HL Deb 30 June 1976 vol 372 cc771-96

2.40 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Baroness TWEEDSMUIR Of BELHELVIE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [The Police Complaints Board]:

Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 1 : Page 1, line 9, leave out ("Prime Minister ") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")

The noble Viscount said: This very simple Amendment proposes that the members to be appointed to the Police Complaints Board should he appointed by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the Prime Minister. I believe that most people will consider this suggestion to be appropriate. The Lord Chancellor appoints most magistrates and makes recommendations for most, or many, judicial appointments. He acts as a sensitive link between the Legislature the Executive and the Judiciary. His independence inspires confidence with the public, and I have reason to believe that what I am proposing would be a more acceptable suggestion in terms of the Police Service in general than the present proposal which involves the Prime Minister of the day.

In recent years there has been a growing tendency to allocate to Secretaries of State, as Departmental Ministers, responsibility for a vast number of new appointments, and the increase in patronage there has been enormous. This has also happened to some extent in the case of Prime Ministers. It is not desirable in itself that the Prime Minister's time should be taken up with a host of miscellaneous appointments about which he cannot himself possibly be informed. His office should not be a repository for such a mass of miscellaneous functions if such can be avoided. In the case of the Police Complaints Board we are dealing with a quasi-judicial function, and it seems to me to be in every way preferable that the appointments should be the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.

I believe that in another place the Minister objected that the Lord Chancellor would not be a Member of that House. Fortunately, it is true that that is so and that he is a Member of our House. It will be the unanimous hope of this House that that position will always obtain. But the fact that the Lord Chancellor cannot be a Member of the other place I should have thought would be of no possible disadvantage or drawback in the case we are considering. It was also said, I think, that the Lord Chancellor did not want the job. Well, I do not know the answer to that one. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is certainly not, in our view, one who goes rushing out to seek new appointments, but he is known to all your Lordships as an example to us all in his devotion to the public service, and I am sure he would not reject any responsibility that might be laid on him by Parliament.

So it seems to me as, I understand, it seems to the police authorities and to the Police Service as a whole (so far as one can gather the opinion of the Police Service) that the Lord Chancellor would be the best choice for this role. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord replies he will tell me that on consideration he agrees with my proposal. I beg to move.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My noble friend Lord Amory has just said that the Lord Chancellor was reported in another place as having said that he did not want this job. In fact I do not think that he went quite so far as that; he said that he was less than enthusiastic about it. Could we now prevail upon the noble and learned Lord to increase the degree of enthusiasm which the other place was told about ? I do not think that this is altogether fanciful, and I know that it has been the subject of considerable discussion both in another place and behind the scenes. But the history of it is that a great number of people in another place considered that, from the constitutional point of view rather than from any personal point of view (which applies throughout this discussion) the Home Secretary was not the right person to make the appointments because he was already so tremendously bound up with the police in many different functions, including his role as the police authority for the Metropolis. There is also the point that the Prime Minister, too, has a great connection with the police in that he is, after all, the chief of the security service, and that is distinctly bound up with police operations. Although I do not suppose that disciplinary complaints so often arise out of the security aspect of the matter, nevertheless it must be a possibility.

Therefore, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, who, so far as I know, has no connection at all with the police in his official capacity, might be able to carry out these appointments. But if not, then I, and I think other noble Lords as well, should like to know why it is that he has this reluctance, because we think that he would do the task very well.

Lord PARGITER

Before my noble and learned friend replies, I should like to say that I support the proposal and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will withdraw any objections which he might have. I think that the further this function is removed from what might be termed the administrative part of the Government—which would be the Home Office and the Prime Minister—the better. There is considerable suspicion about how the Board will work, and it would get off to a much better start if the Lord Chancellor were to he responsible for the appointments. I do not say this in any derogatory sense concerning what the Prime Minister might do or, for that matter, what the Home Secretary might do: they might appoint the same kind of people. But the important thing is what appears to be done. I think it highly important that the appointments to the Board, particularly the appointment of the chairman, should be made by someone who stands outside any question of police control.

Viscount BARRINGTON

Before the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, replies, I should like to support the Amendment on the grounds that the only two Lord Chancellors I have heard of in history who were both executed and canonised did not want the job. I do not know of any Prime Minister who has been either executed or canonised, but that is a point to be taken into consideration in deciding who is to take on this job.

2.49 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

I shall refrain from the temptation of entering into the untimely death stakes with which the noble Viscount has just so cheerfully confronted me. I feel greatly flattered by the confidence which has been expressed in my Office by all noble Lords who have spoken. I should like to make it clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that in opposing this Amendment— as, I fear, I shall do—I am not seeking to evade any work or responsibility which I should properly undertake and which it would be competent for my Office adequately and properly to perform. But the Government, and indeed I myself, think that the Prime Minister is a more appropriate person than the Lord Chancellor to appoint the members of the Board. The Board are to consist of lay members. It is not an appointment for which legal qualifications are required, although they would not be a disqualification.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, indicated, the original proposal was that the Home Secretary would make these appointments, and there was much discussion of this matter in another place. It is true that there was some support for the proposal that the Lord Chancellor should make these appointments, but I think I am right in saying that in the end it was agreed generally that the Prime Minister should do so, and the Bill was amended accordingly.

The truth of the matter is that, while the Lord Chancellor is responsible for making or recommending a wide variety of appointments of legally qualified persons to judicial or quasi-judicial positions, his Office does not really keep the sort of records which would be necessary for the appointment of lay persons of the kind needed for the membership of this Board; and certainly the Office has not, I think, the resources to do so. In regard to the appointment of justices of the peace, I think that the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor is a quite separate matter. It is an exceptional class of appointment where, for a very long time now, the Lord Chancellor has been assisted in the making of the appointments to the bench by an elaborate structure of advisory committees up and down the country, and I do not think that it is really a precedent for the appointment of the members of this Board.

On the other hand, the Prime Minister and his Office have a great many comparable powers of appointment, and in my view the Prime Minister would be able to exercise an independent judgment based on broader sources of information than would be available, either now or hereafter, to the Lord Chancellor. In the particular case of the present Prime Minister, of course, he was at one time in his career the adviser to the Police Federation, and is singularly well qualified, therefore, to have a view about the sort of laymen who should man this important Board. Therefore, it is not out of any desire to avoid further additions to the interesting variety of tasks which fall upon the Lord Chancellor that I resist this suggestion. I think that the better Office for fulfilling the power of appointment is that of the Prime Minister, and I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept that view.

Viscount AMORY

I am disappointed. I had hoped that as soon as I had sat down, or as soon as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had sat down, at least two former Lords Chancellor would have leapt to their feet and said that they thought this attitude was very poor-spirited and that they for their part would have taken it on most willingly. But that has not happened. I feel that if I press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor much further he will say nolo episcopari, or something in English.

The original idea of the Home Secretary, which at first sight looked attractive in some ways, was abandoned for perhaps the reasons which have been hinted at and because the Home Secretary is in one capacity a police authority on his own ; so perhaps this suggestion of the Prime Minister is in all the circumstances more appropriate than the Home Secretary. But I myself still feel that the better office would be that of the Lord Chancellor, and not that of the Prime Minister. I am horrified at the growth of miscellaneous duties which seem to be descending upon and added to the Office of the Prime Minister of the day. I have never found that it has been a great success to press a function or a new job on somebody unless he is enthusiastic to take it. Sometimes it does not work out too well, and despite great abilities the person concerned falls down on his job. I should hate that to happen in these circumstances. Therefore, although it goes against the grain with me because I still feel that the suggestion I have made would be the better one, I feel that in all the circumstances, with great reluctance and sorrow, I shall beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill ?

2.56 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD

I understand that there is no need for me to move my Amendment to leave out Clause I since it has been put in another form ; but, if I may, I will still, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, before the debate, state what was in my mind. This was not a wrecking Amendment; it was intended to open the way for a simpler scheme based on the lines of the scheme in the Bill, which is to introduce an independent element into the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police and, at the same time, to avoid any policeman being put into double jeopardy. I have the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, to say that had he not been abroad he would have added his name to the Amendment.

Some noble Lords may think it is rather late in the day for me to have put down this Amendment, but first thoughts on a subject like this are not necessarily the best, and many men and women who know more of the detail and more about this case than I do have spent not months but, think, rather, years considering this problem and have still at the end of the day arrived at only a very small measure of agreement. Since what I am going to propose is so much simpler than what is in the Bill, I feel it is not impossible to draft something which covers those points for the Report stage.

Like all noble Lords, I have seen a few unwanted Bills in my day, but I do not think I have ever seen a Bill which had quite so few friends as this one. I understand there have been very long discussions, as I have said, and a very small measure of agreement among interested organisations. The Association of Chief Constables, for instance, said, as reported in the Press only recently: Members of the Association are unanimous in finding the Bill objectionable in principle, likely to be both costly and harmful, and without any discernible merit ". That is fairly clear. The association representing superintendents have also expressed their objections; and so, I understand, have the Police Federation.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

With great respect, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but there is a clear point here to which I am sure he would wish to address himself, and it is this. On Second Reading your Lordships' House decided, I think without a single exception, that it was in favour of an independent element. The position of the Police Federation and the superintendents' association has been stated quite clearly. Both, to a greater or lesser degree, were doubtful about the need for an independent element, but if there should be an independent element they are in favour, broadly speaking, of the Government's proposals.

Lord INGLEWOOD

I do not want to make any point which the noble Lord would think unfair. The only group of policemen who I believe have not expressed a view are the special constables, and they do not happen to have an organisation. Then, the Association of County Councils have again expressed their misgivings, shall I say, about the proposals in the Bill. One of the consequences is to spend a lot of money and to add to the number of officials and paper in circulation, without adding one single policeman to our overworked and understrength national police forces. And I feel that it is hardly responsible for us to have taken up so much time here—and perhaps the same applies to another place—in trying to turn this generally unwanted Bill into law.

Of the many alternatives put forward, I expect we have all noticed the alternative put forward by the Association of County Councils. That was the first one, which I think most of us will agree was unacceptable. They then put forward an alternative which came nearer to what the ordinary citizen might like to see. I am going to claim that my proposal, if somewhat similar to their second alternative, is better, cheaper, simpler and presents no great drafting problems and might well be put into the Bill before the Report stage if—and this is a possibility—it is not discovered that it may be brought into operation by administrative means and so enable the Bill to be dropped and achieve a very large part of our object without actual legislation.

My plan would be this. The Home Secretary should set up a panel in the area of every police authority. The men and women on it would he of the same calibre as those who are nominated as JPs. There are numerous people of that standing in most areas who have retired early, returned from abroad but are too old, owing to the present regulations, to be nominated to the Bench. They would elect their own chairman. On receipt of a complaint at headquarters of any police force, the procedures would be exactly the same as under the existing law except that either the accused policeman or the chief constable may elect for two members of the panel to sit and take part in any investigation.

I am inclined to favour two members rather than one, but I think it is suggested in a later Amendment that one member of the panel, as set out in the Bill, might in fact achieve the same result. I am inclined to favour two members and that they should share the responsibility for the decision, but that only the chief constable would be responsible for any punishment that followed. For the rest. the proceedings would be the same as at present. I believe it is the duty of a police authority today to be informed about complaints, which means that they could call for information as before about any individual complaint and the way it has been handled. In addition, I should like to see it understood that the lay members on any inquiry might communicate on their own initiative with the relevant police authority.

Under this scheme the additional costs to the public would be negligible—mainly subsistence and travelling for the panel members—and I cannot see a reason for one single new official to be appointed.

This plan does not go so far as the plan in the Bill. I do not want to disguise that. It does not provide a central office where general intelligence and the coordination of complaints could take place. But surely a good deal could he done, if it were really needed, by the existing Home Office resources.

Since it has proved impossible to get general agreement between all the bodies concerned, I submit that it is better to try something simple on the lines of my suggestion now and review the position again in two or three years' time in the light of experience when it might be discovered that something more elaborate should be put in its place. The plan I offer today—that is, that the Government should insert in the Bill, in lieu of the unwanted Complaints Board therein described—something simpler but on the same lines. Some might think all this too good to be true; but T offer it in all humility. I beg to move.

3.4 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

I am bound to say, having been involved in this matter for the past two years, that it is an attractive thought that we could move towards a simpler scheme. If the noble Lord had put down a detailed Amendment incorporating the proposals that he has made to the House, I suspect that he would have found his proposals were faced with a very substantial degree of opposition from one or other—or indeed many—of the police or local authority bodies involved in this matter. Perhaps I may repeat the point I made—and I apologise to the noble Lord—when, with characteristic courtesy, he gave way to me. I should make clear the position of some of the police organisations. There has been, with great respect, a certain amount of over-statement about the unanimity of the police opposition to this Bill.

It is perfectly true, as I indicated to the Committee when I intervened in the course of the noble Lord's speech, that many people in the Police Service think that the present arrangements are perfectly satisfactory. That is the view of many people in the Police Federation, the Super-intendants' Association and Association of Chief Police Officers. It is not the view of Parliament; it is not the view of the other place; it is not the view of this House as expressed on Second Reading. It is not the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who, when Home Secretary, made it clear that he was in favour of an independent element so far as the investigation of complaints against the police were concerned.

If we accept that there is to be a change—and the noble Lord has advocated Change—I should like to clarify the position of the Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association. It is right that their views should be taken into account. Their views have tended to be rather ignored in the course of the past few days. Both organisations have made their position absolutely clear that, broadly speaking, they are satisfied with the 1964 Act. As a result of the debate in the last Parliament, the Working Party was set up by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. From his view about a particular type of independent review of which he was in favour and the view of another place and this House on Second Reading, it is clear that a change of some sort is required. I should like to quote from a letter from the Secretary of the Police Federation to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Law Officers Department. This makes the position of the Federation clear: It appears to us that many of the safeguards we talked about have now been included in the Bill and, for this reason, we now clearly support the Government in the presentation of the Bill in its original form ". We now come to the position of the Police Superintendents' Association. They make the same qualification about their general position and the satisfactory situation, as they see it, of the existing law. If there is to be a change, they make their position clear: This Association has since the adjournment "— that is, the adjournment of the Standing Committee of another place— considered the matter in some depth and has had consultations with a number of the interested parties. In consequence of these considerations and consultations, I have to inform you that it is our desire that the Police Bill continues on its Parliamentary course largely in its present form subject to the necessary safeguards being provided as set out by the Police staff associations ". I might add that those safeguards have been met. That, therefore, is the situation so far as two of the major police organisations are concerned. Their views have not been quoted as often as others in the past few days.

The noble Lord then touched on the proposals of the Association of County Councils. I always listen with great interest to his views on the police, because I know of his close personal interest in these matters. He said that the first position of the Association as expressed publicly on the Bill was unsatisfactory. I agree. They met overwhelming opposition from every police organisation and, quite apart from that, there were grounds, so far as the general public interest was concerned, why their recommendations were wrong. The noble Lord seemed to be rather more attracted by the second round of recommendations that they made. I am not clear whether the noble Lord would have gone right down the road with them

Lord INGLEWOOD

No, not right down the road.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

In that case, he is in very good company, because the Association of Metropolitan Authorities agree with him. They were strongly opposed to those proposals. I in no sense want to appear critical, because I was interested in what the noble Lord said, but it is difficult to deal with another scheme which is presented orally and which we do not have in front of us. I should like to make a few comments.

First, with great respect, though I followed with great care what the noble Lord said, I suspect that the proposals he made will meet with a fairly significant degree of opposition from within the Police Service. That is not an unimportant criterion. Apart from that, he seemed to take the view that a series of panels, which presumably would have to be serviced by staff, would be less costly than the present proposals. I doubt whether that would be so. He seemed to be as enthusiastic as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in putting a responsibility, not, in this case, on the Lord Chancellor's Department, but on the Home Office who apparently would be prepared to staff what would be 43 local committees dealing with a series of local complaints which would be adjudicated upon by panels of justices of the peace.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

I do not think that my noble friend said justices of the peace ". He said persons of the same calibre as justices of the peace.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

I am much obliged. I take note of the correction by the noble and learned Lord.

Lord PANNELL

I understood the noble Lord to say that they would be justices of the peace and beyond the age of normal judicial service. In fact, he wanted to recruit people over 75 years of age.

Lord INGLEWOOD

May I make this clear ? I said persons of the same calibre and that there were many in many districts who, through early retirement or coming back from abroad, were too old to be considered under existing rules for appointment to the Bench; and they were often under-employed.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

With respect, already two of us have misunderstood the character of the noble Lord's proposal, which indicates that it is difficult to deal with proposals made orally and not in writing. If the noble Lord would like to put down Amendments, while I would not suggest that they would meet with warm enthusiasm and support from these Benches, it would give us the opportunity of a far more serious discussion, which I am sure the noble Lord would favour. We have had an expression of the noble Lord's view; but, with great respect, at this stage of the Bill I do not think it is possible to comment with the degree of thoroughness which the noble Lord's speech justifies, if one is simply given an oral indication of the noble Lord's proposals.

There is one other comment that I would make to the noble Lord. He said—and here I did get it right—that only the chief constable would be responsible for punishment. That is certainly the Government's proposal in this Bill: that only chief constables would be dealing with punishment. In most cases the matter will be dealt with as at the moment: where there are tribunals only the chief constable will decide the punishment. Therefore, what the noble Lord is recommending is what the Government are proposing. I am in agreement. The position is this. If the noble Lord would like to put forward an alternative scheme, it would be sensible to do so before Report and we can then have a more informed debate than at the moment.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

When my noble friend is considering whether or not to pursue that invitation, I wonder whether he would bear in mind this point. There have been nearly as many schemes as there have been people to invent them but, at any rate, running commonly through a large number of them—including one from Justice, for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was responsible and which he presented at one stage—has been that there should be a central body rather than a large number of individual local bodies. I can see that there may be economies of scale or staff of one sort or another; but one of the things that impresses me most about the desirability of having a central body rather than a number of different ones—43 spread around the country—is the question of uniformity.

The job of the Board under this Bill, and under most of the other suggestions put forward, is not solely that of sitting as a disciplinary tribunal. I would anticipate that that would be a comparatively small part of what the membership would turn out to be doing. Of far more prevalence will be the inspection of all the complaints that come in against policemen all over England and Wales. There will, I have no doubt, be a certain amount of discussion about the sort of complaints that are coming in; the sort of things that are happening and the sort of things that are worrying the public—possibly, for all I know, some types of activities in which the police are engaging on which they may wish to comment adversely.

If this is going to be done, the admirable local people who would sit and perform some function under my noble friend's scheme would be looking only at what is happening in their own police authority area. There is no machinery under his proposal for them to pool their thoughts and their experiences and suggestions in any way, so that they would be of benefit to anyone else. One can think immediately of the advantages of doing that; but one suggestion that I would make is that it may be that there is a particular sort of thing happening, perhaps in relation to demonstrations and so on, which tends to happen whenever there is a demonstration. If there happened to be one in Birmingham, one in Manchester and one in London and very much the same sort of conflict of some type between the police and the public occurring in each case, the local West Midlands board would not necessarily know about the Greater Manchester occasion or the one in Greater London. They would certainly not necessarily have a uniformity of approach about how to deal with the matter, and there would be no machinery whereby they can put their heads together and decide whether this had some elements of a national problem which ought to be tackled on a national scale.

I do not see any lines of communication under my noble friend's proposal for this sort of thing. There may be other objections to it as well, but this one I think to be of extreme importance. It is the all-embracing nature of the inspection of complaints against the police by some central board which is the best guarantee that complaints will be put into a proper perspective from the point of view of the complainant and of the policemen concerned and the police force as a whole. I doubt whether the best way to do it would be the sort of local ad hoc body suggested by my noble friend.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE

I know what a controversial Bill this is because everybody has said so. Did I understand the noble Lord aright—because I support in very large measure my noble friend's proposals—that no decision should be taken today, but that we should wait until the Report stage, when my noble friend can then put forward a proposal in detail ? I think this is very important. Could the noble Lord answer that ?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

As I said to the noble Lord, although I could not in any way hold out hope of warmhearted approval from the Government of his proposals, because they carry with them a number of inherently unsatisfactory features, not least the one identified by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I suggest to the noble Lord that if he wished to put down an Amendment at the Report stage we could have a more informed debate on his proposal than would be possible today, when we have had the advantage of hearing him express his view orally but have not seen his proposal in writing.

I would in no way underestimate the difficulties involved. So many schemes have been put up by wholly well-intentioned Members of another place, and elsewhere, that I do not believe the noble Lord will find it as easy to do so as he might have imagined in the first instance. If the noble Lord would like to have a go at it we can have a more informed debate on his proposal at the Report stage.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE

I am grateful for that; but as a magistrate of long standing, having now lived a great number of years, I should like to put one or two points. I wonder whether it has ever been regarded as possible that, instead of having the Lord Chancellor or the Prime Minister or whoever it may be, we might have the Privy Council. There will be many people in the Privy Council with wide experience over a wide field and this would give confidence to the general public. The general public regard the Prime Minister as much more " political " than the Lord Chancellor. As the Lord Chancellor does not think it is a good idea, perhaps we might try the Privy Council.

It is terribly difficult to have a scheme, because in certain parts of this country there are people who are much more against the police, since in those areas the police have more difficult things to do than in other areas—and of course there are other areas where the police arc highly respected and looked on as friends of the people. This point has not been mentioned so far, but it is tremendously important. If one takes one or two of the areas where there have been outbreaks of rioting and so on, there are many people there who take part in those riots who could very easily put forward a large number of complaints against the police which would be entirely unjustified. Again, if one takes an area where rioting is not quite so popular as it is in other parts of the country, one would naturally find there people less inclined to make frivolous complaints about the police. If I may say so with great respect, I think this is tremendously important and we have hardly taken into account the differences of view among people in different parts of the country in respect of the police.

Since this Bill is intended to help the police more than anybody else, it seems to me important to look at the matter over a wide field. I cannot say any more than that because I am not in the position to offer a great deal of useful advice, but I should have thought it would be much better if the noble Lord would say that we could all have another look at the matter before proceeding with these very controversial and, in many cases, unacceptable clauses that are already in the Bill.

Lord PARGITER

Is it not a fact that we are at the moment discussing a Motion on whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill ? It seems to me we are not discussing anything else.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

I do not know that that is very fair. My noble friend made it clear that he had a scheme which was consistent with the omission of Clause 1. I intervene only to say two or three sentences. I thought I detected a faint note of reproach in the voice of my noble friend Lord Amory regarding the previous Amendment, and perhaps there might also be a faint note of reproach coming from my noble friend Lord Inglewood over this clause. I should like to explain to the Committee that I am being neither curmudgeonly nor sulking in any way but believe I may have put myself in baulk on Second Reading. I made it plain then that I did not like this Bill at all and that I should have preferred a scheme of a totally different character. Therefore I do not think I can help the Committee very much on various proposals for improving it. I wish it were not there.

Lord CLITHEROE

May I ask one question. May I be told whether the words beginning at line 10: The members of the Board shall not include any person who is or has been a constable in any part of the United Kingdom "— include a special constable ?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

I am not as well equipped to answer that question as I should be. I suspect the answer is that it does not include a special constable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, thinks that it does and it is almost certain that he is right and I am wrong. I will let the noble Lord have the answer. It was taken to be a matter of great importance by the police organisations, and in particular by the Federation, that there should be an exclusion of people who have served in the Police Service. However, I will gladly look into the point so far as special constables are concerned and will reply to the noble Lord.

Lord CLITHEROE

There are different sorts of special constables: for example, I was a special constable for a fortnight in 1926.

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2 [Reference to Board of complaint reports]:

3.26 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 14, leave out (" and ").

The noble Viscount said: It will be plain to those who have studied the words that I have put down that Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 go together. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to speak to them together. I am sure I should do an injustice to the Committee if I suggested that anybody found a certain amount of difficulty in following the machinery of this Bill, but I must confess that at first sight I was not altogether certain how it was going to work and have greatly benefited from reading the prodigious discussions in another place, which taught me a great deal. However, despite literally volumes of words that were spoken there, I am still not entirely certain that full justice has been done to one of the most important people involved in this machinery: that is, the complainant.

When my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley started the process which has led to this Bill, it was done because there was a widespread feeling that complainants were not being satisfied with the way the police were investigating their complaints under the Police Act. I do not know whether that is right or not, but that was the genesis of the whole thing and it must underline the whole of the Bill, because that is what we are trying to put right.

If one looks at the legislation itself, l am not sure that the complainant will find he has carried away very many trophies—that is, if one simply looks at the text. After all, we have now set up the Board under Clause 1, and we then find that it is starting to play a role under Clause 2, when a complaint is made. It does not get into the act at all to start with, because the police carry out the investigation of the complaint in the first place. That is sensible, because they are the best people to investigate that sort of thing, and no one complains about that. But in the process of investigation, and very much as part of it, there comes into it the Board. They may come into it simply as onlookers if they are not involved in any sort of disciplinary tribunal. They may also be onlookers if there is any criminal prosecution brought on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or they may be involved indirectly later on the occasion of the disciplinary tribunal.

Of course, if there is an ordinary tribunal hearing whereby the police themselves investigate the matter, the Board will not play any direct part. I can envisage the complainant saying, " What good to me is this Board ? How do I get at it? How do I impress upon them my point of view? They are hidden away in the interstices of the police investigation and in a rare number of cases they may actually take part in a hearing, but usually they will simply look at the papers and learn and inwardly digest, but they will do nothing for me."

I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris—and this is really why I put down these Amendments—to try to explain to the Committee and to anyone who wishes to read our debates in the official pages of Hansard (and perhaps somebody will) how it is that complainants are actually going to benefit.

What I have suggested in this Amendment is that when the chief officer of police—I think the deputy chief constable, as a rule—has finished his investigation of the complaint, he has then under the provisions of Clause 2 to send certain things to the Board, which are set out—a copy of the complaint, a memorandum by him saying what he thinks are the merits of the complaint and whether he has preferred disciplinary charges, and, if not, why not, and then there is the question of any exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances are important, because where they exist the Board themselves may become involved in any disciplinary hearing under Clause 4.

I suggest to the Committee that we might give a bonus to the complainant at this stage by allowing him, either when he first makes his complaint, or later, if he did it orally and would like to back it up in writing, the opportunity to make certain that the Board, even if they will not take any active part in the proceedings subsequently, or even if there is to be a criminal prosecution, are directly aware of his views and, in particular, of any reason that he has to suggest why the Board themselves should be involved in any disciplinary hearing as a special tribunal under Clause 4.

I suppose that anybody who makes a complaint is liable to think that his case is rather a special one, and the Board are not bound to act upon it. But, at least, I think the complainant would like to have a direct channel whereby he can place his attitude and his representation before the Board for them to consider, on his side of it, whether there are exceptional circumstances. All I am suggesting, therefore, is that in addition to the things that the Bill requires the police to send to the Board, they should also have to send any representation by the complainant which suggests that the Board themselves, if there is to be a disciplinary hearing, should take part in it.

I have no doubt that there are many other ways in which complainants will be able to get in touch with the Board. I am sure that they can write to them direct. I am also sure that they can make representations through the police, and the police will faithfully pass them on. But I believe that this is something worth discussing, and it is something on which the Committee and people outside would like to have their lines clear. They would like to know exactly how it is done. What would be the effect of writing to the police? Would the Board hear about it and would the police really pass it on, or would it become submerged, hidden and kept away from sight ? Can complainants write direct to the Board and, if so, what will happen to their representations? Who will see it ? Will it go to a member, or will it simply go to an official and disappear from view ? These are the kind of things which I believe the independent element is set up to do, and if we do not get the public's confidence in their ability to do it then, very largely, the point of this legislation will be lost. So I invite a discussion on this point and, at the very least, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should tell us how it will work. I beg to move.

3.34 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

This is an appropriate week in which to say that I believe the score at the moment is fifteen love in favour of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He was quite right about special constables. So I in no way complain about any possible curmudgeonary behaviour on his part. I regard him as a notable ally in this matter, or at least as extremely helpful, in that he was right on this matter; and I regret that, so far as the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, is concerned special constables are excluded.

The noble Viscount has raised an important question on the situation of a complainant. How will he be advantaged by this system ? I think he goes to the heart of this matter, and it is right that I should try to specify what his position will be. First, there will be one highly satisfactory part of the scheme so far as the complainant is concerned. No longer will he be able to believe that the police are judges in their own cause. The fact is that where a deputy chief constable—because he is the officer in a particular force who makes a decision of this kind—decides not to proceed, the matter will he reviewed by at least one member of the Board, and there is that degree of certainty that somebody outside the Police Service will he seeing the papers on the case. That is an important safeguard so far as any well-intentioned complainant is concerned. I think we all recognise that there are quite a large number of not particularly well-intentioned complainants, but what we are concerned about here is the man of good will who believes that he has been unjustly treated. We want to give him reassurance on this point, and some guarantee that his complaint will be most seriously considered both within the Police Service—as in the overwhelming majority of cases is the position today—and by an independent member of the Board.

Secondly, he will have a further guarantee that where the deputy chief constable takes the view that disciplinary charges should be preferred, and a case is contested, the Board will consider whether there are such exceptional features in the case that there should be a tribunal consisting of the chief constable of the force concerned and two independent members of the Board. But I repeat—and this is a point which I made earlier—that if the tribunal decides that the officer complained of is guilty, though that will be decided by the three members of the tribunal, the only person who will make any determination of punishment is the chief constable, who will make the decision on his own, though taking account of any views expressed to him by the two members of the tribunal who sit with him.

On this Amendment I hope to satisfy the noble Viscount. I do not attempt to summarise his argument because he has put it very clearly this afternoon. Where a complainant makes a request that there should be a tribunal, it is certainly better that this should be drawn to the attention of the Board. Many complainants may well want to have a tribunal, but I must emphasise that, in our view, a tribunal will sit in only a minority of cases where there are special features which justify that. I do not believe it is necessary to put this in the Bill. Certainly, if the complainant makes a request, it is not unreasonable that the Board's attention should be drawn to it; but we believe that the best way of dealing with this matter is by administrative guidance and that is what we hope to persuade the Committee to agree to.

Lord GARDINER

I hope that before the next stage of the Bill the Government may give further consideration to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said. It is a very extraordinary feature of this Bill that, being designed to create a greater feeling of fairness among those who have complaints to make against the police, the complainant does not really appear in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Harris said on Second Reading that he will be able to complain directly to the Complaints Board, but the Bill does not say so. There is no legal right in the Bill to do this. But, as my noble friend quite rightly said, you cannot stop anybody from writing a letter and therefore there is nothing in the Bill to stop him.

It seems to me curious that the whole object of the Bill is to create a greater feeling among the public that they will obtain greater fairness it' they make a complaint against the police, but it does not start out by saying, " If in future you have a complaint to make against the police, there will be a Police Complaints Board and that is the place to which to make it." Indeed, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, and as I understand the position, the Board do not really come into the picture at all until the police have carried out their investigation.

An Amendment that I have put down, which will be dealt with at a later stage, goes rather further than this. However, what so many of us, particularly Justice, are concerned about is the small number of cases where a man is not just making any old complaint against the police; he is complaining of their misconduct of proceedings against him, as a result of which he, an innocent man, has been convicted; he is going to appeal; and he is hoping that if there is a police inquiry it will establish facts which will be available to the appeal court and which may lead that court to say that the conviction is not safe or satisfactory. If I have understood it rightly, under the Bill as drafted, nothing reaches the Board until the investigation has taken place, and that is a long time ahead.

Many of us had hoped that all the complaints would go to the Board. From what my noble friend said at Second Reading, I gathered that that would happen if all complainants sent their complaints to the Board. If the Board then go through them, they may be able to spot these cases. However, I think I am right in saying—I said it at Second Reading and it was not challenged—that at the moment the complainant is referred to in the Bill only in a provision which deals with what the effect on the policeman will be if the complainant withdraws the complaint. Although my noble friend assured us that if there was a hearing or tribunal the complainant would appear, I have not seen any specific provision in the Bill that gives the complainant any legal right to appear. May I respectfully suggest to the Government that there is a great deal in the contention of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that it is not really made plain anywhere what the complainant's rights are going to be. Although I do not know what course the noble Viscount will take, I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the points which have been made.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

When Statements are about to be made I am always very nervous that I am taking up the Box when somebody else wants it, but perhaps I may respond to what has been said. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for his support. Perhaps I may refrain from embarking upon the somewhat specialised case of the noble and learned Lord's new clause in this context; I should prefer to deal with the matter more generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that at least any complainant can be satisfied that now the police will not be judge in their own cause; but this is exactly what I am afraid they will not be satisfied about unless we have a little more information than has so far been divulged to this Committee. As I understand it, apart from two cases—one where there is a criminal prosecution, in which case the courts will deal with it in public and everybody will know exactly where they are, and the other where there is an exceptional disciplinary tribunal under Clause 4 of the Bill—the matter will never emerge into the light of day. Whether the Board have taken any significant part in the proceedings, or whether they have merely had the papers sitting on their table and done absolutely nothing about the matter, will, in the vast majority of cases of disciplinary hearings, never be clear to anybody. Although it is perfectly true that the Bill implies that a member of the Board shall see the papers, he does not do anything about it; in the vast majority of disciplinary cases it is the police who do something about it. I am not complaining about this; it is probably right that it should be so. But how does the complainant know that the independent element has taken part in the process? This is why I want to have a little more information from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about how complainants are to set about approaching the Board.

Could the noble Lord tell us this. Apart from, if I may be forgiven for saying so, the somewhat throw-away approach that the noble Lord adopted at Second Reading, when he suggested that of course anybody could write to anybody, will it be welcomed if complainants write to the Board, in addition to making complaints to the police? Will it help the Board and give them extra material to go on if they have the complainant's own view ? If not, what is to be the channel of communication ? Will there automatically be a full reporting by the police of the complaint—verbatim if it is made orally'? Or if it is made in writing will the complaint go through untouched, a complete copy of it being sent to the Board ? How will the Board deal with the ordinary run of disciplinary cases so that the complainant may know that somebody other than the police force concerned has taken a part in it, even if not a formal or decisive part? This is what I should like to know. If the noble Lord could say a little more about it, I should be much more content.

3.46 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

The noble Viscount asked me in particular whether we should welcome an individual citizen going direct to the Board. So far as we are concerned, the position is that we are wholly content that individual citizens should go either to the Board or to the local police station, which is where they go at the moment. We wish to give to complainants considerable confidence in the new system. It was argued in another place and by my noble and learned friend in this House on Second Reading that there are some complainants who would prefer not to go to a police station. In that case they can go to the Board. Their rights will be made perfectly clear in the publicity material which will be made available when this Bill reaches the Statute Book.

However, the fundamental question is: who is going to investigate the complaint? The answer is that whoever receives it in the first instance, be it the local police station or the Board, the investigation must be carried out by the police force itself. Suggestions were made in another place that there should be some form of second police force. In my view, this is not a very sensible idea. In fact, I rather understate the argument. The only people with the expertise to investigate a complaint are the police and it is right that they should do so.

My noble and learned friend raised the question this afternoon which he asked at Second Reading, when in reply I pointed out that in the Bill there is a requirement that the Complaints Board should pass on to the police complaints which are made to them by members of the public. Clearly, if the Board receive a complaint there must be a requirement on the Board to pass it on for investigation, and that will be done. However, the noble Viscount's Amendment raises a different issue, which is by no means an unimportant one: if a citizen who has made a complaint against the police says, " I want this complaint to be investigated by a tribunal " should that request be passed on to the Board? What I have said to the noble Viscount will, I hope, reassure him. My noble and learned friend raised rather wider issues. However, in terms of the noble Viscount's Amendment, what I have said is that we shall gladly deal with this matter, which is not an unimportant one in any way. However, we think that it is better to deal with it by an administrative process rather than by putting it in the language of the Bill. We have no intention of making the position other than clear and we shall certainly direct our energies towards making sure that it is clear.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I think that this is a good deal better an answer than the noble Lord gave us at Second Reading. I am not being hostile, but the noble Lord's answer is fuller and I hope that it will be more reassuring. The publicity that is to accompany this Bill will, I suppose, be distributed to local law centres, citizens' advice bureaux and so on. It is clear from the speech which the noble Lord made that it is no use having the publicity available only at the police station. There is a case for providing a most careful description of how the system is going to work. With the greatest respect, I do not think that it ought to produce one single sentence which will be wholly incomprehensible to anybody. Indeed, it would be much better if the description were written by somebody else.

I am not criticising the draftsmanship of this measure, but it is not one which is guaranteed to bring great enlightenment to the ordinary citizen who wishes to pursue a complaint against the police. That is an important matter that the noble Lord has made clear and I shall look forward to seeing implemented in the publicity material that eventually comes forward the promise that he has made, that people may indeed make their proposition to the Board if there is something special about their case, even if, in the end, the Board may in some cases not agree with them. On that basis I am happy to leave it for the moment, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

I beg to move that the House do now resume, in order that my noble friend Lord Jacques may repeat the Statement that is being made in another place.

House resumed.