyone in this debate, and I believe that it is right to recognise the special position of the Police Federation. After all, it is manifestly their members who are most involved in the police complaints machinery. It is right that we should take due note of them. They have made their position absolutely clear and I do not believe that, however long we spend trying to devise a scheme, we shall find one like the present scheme which, in my view, gives justice to the individual police officer, does not encroach on the proper rights and responsibilities of the chief constable and, at the same time, gives a proper guarantee to the rights of the private citizen.

I very much welcome the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, about Sir Robert Mark. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, I feel that he has been a most distinguished Commissioner. Anyone who, like me, has had the pleasure of working with him over two years will want to associate himself in every possible way with what the noble and learned Lord has said. I should like here to say two things. First, I repeat to the House what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place on the particular point of resignation. He said: The Commissioner would obviously prefer a different Bill but I can assure honourable Members that he has no plans to resign before his normal retirement date." [OFFICIAL RFPORT, 7/6/76: col. 983.] So that is the position of the Commissioner. It is also right, as my right honourable friend pointed out, that he should have views of his own as to what would be the right way of proceeding. However, the difficulty here is, once again, that there is a substantial area of disagreement within the police service itself. This was brought out in the report of the Working Party. That report was published in March 1974. The Working Party had studied various proposals, including the various ex pose facto schemes and the proposal made by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. However, the Police Federation said then and subsequently that, in their view, it clearly raised double jeopardy.

I come hack to this with respect to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough; one cannot push on one side this point of double jeopardy quite as easily as I felt he did, if he will forgive me for saying so. A police officer who has a complaint made against him, even if it is devoid of merit, has it hanging over him in many cases for several months. In some cases, the more active a police officer he may be, the more complaints will be made against him. Clearly, that is not always true, but it certainly is in many cases. If one is to introduce a plan—and we are not doing so in the Bill—whereby, in certain circumstances and after a period of months a police officer against whom a possibly very serious complaint has been made is told, " We have investigated the complaint and have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in it. That is an end of the matter ", and then a few weeks later. either through some form of ombudsman or through some other machinery of that sort, a complainant says, " I am not satisfied; I want the matter reopened ",I am bound to say, as a matter of elementary justice, that that would seem deeply objectionable.

I repeat that the present Bill does not have objectionable features of that sort, because we have gone to considerable lengths to avoid them. If, at such a stage the whole matter can be reopened, I believe that individual police officers are right to be apprehensive about double jeopardy. I believe that all those who have spoken in this debate and have paid tribute—as did my noble friend Lord Aylestone and speakers from many other parts of the House—to the reputation of the police service and have spoken about the heavy pressure of work to which the police are subjected, should hesitate long before bringing in a complaints machinery or putting down Amendments to bring in machinery which would involve double jeopardy

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, I do not think I was advocating double jeopardy or saying anything that would involve it. I certainly did not intend to. I appreciate the difficulty.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. At one stage, I thought that he was rather underestimating the problems involved in this. However, as I say, I quite understand the views of the Police Federation on this matter. We have regarded this as one of the central features of our proposals not to have double jeopardy. That has of course brought us into conflict with many organisations which are proposing schemes which involve double jeopardy. I had the opportunity of reading a number of the reports in another place when there were discussions on this question and in particular when there was the idea of some form of ombudsman scheme. The problem for the people who were in favour of the ombudsman idea was that they had to make up their mind on this point: could the inquiry go into the merits of the case or not and if it could do so, could it make a different adjudication? in fact, throughout the many weeks of discussion, it was very difficult to discover exactly what the answer to this question was. There is no particular mystery about it. This issue was, as I indicated in my earlier speech, dealt with in paragraph 42 of the Working Party's report. If some form of ombudsman or whatever it may be can reopen the whole case as a result of a complaint after the deputy chief constable has disposed of it and if he can insist upon the whole issue being retried and, in certain cases, a man being punished who had previously not been proceeded against by the deputy chief constable, that must be double jeopardy. There is no doubt whatever about that. But, for a very long period of time, there was—and again I make no complaint about this because the inevitably complicated character of these police disciplinary arrangements causes a great deal of misunderstanding even in the minds of those who would favour a proposition of this sort—uncertainty about whether they were in favour of reopening the merits of the case or not.?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, raised a number of points which I should like to deal with. He asked whether the complainant could put his case before the tribunal. If a tribunal sits, or if' a disciplinary hearing takes place, the complainant will almost certainly be one of the witnesses before it. I hope that that deals with that point. My noble and learned friend also raised the question as to whether or not the complainant can go to the Board. Earlier I interrupted him to point out that it had been said by the Government that he could. That point is dealt with—although I agree elliptically—in Clause 6(1)(b)(ii), where the Bill deals with the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers. Here the point is made that there is a provision whereby the Board would he required to transmit a complaint received to the chief officer of police concerned. It is the Government's firm view that the police must continue to investigate complaints made against their members. If one was to have any system other than that one would need to have a second police force and that would be ridiculous.

My noble and learned friend also referred to the proposals made by Justice concerning the investigation of complaints made against the police when an appeal to the Court of Appeal is pending. As my noble and learned friend said, there was a very full discussion of this matter during the proceedings on the Report stage of' the Bill on 20th May. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Law Officers Department explained our approach to this matter at sonic length. In brief, he made it clear that we are by no means unsympathetic to the idea that there should be greater flexibility in the timing of investigation of complaints against the police between trial and appeal, although we doubt whether there is a role for the Police Complaints Board in this. As I think my noble and learned friend would recognise, there are a number of very real practical difficulties. He raised the point about the discussions which are still taking place and I regret that I cannot report to him this evening what stage these discussions have reached. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that he will let my noble and learned friend know the outcome as soon as he can, and I assure my noble and learned friend of that.

My noble and learned friend then asked me to commit the Government to introducing an independent prosecuting authority. Ministers of State at the Home Office have certain rights, and I suppose that they could in certain circumstances commit the Government at almost nine o'clock in the evening in the House of Lords, to a policy of that kind which would clearly have very substantial implications, quite apart from the financial ones. So my noble and learned friend will not be surprised when I say to him that the Manifesto for the next Election will he determined rather nearer the time of the next General Election. As my noble and learned friend pointed out. there are substantial financial implications in a decision of that type, but I am afraid I could not this evening make any commitment on behalf of the Government so far as that is concerned.

Finally, I should like briefly to remind noble Lords—and it is necessary to return to this point—of the central purpose of the Bill. It is an attempt to meet the demand, which I think is agreed on all sides to be justified, for an independent element in the handling of complaints. We believe that it should be of assistance to the police in the medium and long term, and even arguably in the short term, believe that the Bill will strengthen public confidence, and that it will bring to an end a debate which has taken place over a very substantial number of years. We have in this country a Police Service which I believe is the envy of the world, and I believe that this measure will buttress that reputation.

On Question, Bill read 2^a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.