HL Deb 26 July 1978 vol 395 cc910-32

5.12 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain the breakdown in Lancashire of the system whereby the responsibility for the efficiency of a county police force and of its chief constable are divided between the Home Office, Her Majesty's Inspectors and the Police Authority; and what steps they have taken to ensure that a similar situation will not occur in other areas. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name this evening, about a bad breakdown in Lancashire in the British system of checks and balances designed to ensure the efficiency, the integrity and the reasonable independence of the police, I am making no Party point. Nor am I referring to any further inquiries which may be taking place or are likely to take place. Nor am I in any way "knocking" the police; and the noble Lord knows well the time that I have been giving recently to trying to learn about the problems which the police face today. I am, however, concerned with the responsibility for what has been allowed to happen, and I believe that, ultimately, this responsibility is that of the Home Office.

I will not recite the details of the sombre story leading to the dismissal of the chief constable, except to say that, from the information that is available, things seem to have been going wrong over a long time, during which little or nothing was done until a detective sergeant reaching the end of his time—and, I think one must say without any disrespect to him on this, a relatively junior police officer in the hierarchy—put in some complaint or representation to HMI. More than a few people must have known that things were not right.

First, while no one likes to be seen in the role of what a schoolboy used to call a "sneak", I cannot see why senior police officers in the force could not have exerted some pressure on their chief not to strain their loyalty to the extent that he must have strained it. In business and in other walks of life senior colleagues, however unpleasant it is, have to do this on occasions—to go to see their chief and say to him, "Either you change your ways, or else." Loyalty is a magnificent feature of the police service in this country, but loyalty to the community served should come before a "cover-up" for a senior officer, if that is what happened. But we just do not know, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us more.

I turn now to a body with far greater responsibility, the Police Authority, which, as noble Lords know, is a body which exists everywhere except in London, where the noble Lord himself is the Police Authority. Outside London, the Police Authority consists of two-thirds county councillors and one-third magistrates; and they have specified powers and duties set out in the Act, although the wording is not everywhere as clear as perhaps it might be. What I should like to know is this: Did the Authority know nothing of what was going on during this time? If so, surely it was very lax and out of touch. Or did it know something and do nothing, in which case it must be blameworthy? Or did it know something and make a report? If so, to whom; and what action, if any, was taken; or was it lost in the files of some higher authority? So much for the Police Authority.

Then we must turn to Her Majesty's Inspectors—a vital link between provincial police forces and the Home Office, and again. I think, men fulfilling a very difficult role. Did the responsible HMIs over this time see nothing wrong? We know that the annual inspection of a police force can be a very formal affair, but there arc other times for visits and contacts. Did anything or nothing arise from the reports of the appropriate HMIs over the years? And, if they did draw attention to the irregulatities, which in the end were shown to be very considerable, what action was taken in the Department? Then, lastly, what did the Ministers (because it is not just one Minister) do over all this time? Were they ignorant, or did they know something but do nothing, hoping that things would get better on their own?

This may sound a simplification of what has happened, but I think it is the essence of the case; and it all amounts to a terrible blow to a proud county and to a police force which had the reputation of being second to none and which, I am told, has lived through its troubles in a way which is a great tribute to it. I am submitting that this is not a question that concerns Lancashire alone, but the whole country. We all have the right to know how things were allowed to go on for so long.

My Question deals with the breakdown of the system, but I would submit that the system should be so sensitive that it can detect a deteriorating situation long before a breakdown is reached. There could be situations where neither the chief constable nor the Police Authority—and there I would mean both chairman and members—were capable of giving either to the police force or to the county the sort of leadership that is needed to match the challenge of our time—of rising crime, increased violence and so on. This sort of situation could happen most likely where a chief constable had been in his position for a long time—too long when compared with the terms of service of, say, a senior general or an ambassador. Such situations, where they arise, certainly ought not to be allowed to develop. This second point that I have made, about the discovery of a deteriorating situation in its early stages, is very important, but it is secondary to the particular purpose of my Question this evening, which is to discover from the Government the reasons for the recent breakdown of this system in Lancashire.

I should like to conclude by saying just one more thing, and I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply will agree with me. To do their work today the police need the help of all men and women of goodwill in the country, and they must be seen to welcome such help—they must not just welcome it; they must be seen to welcome it. The police are not so very different from the rest of us, even though some would represent that they are. Furthermore, the Home Office, too, must ensure that the system under which our police forces are organised works well and, what is more, is seen to work well.

5.20 p.m.

Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL

My Lords, as I understand the questions which have been posed by my noble friend to the Minister, they are in respect of the failure or breakdown in the machinery whereby a situation was allowed to continue, if not develop, over the years without there being some outside intervention. As I have always understood it, it is a very delicate balance that is established in our organisation of our separate police forces with the sharing of responsibility under the Police Act between the Policy Authority and, ultimately, the Home Secretary. A great burden of responsibility, of course, rests on a Police Authority that they should be, and should be seen to be, capable of exercising their statutory duties and ensuring not the operational activities of the force, which is a matter for the chief constable, but that the police force, for which they are the Police Authority, that is, so far as they can see, is acting responsibly and is properly led.

As I understand the situation, it was some two years ago when this junior officer—as my noble friend has said, but, nevertheless, it was an officer who was, as it turned out, very much doing his duty—made a complaint to the Inspector of Constabulary who was engaged in a routine inspection. There followed from that the inspection by Sir Douglas Osmond who made his report to the Lancashire police authority who decided (as they were entitled to) not to publish that report. I have noted that the Home Secretary has confirmed the propriety of the behaviour of the Police Authority throughout and that its conduct has been totally responsible. As I understand it, my noble friend is inquiring about the delay.

That report by that distinguished police officer, the former chief constable of Hampshire, led to the tribunal, and the tribunal led to the dismissal of the chief constable. It was only then, when the appeal which the chief constable statutorily enjoys was withdrawn, that the Home Secretary was, as it were, involved. Meanwhile, there was a separate investigation by the detective chief superintendent of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary who reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions who has called for further investigation into the matters disclosed in that report. Then in April of this year the Home Secretary decided to appoint a wide-ranging police inquiry and appointed the deputy chief constable of Surrey, Mr. Imbert, a very distinguished police officer, to make an inquiry covering the aspect not only of the Osmond Report but also of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary investigation. From that, presumably and properly, if there is evidence—and I stress: "if there is evidence"—of a possible offence having been committed, that must be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it is for him to take such action thereafter as he may think correct.

I was glad that the Home Secretary rejected the calls which came from certain quarters for a tribunal of inquiry under the 1921 Act. I appreciate that, under the Section 32 procedure, that would have been far too restrictive. It is very important that these calls which are continually made for a public inquiry should he very closely considered. I think the Home Secretary was correct to reject the tribunal of inquiry which should always be used very sparingly. It is only very rarely effective. It is necessarily a very blunt instrument and its procedures, under that Act, often lead to gross unfairness—not so much to the actual wrongdoers but to others who are only marginally affected by the matter under inquiry. Of course, they necessarily afford immunity to people who should not receive immunity, to the wrongdoers themselves. It is a constant practice, particularly, if I may say so, in another place, for public inquiries always to be called for. It is a stock demand. Public inquiries provide good copy for the media, but the correct procedure, it always seemed to me, is that there should be a private investigation and inquiry carried out by properly instituted investigators, followed by a public prosecution if that should arise from the results of the inquiry.

I recall at the time of the Poulson affair that demands were then made by very influential circles for a complete public inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. I was resolutely against that. I was confident that we had the proper procedures whereby persons who, if they had committed wrong, could be brought to justice and could receive punishment, which they would not have done if there had been a tribunal of inquiry.

There is a phrase constantly in use in the United States: due process of law. Due process of law is much better than public inquiries. The due process of law affords the public the rights; it also affords the person who is involved the protection. The British criminal trial has evolved procedures which make it a fair and balanced process. Public inquiries are too often like a Roman circus or a form of lynch law which affects the reputation of people who are quite outside any of the matters which really are at the heart of the inquiry.

Therefore, I support very much the decision of the Home Secretary in this matter. I do not think that any proper purpose could be served by discussing the facts. It is merely a matter that the inquiry has been established; from that inquiry there will be a report to the person responsible, the Director of Public Prosecutions. I agree with what is inherent in my noble friend's questioning, to the Minister: there are certain matters that cause concern with respect to the procedures dealing with allegations against the chief constable. I do not see how a Police Authority can ever be the appropriate tribunal. It is essential as a characteristic of natural justice that the tribunal, which is deciding a matter and upon a person, should be fair and independent, and should be seen to be fair and independent; secondly, that notice of allegations should be given early; and, thirdly, there should be a full opportunity for the person against whom the allegations are levied to meet and deal with the allegations.

The Home Secretary, as my noble friend has said, is the Police Authority for the Metropolitan Police and he has certain powers and certain control over other police forces, including the power to call for the retirement of a chief constable. A chief constable is a constable, which is an office of trust under the Crown, and not a person who is an employee or a servant of a local authority. A chief constable enjoys the status, as does any other constable, which is derived from common law. Any chief constable who is under investigation must be given every opportunity to meet an allegation, to answer it and to deal with it fairly and justly. There should not be the delays which appear to have arisen in this case.

I agree also with what my noble friend said at the end of his remarks with regard to the position of the police. I think that the police at the present time have good grounds for resentment over the attitude which is displayed to them in certain quarters in this country. I was glad that in their pay, they should be taken as a very special service, because, without them, no one would be able to carry on any of the activities which ought to be carried on and must be carried on in any ordered society. I am glad that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place and my noble friends here have said that they would implement that award immediately.

Secondly, I think that the traducing of the police which has gone on through the media is something that they are entitled to resent. They have been caricatured and denigrated, and denigrated in a service, by a public corporation, by a production in a public corporation, by monies paid for by the citizens of this country. I can understand their resentment and reaction at that series, which was there set out at the whim of some producer who thought this was an entertaining way to attack those he thought he would like to attack and for which the public of this country paid. A public service broadcasting corporation, in my view, ought to have a sense of responsibility. It is funded by the public and the public are entitled to feel resentment if their money has been used to enable maverick producers to project individualistic and often anarchistic distortions of institutions.

A unique power is given to the media. Of course, the boot is never put on the other foot: we never see productions about corrupt broadcasting corporations or individual producers who are evil, distorted, corrupt people. If that were put on presumably there would be a withdrawal of labour and that would be the end of that particular production. However, the public are entitled to feel anger at distortion. Fair criticism, certainly; fair investigation, certainly; but not a dramatic representation of a totally distorted view of the police service. The police authorities are perfectly entitled to react towards the BBC over their attitude to the police in the way I have in mind. I hope that noble Lords and Members of another place will support the police, because without their service—and the very dangerous job which they do—to all of us and without the support of everybody in this country it would be a very much more unpleasant place in which to live.

In conclusion, I believe that my noble friend is right to bring to the attention of this House the delays in this particular matter and why the irregularities that have been occurring were not found out earlier. I agree that the right thing to do is to stress that it is a matter of the machinery about which we are asking the Minister to give the appropriate explanation.

5.32 p.m.

Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE

My Lords, when I saw the list of speakers on this Question, I was a little surprised to find that for once I was the first Back-Bench speaker after the introducer of the Question, and after the noble Lord who has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench. I was even more surprised to find that I was also the last Back-Bench speaker on the list, which puts me in a somewhat unusual position for commending in my peroration the effectiveness of points made earlier on from the Back-Benches.

On a more serious note, I notice that, in this list, the debate is simply described as an Unstarred Question on County Police Forces. I have to confess that in the list of business which I received at the beginning of the week it was described as a debate on Country Police Forces. This somewhat rural connotation did not disguise the real meaning.

The noble Lord who asked this Question was perfectly right when he implied that this description of the debate was perfectly accurate, in that although the Question relates to the particular circumstances of Lancashire, it does in the end raise underlying problems of a more general character. We must be grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this opportunity—even though not many noble Lords have seized it—of discussing for a little some of these problems, which seem to me both difficult and important.

The noble Lord has quite legitimately raised questions about the machinery of these inquiries, of how it came about that the behaviour complained of did not come to the notice of those who could do something about it earlier, and the length of time which the whole proceedings took. On all this, I should like to make a general comment as a member of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life. On that Commission, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will confirm, we were greatly impressed by the difficulties of getting people to come forward to voice their suspicions of corruption and, secondly by the practical difficulties of "ferreting out" the facts and identifying the wrongdoer. It always seemed that inquiries took very much longer than one could possibly understand.

We could not do very much about the length of time taken by inquiries. However, the first of the difficulties about people not coming forward led us to recommend new procedures which were intended to ensure that members of the public who had suspicions about corrupt behaviour in public life would not be inhibited from coming forward to the police or to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. These recommendations have been implemented—a little belatedly perhaps, but I make no point about that. But they did not apply to the police. I know that the procedures for dealing with complaints against the police have been exhaustively reviewed. I recognise, too, that this is tricky territory in a disciplined service and that there is always the risk of frivolous or malicious allegations. Nevertheless, I shall be glad to hear, when the Minister winds up, whether he is satisfied that all that needs to be done has been done to ensure that members of the public—and more especially members of the Police Service—are, so far as possible, relieved of the risk of feeling inhibited in voicing suspicions against senior members of the Police Service.

The noble Lord's Unstarred Question also raises the issue of the division of responsibility in these matters between the Home Secretary, who provides much of the money and has an overall concern with police efficiency, on the one hand, and on the other hand the local Police Authority whose function it is to maintain an efficient force. As perhaps some noble Lords know, I have for good or bad been concerned with the police for rather longer than I care to think. One of the more fascinating aspects of police organisation during my time has been this changing interrelationship between central and local government—an interrelationship which is certainly unique to this country.

It all used to be so much more simple. When I was first involved, there were very nearly 200 separate police forces in England and Wales. Pretty well every county had its own police force. I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that one had to get down to the Soke of Peterborough before one came across a real merger. So too did most of the boroughs, many of them tiny. I have always believed that when the Carlisle force, for example, was due for its annual inspection, the practice was to delay the Scottish train for about 10 minutes and all 14 members of the force lined up on the station platform—

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, will the noble Lord be careful what he says about the county town of my county? However, he can say what he likes about the Scots!

Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE

My Lords, I am not being critical in any way, I was being just factual, as I believe. After the members of the police force had been lined up on the station platform, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary descended from the train, walked up and down the line, spoke a few words of encouragement and completed his inspection to everyone's satisfaction, except possibly the other passengers on the train who were anxious to get to the grouse moors. But over the years, police work steadily became more professional. The resources needed by each force to cope with increasing problems of crime and traffic became more sophisticated, and more expensive. It became increasingly necessary for the separate forces to work together as part of a nationwide service, looking to the Home Secretary. It also became necessary for central Government to take a hand in providing technical facilities, such as training, records, wireless, scientific aids and so forth, which were required on a scale going far beyond the boundaries of any individual force. So by a process of amalgamations and mergers and, in the end, by the recent local government reorganisation—whatever one may think about other aspects of that reorganisation—we have ended up with many fewer forces (rather less than 40, I believe) but each of them big enough to exist in the modern world.

Although in this process the roles of the Home Secretary and the Police Authority have in general come to be rather more closely defined, in particular following the Royal Commission on the Police and as conveniently summarised in the recent report of the Committee of Inquiry under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, all along there has remained this special problem of what happens when the chief officer of police himself strays from the strait and narrow path of rectitude. I am sorry to say this but, looking back over the years, I fear one can think of rather too many such cases for comfort.

It has always seemed to me to be a great pity that there should have to be in existence at all lengthy statutory regulations to cover possible misdeeds by senior police officers, who are now to be very highly paid. But some of the events which in part led to the setting up of the Royal Commission have, I fear, made this inevitable, and I very much take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, that chief constables are themselves constables and are thus entitled to all the protection which any member of the force deserves.

Looking back on these events over the years, I shall, I admit, feel a trifle surprised if the Minister is able tonight to give the assurance for the future for which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is asking; but that will be for him to say. For my part, I shall be grateful if, in winding up, he can give us the answer to five simple questions—at least I believe they are simple, although they do include one or two sub-clauses. I think I can ask them without discussing in any depth matters affecting the Lancashire Police with which I was personally involved.

The first is: is it now a condition of appointing a chief constable that he should have attended a senior course at the Police College? If not, should it be, and, if there had been such a requirement when Mr. Parr was appointed to Lancashire, would it have ruled him out? Secondly, what are the present requirements for an applicant for the post of chief constable to have served elsewhere? If there had been these requirements when Mr. Parr was appointed, again, would he have been ruled out? Thirdly, am I right in thinking that at the relevant time the Lancashire Police did not have a prosecuting solicitor's department? Is the general question of responsibility for prosecutions one which is now being considered by the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure? Fourthly, reverting to a point I made earlier, is the Minister satisfied that the procedure for receiving complaints against the police is such as not to inhibit the voicing of suspicions on which, at that stage, there may be no hard evidence? Fifthly, would it be possible to give some indication of the likely time-scale of the review of procedures for dealing with complaints against chief officers of police, to which the Home Secretary has referred on a couple of occasions? Will this be a domestic review, and is it envisaged that the likely results of the review would call for substantive legislation?

Before I sit down, may I say just this: the Lancashire Police suffered, I think, a greater degree of dismemberment as a consequence of the last local government reorganisation than did any other force and, as a result, found itself quite drastically reduced in size. Then there were these long-drawn-out proceedings involving the chief constable. Now there is this current investigation going on by officers of other forces, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, referred, inquiring, as I understand it, primarily into allegations of corruption in public life in Blackpool. Altogether, these events must have put a great strain on the loyalties and devotion to duty of all the other members of the force. Let us hope that the force which, as the noble Lord said in his opening speech, has such splendid traditions, comes through it all with renewed confidence and with the ability to play its full part as an important constituent of a great service.

5.47 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am certainly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has given us the opportunity of discussing this issue tonight. Almost inevitably, the debate has ranged fairly widely, largely because, I am bound to say, we so rarely have a discussion in this House on the problems of the police service, which I think is a misfortune. We constantly have debates on the problems in our prisons, and perfectly properly so; but I think it is unfortunate that we tend to discuss these matters—I say this in no Party spirit—only in periods towards General Elections and we do not take enough interest in this general range of issues in the years between General Elections. I think that is a criticism which confronts all of us in this House.

Certainly the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has drawn our attention is very rarely discussed, as I have said, certainly in your Lordships' House. One reason for that is that, in general, the system works fairly well, though there have been certain problems at times, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which gave rise to the setting up of the Royal Commission on the Police in the early 1960s. But by and large the system does not work at all badly.

Before coming to the detailed issues which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I should like to deal with a number of other questions and, first, the "examination paper" which was set by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, at the end of his speech. I hope I can satisfy him on four out of his five questions. I will begin, if I may, by dealing with one particular matter which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson: that is, some of the criticisms which have been directed at the police by the broadcasting media.

Inevitably I have to speak with some degree of caution because I have personal responsibilities, as has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, both for the police and for broadcasting. By and large, I do not think the system has worked at all badly; but inevitably one has to say at the outset, if one is a Home Office Minister, that it is wrong for politicians to become involved in the content of television or radio programmes. It is quite inappropriate to start becoming involved in partisan debate or in the content of programmes when one has a responsibility for the structure of broadcasting.

However, having said that, I believe there is widespread agreement with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, said. When we had a Question raised by my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, following the "Law and Order" series on BBC Television, a number of people expressed very serious anxiety about the whole approach in this series of programmes. I undertook then to draw the attention of the Chairman of the Governors of the BBC to the exchanges which we had had, and I did so; and I will make sure that he receives a copy of the speech which the noble and learned Lord has made on this occasion. It was quite clear, when he made the point, that he had widespread support in all parts of the House, and, again, I will ensure that the Chairman of the Governors is made aware of that.

If I may come to some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, before I return to the narrower questions raised in this debate, he first asked me whether it is a condition of appointment of a chief constable that somebody has passed the Part II Command Course. The answer is: No, it is not. But I am bound to say that I am not absolutely sure that I would impose such a condition. I have had the opportunity, in the four and a half years in which I have had a responsibility for the police in the Home Office, of attending the extended interviews which take place to select candidates for the Part II Command Course. These are people of superintendent and chief superintendent rank. It is a series of interviews carried out over a period of three days and, in my view, it is a very good system indeed.

But it would be creating a rather rigid system if one said, "Unless you get through that course, you cannot become a chief constable." The fact of the matter is that very nearly all people now coming up for appointment as chief constable have passed the Part II Command Course. But, inevitably, there are some people who, from time to time, do not pass the selection machinery and, however sophisticated, however admirable, that system may be, it would perhaps be a mistake to say, "Unless you get through it you cannot become a chief officer."

Secondly, the noble Lord asked an extremely important question about the present arrangements for promotion. We have moved in a very satisfactory direction, so far as this question is concerned. I can remember being made aware, when I first became a Minister, that there were some officers who had progressed through the ranks of superintendent, chief superintendent assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable of the same force. I think that that is most unsatisfactory, and a Home Office circular has now been issued, which has indeed been implemented quite rigorously, to ensure that nobody can pass through the ranks from assistant to deputy to chief constable in the same force. That is a most important development for a number of reasons, which will be self-evident to all those who have participated in the debate today. But for wider reasons, too, it is very desirable that senior officers should be able to draw on the experience of work in a number of different forces. There are great advantages in this and, as I have indicated, this is now being done.

The noble Lord also asked me whether there was a prosecuting solicitor's department in Lancashire. The answer is: No, there was not. But I understand that steps are being taken at the moment to take action in this direction in Lancashire. The question of complaints procedure against senior—

Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE

My Lords, am I to infer from the point that the noble Lord has just made that, if the rules about service elsewhere had been in force, Mr. Parr would not have been appointed, and that his Blackpool service would not have qualified him?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

Yes, my Lords. That is indeed the position. There is a problem as regards the complaints procedure against senior officers, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, with his very substantial experience in the Home Office, will be well aware of this. It is a serious matter to make a grave allegation against a chief constable or, for that matter, against any other police officer, whatever his rank may be.

It will be commonly recognised that the detective sergeant who made this complaint rendered a major and most useful public service. That is undoubtedly true. But we have to guard ourselves against malicious complaints, and it would be very dangerous to say, "Whatever your motive may be, you are totally protected if you make an allegation against a fellow officer or a chief constable." That would he creating an extremely dangerous situation, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale will agree with me on that. I shall come to his fifth question, concerning the timetable of our review of the disciplinary arrangements for chief officers, in the substance of my speech.

If I may now come to the rather narrower, but important, questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, it is inevitable that recent events in Lancashire have given rise to some general disquiet, and it is only natural that people should wish to be assured that the likelihood of such a situation being repeated is a very remote one. Of course, I cannot today say that no such thing will ever happen again. It would be quite absurd for me to do so, whatever procedure we may create. But I hope to convince the House that it is unlikely, and that the system that we now have is as watertight as anything can be.

It may be helpful to the House if at this stage I give some general explanation of the different responsibilities of the chief constable, the Police Authority and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. First and most important I should like to come to the role of the chief officer of a force. He has the sole responsibility for all operational matters, and it is a matter of crucial importance that he should discharge that responsibility without being influenced in any way by any sectional or individual interests. He has, in addition, responsibilities for appointment, discipline and promotion.

Then there is the Police Authority. Their essential function, under Section 4 of the Police Act 1964, which followed the work of the Royal Commission, is to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area. For this purpose, various specific powers are conferred upon them by the Act. They appoint the chief constable and his deputy and assistants, and they may call upon them to retire in the interests of efficiency. They fix the establishment of the force and, in the exercise of all these powers, they require the approval of the Home Secretary. I repeat, because it is an important point, that nobody can become a chief constable, a deputy chief constable or an assistant chief constable, without first having been appointed by the Police Authority, and, in addition, that choice by the Police Authority has to be confirmed by the Home Secretary.

The Police Authority are also the disciplinary authority for chief officers. The procedure under which they are to deal with allegations that such an officer has committed a disciplinary offence is set out in the regulations which were made as a result of the 1964 Act. The ultimate sanction which is open to the authority, where a chief officer is found to have infringed the discipline code, is, of course, to dismiss him from the force. The Authority receive an annual report from the chief constable, and have power at any time to call for a report from him on matters connected with the policing of the area. In addition, they have a duty, as part of their general responsibility for the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force, to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints by members of the public are dealt with by the chief officer.

I turn now to the role of the Home Secretary and the Inspectorate of Constabulary. I link these two together, since it is wrong to see the Inspectorate as acting in some way independently of the Home Secretary. The primary function of Inspectors of Constabulary is to inspect forces and to report on their efficiency to the Home Secretary. It is primarily by this means that the Home Secretary fulfils his general responsibility for the efficiency of the Police Service outside London. Inspections arc carried out annually, although, of course, inspectors maintain frequent, and indeed regular, contact with their own forces throughout the year. If matters come to notice which appear to the regional inspector to require attention, they are drawn to the notice of the chief constable or of the Police Authority, as appropriate, and if necessary a formal letter is sent by the Home Office.

The Home Secretary has a number of powers and responsibilities, particularly in respect of providing common police services and making regulations in order to ensure that there are common standards. He can also require the Police Authority to exercise their power to call upon a chief officer to retire in the interests of efficiency. It is a most important power which is available to the Home Secretary and I think it is right that he should possess it. In addition, the Home Secretary can order a local inquiry into any aspect of the policing of the area concerned.

This is necessarily a brief and obviously incomplete description of arrangements, which exist at the moment. As I have said, no system can be infallible. The arrangements which I have described may well not be perfect, but I think it is worth stressing some of their most important features. First, they reflect the division of financial responsibility between central and local government. Secondly, they ensure that while each of the parties has its own responsibilities, each of them is also dependent in some way upon the others. Third, they preserve the independence of the chief officer on operational questions.

I turn now to the situation in Lancashire. I do not think that there is much to be gained by going over in detail exactly what it was that went wrong over the last few years. We can do our best service to that force, and to the people of Lancashire, by giving our full and complete support to the new chief constable, Mr. Laugharne, who has just taken up his post, in the task that awaits him. He is an officer of great ability, and I think that he deserves full public support from everybody concerned, both in Lancashire and in both Houses of Parliament.

However, I should like to say this at once in reply to the Unstarred Question and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I do not accept that the system broke down in Lancashire. If I may remind the noble Lord, I believe that it was Mr. Harold Macmillan, when Prime Minister—or, arguably, when he was no longer Prime Minister—who said that one of the problems about catching spies (this is a very different matter but it bears some relation to the problem about which we have just been speaking) is that, far from everybody saying to those concerned, "Well done! You have caught a dangerous spy", the question is asked, "Why didn't you catch him earlier?" I believe that this is the problem so far as this question is concerned. It is easy to ask why A, B or C did not realise what was going on. The more important question, however, is that I do not believe that there is any evidence that there has been negligence. The two Inspectors of Constabulary—both of whom I know extremely well; the previous Inspector of Constabulary, a most distinguished police officer, was formerly chief constable for Northumbria, while the present Inspector of Constabulary is Mr. Page, the former Commissioner of the City of London Police, who will have been well known to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Home Secretary—are men of great ability. I would not accept in any way that any responsibility attaches to either of them, particularly to the former chief constable for Northumbria who was there at the time that many of these problems arose.

The situation was as described by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood: that during one of the regular inspections of the force by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, an individual officer asked to see the Inspector and told him of a number of matters which he considered disquieting in the way the force was being run. These ranged from specific allegations about intervention by the then chief constable in the normal arrangements for dealing with motoring offences and the misuse of police vehicles for non-official journeys to general claims that the chief constable was not properly concerned about the morale and welfare of his men.

I think it is fair to say that to a large extent the exposure of these matters depended on the willingness of someone concerned to come forward and speak out. The noble Lord raised this point—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. This is always likely to be an important element in dealing with any misconduct of this character. It is, I think, worth mentioning that within a very short time of the allegations becoming known to Her Majesty's Inspector, an outside officer, Sir Douglas Osmond, who at that time was chief constable of Hampshire and a man of remarkable ability in the police service, had taken over what was to him, in the closing months of his service, perhaps one of the most disagreeable duties he ever had to carry out; namely, to investigate the character of a brother chief constable. However, it speaks very well of Sir Douglas Osmond that he discharged this responsibility with that high sense of public duty with which he will always be associated.

The inquiry took place, conducted, as I said, by Sir Douglas Osmond and a team of officers from Hampshire Constabulary. It led to the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the chief constable, and indeed to his dismissal from the force. Other matters which did not give rise to disciplinary action were, as noble Lords will be aware, dealt with internally and through the district audit system. A number of things clearly went very seriously wrong in Lancashire, but when they came to light they were dealt with, without, I believe, any unreasonable delay.

The inquiry was long and extremely complicated, but it was also thorough. I am afraid one has to accept that if an inquiry is to be detailed and is to inquire into every conceivable allegation that has been made, it will take a formidable amount of time. I think it is very desirable that allegations of this degree of gravity against a chief officer of police should be made subject to very thorough review. That was done in this case, but inevitably it took longer than it would have done if the investigation had been of a superficial character. I do not believe, however, that such an investigation would have reassured public opinion nor, indeed, would have done what was necessary so far as the Lancashire Police Force was concerned.

What I think is necessary is that all those with responsibilities in this area should recognise the need for vigilance and for alertness to signs which suggest that all is not well. It is, moreover, important that the sort of climate should be created in which others who may become aware that something is wrong should feel free to bring their concern to notice in the proper quarter and should be confident that the appropriate action will be taken and that there will be no attempt to cover things up.

Finally, I should remind the House that although we do not propose any changes in the system in general, we intend, as I have previously informed the House, to make certain amendments to the disciplinary arrangements for senior officers. Before coming to these, I should like to deal with one particular point which concerned me very substantially at the time, for it demonstrates problems so far as the Home Office is concerned.

Sir Douglas Osmond's report was made available to the Lancashire police authority because they had commissioned it, and, perfectly properly, it was their document. Although this raised very serious matters indeed, it was quite impossible for either my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or myself to take any steps to look at that document, because the chief constable of Lancashire had a right to appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision by the tribunal which heard the case, and indeed the Lancashire Police Authority. That being so, we had to disqualify ourselves from making any attempt to look at that particular document. It raises a particular difficulty, of which again the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will be aware.

Let me return to this slightly narrower question of the amendments to the disciplinary arrangements for senior officers. I think it is right for me to emphasise that the improvements that we see as necessary here are to deal with inadequacies in the way alleged misconduct is dealt with after it has come to light rather than in bringing to light instances of such misconduct. In reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord, I cannot give a particular date, but we intend to issue a paper shortly setting out our proposals which we are going to discuss with the representatives both of the chief officers and of the police authorities. Copies of this paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

There are only two additional things I should like to say this evening. The first is on the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, made about the investigation which is now being carried out by Mr. Imber, the deputy chief constable of Surrey, into certain allegations of misconduct relating to the public life of Blackpool. The noble and learned Lord will, of course, recall that this is really a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. But again, if I may say so, he is absolutely right in drawing attention to the dangers of constantly demanding tribunals of inquiry. It does seem to me very alarming that we tend to forget the disquiet which has so often been expressed about what happens, often to totally innocent people, as a result of a tribunal of inquiry. There was the famous case of J. H. Thomas and the effect it had on one then Member of Parliament. There have been many other such examples where, as a result of the character of the tribunal, grievous damage has been done.

But something else is done as well; nobody, of course, can be prosecuted. This is a point which often seems to he forgotten. If, as a result of a tribunal of inquiry, it is said that Mr. A and Mr. B and Mr. C have behaved with gross impropriety or have committed criminal offences, no action can then be taken against them, because you would need to have given them a waiver in order to secure their attendance at the tribunal. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that people will be a little more reluctant to demand the establishment of tribunals of inquiry on this, that and every other question when it comes before Parliament. It is all too easy to demand, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it should be resisted, except, of course, in those cases where the very security of the State may be involved or there is grave and widespread doubt about the behaviour of major public figures.

My Lords, we have had this debate today into what is in fact an extremely sad episode in the history of the British Police Service. It is a serious matter when a chief officer of a very fine force is dismissed. It has caused great distress, I know, in the Lancashire police force and to many people living in that county. I do not believe, in the light of anything that has been said tonight, that it would be right to be complacent. I think, as I have endeavoured to point out, that when, these allegations were made they were investigated with dispatch, and I believe that the right decision has now been arrived at. Certainly there can be no cause at all for any form of complacency. Let us just bear in mind as well that this, I repeat, has been a sad and dismal business. But we do have in this country a high degree of public confidence in the police; we have a police force that is the envy of every other country of the world. I think that, with all the other difficulties and preoccupations from which we suffer, it is right to record that fact and to use this opportunity of expressing our thanks to all members of the British Police Service who have done so much to establish that reputation.