Skip to main content


EDM (Early Day Motion) 1059A1: tabled on 17 November 2005

Tabled in the 2005-06 session.

This motion has been signed by 11 Members. It is an amendment to an existing motion.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

This is an amendment to an existing motion

This motion was originally tabled by Mr Peter Lilley on 16 November 2005. This is amendment number 1.

View details of the original motion

Suggested amendment

leave out from `who' to end and insert `had a proud record of being non-partisan in this country until 1984-85 when the Thatcher Government used the police forces for a whole year in order to starve miners' families and close pits.'.

Original motion text

That this House notes that, shortly after the Home Secretary urged chief police officers to lobby honourable Members in favour of Government policy, a senior Home Office official wrote to chief probation officers banning them from lobbying; accepts that the Home Office Director of Probation stated the position of chief officers and other senior officials correctly when he told them `I am writing to you formally to remind you of your responsibilities in your roles as statutory office holders, ministerial appointees and civil servants. You should not engage in lobbying activity...'; believes that this demonstrates that the Home Secretary was quite wrong to invite chief constables to write to honourable Members in their areas to lobby for Government policy on a highly contentious matter; reaffirms that this was a dangerous step towards politicisation of the police force, who have a proud record of being non-partisan in this country; calls on the Home Secretary to come to the House to explain the contradictions in his Department's policy on lobbying; urges the Select Committee on Home Affairs to investigate the unprecedented mobilisation of chief constables to support central government policy; expresses concern at the statement in the Home Office letter that officials `should avoid any action that might suggest you are encouraging staff to lobby against Government policy'; believes it would be extremely damaging if, together with the public efforts to persuade police to lobby in favour of Government policy, the Government were to establish a rule that officials can lobby in support of Government policy but not against it; and recommends that public servants offer advice to Ministers and give factual evidence in response to inquiries from members of the public but avoid being drawn into lobbying for or against Government policies.