HL Deb 16 July 1979 vol 401 cc1245-69

8.22 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give a summary of the duties of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary and say how far it is normal routine when reporting to the Secretary of State on a police force under Section 28(2) of the Police Act 1964 to include a confidential report on the senior police officers in the force concerned and on the key members of the police authority, whose leadership must have an effect on the efficiency of that force. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. This order refers to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary who are a very important link between the Secretary of State, the Chairmen of Police Authorities and Chief Constables. Looked at one way, one can say that they are the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, and I would submit that all too little is known about them and their function.

I touched on this question a year ago when we had a debate on the unhappy events in Lancashire. The debate was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, at some length and it was very impressive to listen to it. But when I read his speech the next day I found no real replies to any of my questions about the part that HMIs had played in Lancashire. He told us that they were very distinguished men, former chief constables, which we all knew. But why should the Home Office be so secretive? I am hoping that this opportunity we are giving the Minister this evening will enable him to tell us and the country outside this Chamber a little more.

There is much that we could be told. We talk about the Post Office, health and defence; they all have their confidential sides. People talk about us—and we think it a good thing that they should. They even say that we should be abolished. When they say this we are not unduly upset because we have heard it before. Yet there are some people who represent that it is almost blasphemy to talk about the police in Parliament. I would claim, on the contrary, that there should be discussion about the police and that your Lordships' House is in the best place for intelligent discussion to take place. If there were more knowledge, there would be fewer articles in the Press, like the recent poisonous article in the Guardian with fashionable slanging of special patrol groups.

This next sentence is not relevant to the Question but I want to say it all the same. I have had the privilege of contacts with a special patrol group and have nothing but admiration what what I have seen. Until anyone produces evidence of serious criminal acts or wrong-doing—I do not mean just naming a scapegoat—my voice will be raised in their support, however small the minority.

Now I should like to suggest that we consider in more detail the duties of HMIs. First, why is the Metropolitan police treated exceptionally? It is the only force in this country which is not inspected independently. Most of us have some idea of how that grew up. Most of us would feel that it is outdated and it would greatly help the part-tarnished image of the Metropolitan Police CID if there were an inspection by independent HMIs rather than by their own officers.

All of us know that HMIs carry out formal inspections of provincial police forces after prior notice. I imagine there is a certain amount of button and boot polishing, and I understand that after the first formalities the chief constable sees that the HMI is guided round a safe route which he will find impressive. We know that the origin of these inspections was to ensure that the Home Office—that is, the central Government—got value for money for the big subsidy that it found towards the cost of maintaining provincial police forces. But we should like to know more. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard of a case where an HMI turned up unannounced and in a friendly way said to the chief constable that he hoped he did not mind but he was going to stay with him through the day and see what happened.

I have heard recently that more staff officers have been appointed. I think that I can see the sort of duties that they can usefully carry out. I know that the assistant HMIs are not all police officers by profession. Are all the staff officers police officers or are some of them drawn from other walks of life? If not, why not? Surely the things they are looking into, such as skills in man management and administration, are not only to be found in police circles. The idea that only police officers can understand police problems is really a police and Home Office "con" which they have succeeded in putting across the country.

On the more confidential side, chief officers of police serve until they are 65, 10 years longer than major generals, who serve until they are 55; five years longer than ambassadors, who serve until they are 60. Of course, flesh and blood being what they are, it is too much to hope that nothing should ever go wrong. But when things do start going wrong, do the HMIs report in confidence to the Secretary of State, or do they turn a blind eye? If they make reports on these personal things, does the Home Office take any rapid action? Just to show that there are grounds for these misigvings, may I explain that I live in a county in the far North West of England. If you cross the boundary to the South you are in Lancashire where last year the chief constable was removed from office, but not thanks to anything an HMI or any senior police officer or anything that the police authority did. It was thanks to a detective sergeant who lodged a complaint, a detective sergeant who only had a few weeks left of his service before he retired. And now, after further inquiries which lasted a whole year, I saw in my newspaper over the weekend that summonses have been taken out against the late chairman of the Lancashire Police Authority; and since they are sub judice I shall say no more.

My Lords, if you cross our county boundary to the East, you will find yourselves in County Durham where recently the chairman of the police authority served a time in prison. If you go over our North-East boundary into the County of Northumberland, you will find that the head of one of the specialist squads was recently given a prison sentence, and there is an inquiry proceeding about the wrongdoings of some of his underlings. I shall not say any more and I shall not dig further into the past. But your Lordships will see that there that are reasons for misgivings. When a man at the top goes wrong, the harm that he does spreads downwards and can quickly have a devastating effect. Surely, it is very important that the HMIs should in fact be on the lookout for these things and help to check them before they have gone too far.

I find it incredible that the HMIs, all of them one time chief constables, have apparently been so ineffective in the instances that I have mentioned; and I do not put it down to what I have sometimes heard said, that it is really something of an "old boy" net, which would be dreadful.

Let us compare the police with the Army and the Foreign Service again. Senior officers in the Army and, I think, junior officers too—I see the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his place; he can probably tell us whether it is the same in the Navy—are subject to regular confidential reports; and medical checks are routine. In many private businesses there are regular health checks of senior staff. Why are there no such checks for chief constables and other senior police officers who are operational all the time? I have heard that most county authorities, before appointing a chief constable, ask for a medical report; but I have also heard it said that those overweight police constables whom one sees standing in the street outside New Scotland Yard building, not so very far from here, have probably never had a medical check-up since they were accepted and joined the force a number of years ago.

Sixty-five may be too old for senior officers who are operational all the time. At any age over 60, I would submit that while some few men are still in superb order, most of us are slowing down physically. Even if we have no definite disability such as early signs of arthritis or emphysema, we are none the less slowing down physically. There may also be a slowing down mentally—lack of imagination is a well-known police short-coming—and we all can suffer from what I call, "running out of steam" sooner or later. Then there is another failing which is very widespread, particularly among many men of middle age; that is, excessive drinking. Noble Lords may say, "Speak for yourself"! Most of us at one time or another have had to consider whether or not we were drinking too much. It is a temptation that we all have to face; but it is a very unhappy situation when a man holding a senior appointment gets the reputation of drinking too much.

A year ago the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in a winding-up speech told us that the Home Office would be issuing a memorandum for discussing the procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct by chief officers, which mercifully are very few. I have read the paper and am glad to see in it that, apart from references to criminal acts and obvious breaches of a disciplinary code, there is reference to another field where trouble can be found. They describe this as conduct likely to bring discredit on the office held; or fitness for the post". Here I would submit that alcohol could play a big part. When a man gets the reputation of being a heavy drinker, it is not very long before it is widely known and before respect for him evaporates. A chief constable is locking up people every week for excessive drinking and he should not himself be exempt from an alchotest, however young the PC may be who finds him weaving on the road.

I also see in that Home Office memorandum that formal disciplinary proceedings have been brought only four times since 1964. That really is four times too many, but since human flesh has its weaknesses, should we say, "Three times too many"? I do not know how that figure would compare with those for generals or admirals, but I feel that it is disturbing.

Let us now look at chairmen of authorities. They are not elected: in practice they are appointed by a party caucus of the majority party in a county council—which I think is a pity—and in counties, rather more than in urban areas, the chairman can, or ought to be, a conspicuous figure prominent for public service in his area. However, I suspect that standards, taken over all England, are falling. A good chairman can be of immense help to a police force without intruding in any way on the chief constable's operational responsibilities. He is probably from a family that is well known in the county, whereas the chief constable can easily be a new boy. They should have complete confidence in one another, but, if too old for the job, if in poor health or if alcohol is playing a part, he should give way to others in the interests of the police and of the public he serves.

I think I have said enough to show that there are some grounds for misgivings, but I should like to end on this note. As many of you know, I have spent a lot of time with the police over recent years and the more time I have spent the greater my admiration has grown for them and their strong points—but also the more clearly one sees some of the weaknesses in the system. It is the duty of Parliament to use all influence possible to help repair their weaknesses and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

8.35 p.m.

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for enabling us to discuss this subject tonight. He takes a close interest in police matters and has done so over a considerable period, not only in this country but also abroad. Indeed, it was the noble Lord who initiated what I believe was the last debate when Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary was discussed by your Lordships, although the debate itself was not about them specifically, on 26th July last year. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has made one or two references to that debate tonight.

I intervene only very briefly and will detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that in this sphere, as in others, the more it is possible to know, the better, and I look forward very much to hearing from the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the role of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. But I would also emphasise—and I think this was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said—that there must be quite severe limits placed on what should be published about their work, for much of it must remain confidential by its very nature. Indeed, I believe it would be counterproductive and contrary to the public interest to go beyond such limits. As the Royal Commission on the Police said in its report—that is the Willinck Report of 1962— … in general they"— that is, the inspectors— achieve results by persuasion and goodwill rather than by making representations to the Secretaries of State—which is the only alternative means of inducing compliance with their recommendations". I believe that if everything had to be strictly formalised, still less publicised, the changes they are able to bring about would be very much lessened. But, of course, where necessary, in cases of more serious shortcomings, representations do need to be made to the Secretary of State and sometimes more stringent steps still need to be taken, as we know. It is perhaps worth noting in passing here the very rigorous way in which the police have themselves rooted out those responsible within their own ranks on those rare occasions when serious shortcomings or corruption have come to light; and chief officers of police, such as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir David McNee, have been most outspoken about that.

It is perhaps remarkable that as recently as 1962 that same report said: There has since 1945 been authority for the appointment of separate chief inspectors of constabulary for England and Wales and for Scotland, but no appointments have been made. We recommend that there be substituted a single post of Chief Inspector for Great Britain, and that this post be filled without delay". It is really a reminder that the present system has not been with us for so long as we tend to think, although the office of inspector does date from 1856.

The system has, I believe, served us very well. Your Lordships have noted on other occasions the very high regard in which our police service is held abroad, and I think the same goes for our system of inspection too. No doubt it was partly a recognition of that that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Colin Woods, a very distinguished officer, was appointed a couple of months ago to a new post in Australia. But it is essential to keep the system up-to-date, and that clearly is one of the prime purposes behind the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, tonight. In the last report of the chief inspector to be published—the one for 1977, which came out last July—Sir Colin referred to the Working Party on the Future and Structure of the Inspectorate, and gave an interim account of the consideration being given to it in the Home Office. I think that shows, in part at least, that the system is being kept under scrutiny. Perhaps we can look forward to a further account in the report for last year, which I think is due out quite soon.

There is one further point, when talking about that working party, which is sometimes made: that is that the Metropolitan Police, which of course does not come under inspections from the Inspectorate of Constabulary, should do so. It was, indeed, one of the recommendations of the working party that the Metropolitan Police should be formally inspected by the Inspectorate, along with the other police forces. In fact, the 1977 Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary contained the passage: The most significant of its recommendations"— that is, the working party's recommendations"— was that the Metropolitan Police Force should be formally inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. This matter arose with some regularity during my visits to forces. The report of my predecessor is of keen interest to provincial forces who strongly support the concept, as all are affected to some degree by events in the capital". So that, certainly, was a matter which was considered by the working party.

But I feel, at the same time, that when one is considering a recommendation of that kind—and I believe that certain of your Lordships would go along with a recommendation like that—it is also important to bear in mind this reference in the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for last year—his recent report—in which he said on page 4: On 12th December, I announced that a new Force Inspectorate had been established to begin its duties on 1st January, 1979. This was the culmination of discussions that I initiated with the Home Office, following my decision earlier in the year to increase the operational responsibility of the four area deputy Assistant Commissioners, who were at that time responsible for the inspection of the force. A deputy Assistant Commissioner, with supporting staff, was appointed as the new Inspector of the Metropolitan Police, under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner. The function of the Inspectorate is to provide a close and continuing assessment of the efficiency of all units of the force, including police branches at headquarters, in order to maintain the high standards required ". It is important to bear in mind that observation, because it shows that the Metropolitan Police has given some evidence of its sensitivity on the question of the Inspectorate of the force, whether or not one goes along with the recommendation made by the working party.

These annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary are very useful and informative. I am sure that one big problem in compiling them is that there is far too much material, and that much has to be left out if they are to be kept to a reasonable size. So I hesitate to make any suggestion which would make them less manageable. However, I would not be averse, I must confess, to seeing certain sections in the report dealt with more fully than they are now and, indeed, in some cases, exhaustively.

In the last report, for instance, there was an interesting chapter, Chapter VII, on community relations and preventive policing. Only last Thursday we were debating in your Lordships' House aspects of that subject, arising from a Home Office circular on juveniles and the police and co-operation with other agencies. It might be useful if the Chief Inspector's report for this year contained an analysis of the response; and it will be interesting to see, too, whether the Inspectorate follows up any shortcomings in the response. There has been an enormous expansion in recent years of the work dealt with in that chapter on community relations and preventive policing; and it might be valuable, from time to time, to have an exhaustive analysis of an aspect like that, rather than just a very limited selective account of the highlights in particular force areas, useful though that is, so that we can see clearly which areas are taking action and which are not.

Again, at the end of 1976 the Home Office put out a circular on senior police appointments, stating criteria which the Home Secretary felt should be applied. It is a little early at present, perhaps, but a review of the way in which a new policy like that is working could be usefully included in a future report.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is a sound instrument and there is certainly no sign of complacency within its ranks—quite the reverse; it demonstrates constantly that it wants to keep itself up to date. I believe it is part of our job to encourage it to do so, and that is one reason why a debate of this kind, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is very welcome.

8.45 p.m.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for having raised this matter and for having drawn my attention to the fact that it was to be discussed this evening. It is very opportune that we should have a debate on Her Majesty's Inspectorate at this moment, when the report for last year is about to be published, and when we can review some of the important matters which may be discussed in it, at a time when the Home Office is still considering the recommendations of the working party to which reference has been made.

The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Inspectorate were the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, but it has become clear, both from what he said and from what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said, that they are not the eyes and ears of Parliament, because many of the matters that come within their ambit are not dealt with in the report, and there may be differences of opinion as to how far they can go in extending the information which they give to Parliament. I am not at all sure whether I agree with the tenor of the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that there should be severe limitations on what they can print, because I think that the limitations should be only those which are designed to secure that criminals are not given information which would facilitate their operations. Apart from that, the more information we can be given about the work of the Inspectors, the better, so that we can understand what it is that they are trying to do for the benefit of the police and for the community at large.

When one looks at the Police Act 1964, the functions of the Inspectorate are defined extremely vaguely. We see, not surprisingly, that their duty is to inspect, and to report on the efficiency of all police forces, except the Metropolitan Police. I suspect that this language is probably just a continuation of the wording that was used in the original County and Borough Police Act 1856, which initiated the Inspectorate, although I must confess that I did not look it up before coming to this debate. I would go so far as to say that many of the methods of operation of the Inspectorate may be hangovers from much earlier days. We have to begin by asking the blunt question: Why do we have an Inspectorate at all? I am not suggesting that there is anything positive to compel the opinion that they should be abolished, but merely that whenever we are discussing a body of this kind we should begin by seeing what their functions are, whether the arguments for carrying them out hold good from an earlier age, or whether there is some other way in which we could perform them better. That is one reason why an examination of this kind can be very useful.

The Inspectors report to the Secretary of State concerning forces which are nominally under the control of police committees. The Chief Inspector makes an annual report which could provide—and I think does provide—a very useful overview of police activity in their main concerns, if it was slightly fuller than it is and also did not appear so late, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, remarked; and we still do not have the report for last year. It would have been helpful, perhaps, if we could have had it before this debate took place.

But the matters contained in it are entirely of a factual nature. It does not make any recommendations, and if there is anything which could be done to improve efficiency there does not seem to be a great deal of consciousness of it in the published report. That may be for the reasons which noble Lords have given, that some of these sensitive matters are properly dealt with in confidential reports to the Secretary of State, and that if they find any deficiencies, about which they must request the Secretary of State to take action, these are not matters of which we should like criminals to be made aware. That is the reason why most, if not all, of the recommendations have to be confidential.

I wonder, however, whether that is so in the case of some of the ways in which efficiency could be improved, apparently, and of which anybody who has looked at police work must be conscious. I am thinking of the enormous burden of clerical work on the police which occupies so much of their time and which might be made more efficient by the use of modern methods. I do not believe that the police forces of England and Wales have yet heard of word processers, yet one can think of many aspects of police operations which would be enormously facilitated by this new technology.

One would like to think that the Inspectors, if they are concerned with efficiency, had begun to suggest to police forces that they should examine the use of word processers, or that they themselves should conduct investigations into that subject. I am not quite sure whether they are intended to be management consultants who make recommendations on efficiency to individual police forces, or whether their role is of a much more general nature. Do they think of themselves as management services advisers, or is there an underlying idea that, although legally all of the police forces are autonomous, the Inspectors can exercise a kind of co-ordinatory function so that, unless there are very good reasons for doing otherwise, common practices are applied throughout the country? If the answer to that question is, yes, then, as both noble Lords have asked, why is it that the Chief Inspector is not also made responsible for the Metropolitan Police?

The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has quoted the recommendation of the working party. I think it is time that we had a decision from the Home Office as to whether they will go ahead with that recommendation, or whether the announcement of 12th December of last year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, referred, means in effect that the Home Office have revised the arrangements for the inspection of the Metropolitan Police, although they intend to continue them as quite separate arrangements from those which are the responsibility of the Chief Inspector.

One notices that there are very considerable differences between the Metropolitan Police and other police forces. This is not the time to go into those differences in detail. However, to give one example, the basic recruits course in the Metropolitan Police is 15 weeks, while in the other forces there is mention of a 10 week initial training course. I do not know whether there is any solid reason for having a different period of initial training in the Metropolitan Police from that in the rest of England and Wales, but it is the kind of thing which the Chief Inspector could look at if he was covering both England and Wales and the Metropolitan Police.

In the case of the Metropolitan Police, there is the change, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, referred relating to the strengthening of arrangements. It includes a provision for the Home Office to be consulted about the inspection programme and to call for particular matters to be examined. The Secretary of State is the person to whom the commissioner is responsible. In the exercise of his powers, he could, presumably, give to the Inspectors any terms of reference which he thought fit, whereas in the rest of England and Wales he is limited by the wording of the 1964 Act. However, Section 38(4) gives him the power to direct the form of a Chief Inspector's report. I should have thought that he could give directions under that section so as to bring the terms of reference of the Chief Inspector in England and Wales into conformity with the reply which he gave in another place on 12th December and which was repeated by the metropolitan commissioner, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham.

I have mentioned training. With regard to this matter, the Chief Inspector emphasises the importance of developing an understanding of the attitudes and outlooks of the various groups which make up the community. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has referred to this matter and has said that he would have liked much more material on that subject. The commissioner does not specifically refer to it. In his report, under the heading of "Training", he devotes a chapter to the question of community relations. I know that in the discussions with the Metropolitan Police, reference to which is made in the commissioner's report, the Commission for Racial Equality had offered to help with training, and I have reason to believe that they would equally enthusiastically offer to help in the case of the police forces in the rest of England and Wales.

It must be apparent to all those who are concerned with these matters that relationships between black people and the police are not very good. This is not necessarily a function solely of training. However, I should have thought that if the Commission for Racial Equality is prepared to help, their offer should be wholeheartedly accepted, and that that should apply to the Metropolitan Police and to the other police forces in England and Wales as well.

One matter to which the commissioner devotes some attention but which is not mentioned in the Chief Inspector's report and which also has relevance to this subject is "sus"—Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. That may be because, in most cities other than London, the charge is practically unknown, whereas in Greater London it is very popular in certain divisions, although it is hardy used in others. If this offence ought to be repealed, as many black people's organisations have suggested, that would be a matter for the Secretary of State. In the meanwhile, however, if use of the offence affects police efficiency, then it would be a matter for the Chief Inspector. If large amounts of police time are taken up with, as I see it, harassing young blacks on the street, to say nothing of the effect on race relations, that is a matter which, I should have thought, ought to concern the Chief Inspector. At any rate, comparisons ought to be made between one police force and another to find out why the charge is so differentially used between different regions.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said that he would have liked certain questions to be dealt with more fully; there was too much material to put it all into the report. I agree with the noble Lord that there are certain matters which warrant far more attention than they are given in the Chief Inspector's report. The one matter which I want to mention in particular is computing. It is quite extraordinary that the police national computer rates only a mention of five lines in a report extending to 109 pages. One can only hope that this is not a reflection of the importance which is attached to the subject by the Chief Inspector. I believe that computers could enormously facilitate the work of the police. They could help the police to detect crime and bring criminals to justice far more quickly, in many cases, than could be achieved by manual methods. I hope that in some future report the Chief Inspector will devote far more attention to the subject of computing than he has been able to do in the report which is under review.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. The principal point with which I should like him to deal is, as other noble Lords have said, whether or not, at the end of a period of 120-odd years since the Inspectors were first brought into existence, a unified system for the whole of England and Wales, including the metropolis, could at last be introduced.

8.59 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I hope not to detain your Lordships for long. My noble friend Lord Inglewood, whom I thank for having put down this Unstarred Question, asked me to say a word or two about the Service aspect. If it is not out of order, it would have been very much better if Black Rod could have taken part in the debate, for not only did he leave the Services more recently than I but he is a general officer of dis- tinction, with particular knowledge of policing problems. Therefore, he would have been able to contribute to our debate in a very much better way than we can.

I should like to say that the two points which have been brought out, of reporting both on senior officers and on inspections, are very important indeed. In the Navy, just to make the comparison, these reports and the inspections are done by the immediate senior officer. I am happy to say that my last inspection and the last reports on me of any importance were made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, who is not of course taking part in this debate. But the fact is that it is terribly important to have these inspections. The fact that they are done, as it were, locally, within the Navy rather spells out more the difference between that as a fighting force and the disciplined force of the police which is organised somewhat differently.

I should have thought that the concept of having an inspectorate is a good one for a force where people do not move about so much. In the Navy people tend to move from one appointment to another in a period of two years, or little more than two and a half years. Therefore, there is a permanent turn-round and one does not get a static situation over several years, as I suspect occurs in the police forces of the country. I am not criticising that, but it is because there is a different set-up that I think probably an inspectorate is a good thing.

I think that their reports should be on the same lines as Service reports. It would probably be insulting to the police to be told this, but it is quite a time now since we last had a conflict in which perhaps most of the senior police officers were involved and it could be that they could learn a great deal in the inspectorate from asking the Services what they do now, because life goes on and they might obtain several pieces of advice on the degree of inspection. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that there were only five lines on computers. Perhaps that is ridiculous—I do not know—but the latest experience of the way in which inspections are conducted might be of value to the police, particularly with the rather horrifying information from the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that between 1945 and 1962 when there were powers to have an inspectorate, nobody did anything. That shows that there is a lack of enthusiasm for this process which is probably still reflected in us and I should suspect that the Inspectorate is having to fight a battle all the time. Did I misunderstand the noble Lord?

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

I think not, my Lords, but in case I did not put it clearly enough, what I was referring to during that period from 1945 to 1962 when the Willinck Report came out, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, correctly said, was that, as the report indicated, there had not been any appointment of any chief inspectors of constabulary for England, or for Wales or for Scotland, but I think that is part of the point that the noble Lord was making.

Lord MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I think it is in line with what I am saying, if the detail is slightly off track. It is necessary to have this acceptance of the importance of an inspection system. That is the main point. I do not think there is a great deal to be said for having a United Kingdom-wide inspectorate. My thinking would be that it would be better to keep it more regionalised because of the differences that relate throughout the country. That is probably enough said about that.

As for the reports on senior officers, to take the particular point made by my noble friend as to whether admirals and generals were ever sacked for drinking too much, of course it would not be right for a retired naval captain to comment on his seniors directly in that respect, but on the whole I would say that it very rarely happens—if ever—in peacetime, although there is more likelihood of it happening in wartime, when perhaps one goes for somewhat different qualities. But the rigorousness with which people are selected for promotion to senior rank in all the three Services is such that, on the whole, it is unlikely that a heavy drinker would reach a senior rank and that is probably because of two other things. One is the faster turnover as between one rank and another. People spend less time in a rank compared with the police force, and it is partly because things are more likely to go wrong in that area when people are left in one place for too long.

The great thing about the Services is that people are moved about a good deal more in them than they are in the police forces. I think it would be a good thing to move policemen about more, but then there would be great problems with their families not wanting to go, and houses not being available. It is an enormous administrative problem to have people thoroughly mobile, and therefore I should not think one could change that side of it very much, which lands one with people who are sitting around for too long. It is quite surprising that what must be a very active sort of job should permit people to serve on to such high ages as my noble friend was saying earlier. And I quite agree with him that medical inspections would be a good thing, and I am surprised also that they do not take place. It happens in industry to a large extent, quite apart from the Services, and I think that that point is something that is certainly worth looking at.

To return to the question of confidential reports on individuals, I am not frightfully enamoured of my noble friend's thought that somehow the confidential reports on individuals should be concurrent with the report on the particular section of the police force that is being—or did I get it wrong?

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, it need not be concurrent provided that it happens, and happens fairly regularly.

Lord MOTTISTONE

Yes, my Lords, that is the point. In the Navy one is reported on every six months, and I think probably in a more static force once a year would do. It is not keyed to the inspection of one ship or unit, because of course time does not necessarily permit that. The reports on people are at stated intervals and the convenience of having a senior officer's inspection may not fit with that.

There is another point. It is quite a good plan to have these two separately because in one case you are giving your mind to a particular individual and in the other case you are giving your mind to the total unit for which he is responsible and those are best kept separate when making the report. So I think the recommendation would be that one should go out of one's way to keep them separate, and it would seem to me thoroughly right that there ought to be routine inspections on senior police officers to, perhaps, the Home Office; and on more junior ones to their own chief constables. It is a pity that that kind of system does not already exist. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say, and perhaps he can tell us a little about what is done on reporting of inspections and reporting on individuals.

9.9 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for giving us an opportunity to discuss the role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It is timely because the report for last year comes out next Wednesday, and because the central task of the Inspectorate, that of promoting the efficiency of the Policy Service, has never been more relevant. Again I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for this short debate this evening. There has been a shortage in police establishment numbers for some years and the demands upon the police are such that, even with the encouraging improvement in recruitment which we are seeing, there are bound to be shortages for the foreseeable future. In addition, policing becomes an increasingly expensive operation and this must be so the more chief constables plan, as they are planning, for their police officers to concentrate closely upon community relations. Today the efficient use of resources, therefore, always important, assumes increasing significance.

The Inspectorate has two distinct but complementary functions. There is the traditional function of inspecting police forces, other than the Metropolitan Police, and reporting to the Home Secretary on their efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and I think other noble Lords have referred to the Metropolitan Police. I think perhaps it is fair to remind the House that the original purpose for setting up the Inspectorate in the 19th century was to bring forces outside London up to the standard of the Metropolitan Police.

Of course, times have changed and high standards of professionalism are found in all parts of the country, but the geographical scope of the Inspectorate, it is perfectly true, has remained the same. However, I should like to confirm that this does not mean that the Metropolitan Police is not inspected. Arrangements have existed for many years, and at the end of last year the Commissioner introduced a new strengthened system of inspection, with a Deputy Assistant Commissioner designated Inspector of the Force and directly responsible to the Deputy Commissioner. I should also like to make it clear that the Home Office is consulted about the inspection programme and receives copies of inspection reports, and there is close co-operation between the new Inspectorate and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to enhance the development of common standards and procedures.

Your Lordships may say that this does not meet the points that have been made in the debates. The new arrangements have only been in force for about six months, but they seem to be working well. May I remind your Lordships that these new arrangements are designed to ensure that, as the police authority, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is kept fully informed about the inspection of the force, because he is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police, and, of course, he in turn, and I on his behalf in this House, are answerable to Parliament.

The scope and nature of inspections have changed, but the notion of inspecting efficiency, if I may go back to that, has remained central to the process. Lord Avebury was absolutely right; the 1856 Act charged Inspectors to visit and inquire into the state and efficiency of the police. If I may say so, it is this function, the inspection for efficiency which, first of all, is particularly relevant to my noble friend Lord Inglewood's Question.

But the Inspectorate has a second and wider role, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. That is to encourage the spread of new ideas and to seek to establish high standards throughout the country. The Inspectors are well placed, I would claim, to keep in touch with developments in policing through the office of the Chief Inspector and in other ways, and have the advantage of knowledge of the several forces which fall within their regions. My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked me a specific question: Are all the staff officers of the Inspectorate police officers? The answer to that is, Yes indeed they are, as are, of course, all the assistants to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.

My noble friend asks in his Question for a summary of the Inspector's duties. The formal inspection of a police force takes place over a period of three to five days, but it really would be a mistake to assume that that is the whole story. The Inspector and his assistants will have kept in close touch with the force during the preceding year and will be aware, or they most certainly should be aware, of the matters which are giving rise to public comment locally in the Press and elsewhere. They will also have the chief constable's annual report to his police authority. They will have detailed inspection notes and returns prepared by the chief constable, giving essential statistics and a general account of the use of resources and of the activities of the force during the year. The inspector then endeavours to cover the whole range of police activities, and examines samples of the work of all branches to ensure that procedures are being properly followed and that resources are being sensibly used.

In the first place the Inspector will examine the work and functions of the headquarters departments, such as the CID, Traffic, Training and Communications Departments. He pays particular attention to the way in which complaints against the police are dealt with, and, as a matter of course, discusses this with the deputy chief constable. Then the Inspector will visit as many divisions as possible, and meet the representatives of the staff associations to discuss any matters of concern to them.

An important aspect of the inspection—certainly it is one about which my noble friend has expressed concern previously in your Lordships' House—is that any member of a force can, on request, have a special interview with the Inspector. That facility is used quite frequently, but normally to air views about such matters as promotion prospects and postings; but it also provides—let us make no mistake about it—an important channel by means of which an individual officer can draw attention to an unsatisfactory state of affairs within a force.

There is one further aspect of inspection which has grown in importance in recent years and has been encouraged by the present Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Responsibility for the efficiency of the police is shared between my right honourable friend and the local police authorities, and the Inspectorate has been and remains anxious to establish good working relations with authorities. In the course of his visit to the force the Inspector makes himself available for discussions with members of the police authority, and indeed is anxious that the chairman and members of the authority are present during his visit. This is a useful opportunity to exchange views about such matters as financial provision for the force and the general policing of the area, and is one which I know is welcomed by many police authorities.

At the conclusion of an inspection, the Inspector brings to the notice of the chief constable any points of an operational nature which need attention. He will make a full report in confidence to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for commending this confidentiality and to all your Lordships for understanding why that confidentiality is necessary at that step in the story. If the report revealed any major matter affecting the efficiency of the force—and this is really the last step in the story—a formal letter would be sent to the police authority drawing its attention to the matter. Obviously, such a letter could include points which have been raised by my noble friend in his speech—for example, physical fitness.

That, briefly, is the system. It concentrates, as I have tried to show, on the concept of efficiency. It cannot, by its very nature, be an exhaustive check of everything to do with police practice. But what it does do is to encourage good practice, to try to rectify bad practice where it comes to light and to provide my right honourable friend with an invaluable detailed account of the work of the Police Service, to enable him to discharge his statutory responsibilities.

I have been impressed by the speeches which your Lordships have made this evening commending—I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who did so first—the idea that Her Majesty's Inspectors' reports might concentrate on a particular subject in a particular report. I shall certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to what has been said in this debate and, through him, to the Inspectorate who I know will read with interest what has been said.

Finally, I turn to the more specific part of my noble friend's Question, in which he asks whether the reports of the Inspectorate include confidential assessments of senior police officers and prominent members of police authorities. I shall deal first with senior police officers. As the House will be aware, my right honourable friend has certain statutory responsibilities in respect of appointments to posts at assistant chief constable level and above. Appointments are made by police authorities, subject to the approval of my right honourable friend—this was a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, mentioned—and there is an informal arrangement under which my right honourable friend informs authorities, in confidence, and in advance of the short-listing and interviewing of candidates, whether there are any whose appointment to the most senior posts he would not be willing to approve. Advice is also given on the merits of the other candidates—in effect, whether any of them is particularly well qualified for appointment—and it is for the police authority then to follow the advice or not, as it thinks fit. The Secretary of State, incidentally, will not approve the appointment of a senior officer, who has served successively as assistant and then deputy chief constable, for the position of chief constable in the same force. That meets the point that was rightly made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, about mobility within the Police Service.

In reaching a considered view on the merits of candidates for these most senior posts, my right honourable friend is able to draw on the professional advice of the Inspectorate, which has accumulated knowledge through the inspection process and through its other contacts with forces and senior officers. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, as my right honourable friend's senior professional adviser on police matters, plays a major part in this process. Perhaps I can best meet my noble friend's point by assuring him that the Inspectorate is fully involved in consideration of the abilities and potential of senior officers, and that the inspection itself is only a part, albeit an important part, of that process.

I turn now to the point about the police authorities. I have mentioned the efforts which the Inspectorate makes to involve the members of authorities in the inspection process. The police authority and the Inspector have a common interest in the efficiency of the force, and the way in which the authority discharges its responsibility to provide an efficient force is obviously the very first concern of the Inspector. That is why I sought to place emphasis on the concept of efficiency at the beginning of this speech. The Inspector would be failing in his duty if he did not form a view on the authority's provision of resources and accommodation for the force, and on the state of relations between the authority and the senior officers of the force.

Equally, he is bound in his report to give the Home Secretary, in confidence, the benefit of any views he may have formed. That is not, however, to say that the inspector provides a systematic assessment of the personalities and capabilities of individual members of the police authorities, as my noble friend perhaps was possibly suggesting in his Question this evening. To do so would not be proper. The Inspector can, however, properly concern himself with anything that affects the efficiency of the force, and that includes the way in which the authority discharges its responsibility.

I am conscious of the fact that in replying to my noble friend's Question I have concentrated on the inspection process. But the duties of the Inspectorate are far wider than that. They have an important role to play in the fields of complaints and discipline. They are, as I have said, my right honourable friend's professional advisers—as my noble friend so graphically said, the eyes and ears of my right honourable friend—on a whole range of police matters, including the levels of establishments, appointments and the adequacy of buildings.

The Royal Commission of 1962 recognised the advantages of the working partnership between local and central government in support of the work of the police. I believe that this partnership is a natural expression of so much that we have learned from our past in this country, and that police work draws strength from the relationship between each force and its police authority. But one only has to go into any police headquarter's control room to appreciate the tremendous advantages of the developments in science and technology, which nowadays make such a contribution to police work. Therefore, most of the Inspectorate's most valuable work is in promoting cooperation between forces, and ensuring that the results of research are properly distributed so that the forces can take full advantage of developments in science and technology. That, briefly, is a summary of the duties of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Its work is indispensable to the modern police force. Its advice to my right honourable friend is valued greatly.