| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her part in drawing our attention to this issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my Amendment No. 2 is grouped with Amendment No. 1. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for having a meeting with me on 21 September, at which it was possible to make significant progress on a number of matters. There are two issues of principle on which our views continue to diverge, and we will debate those later today and tomorrow. However, on this issue we were at one.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for not only picking up my point about consultation with ACPO but very properly approaching the Association of Police Authorities to ensure that they also are consultees named in the Bill. I support the Government’s amendment, particularly their order-making power in Amendment No. 55. The Minister will know that I am not normally persuaded by order-making powers, but this one is highly sensible to adapt to future circumstances.
I shall not be moving my Amendment No. 2 when it is called by the Lord Speaker. I realise that we are under a significant amount of pressure regarding time; I have therefore agreed that I will not move Amendments Nos. 4, 10 and 50. Amendment No. 10 is an odd one out: I tabled it so that the House may hear first in that group of amendments from the Minister. I am aware that on Report, if the Government are forced to speak last when they hold the major hand of cards, it is not possible for the House to cross-examine the Minister’s position. This will enable the Minister to open and then respond to any points.
On Amendment No. 4, I understand that the Government are, in effect, on my side with regard to keeping the size of the board of the agency to 10 or 12, and do not wish to labour the point. On Amendment No. 50, which would delete Schedule 2,
9 Oct 2006 : Column 17
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, what a good start. I congratulate the Government on some very good sense. Let us hope we can continue in this way for the rest of the afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 3:
“(b) the Association of Chief Police Officers, and (c) the Association of Police Authorities.”On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 8:
“(a) the Association of Police Authorities, and (b) the Association of Chief Police Officers.” “(a) at least one member nominated by the Association of Police Authorities, (b) at least one member nominated by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and”““the Association of Chief Police Officers” means the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments to the Police Act 1996]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 9:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes from the Bill the provision which would place basic command units on a statutory footing. In explaining why we are withdrawing this provision, it is perhaps worth reminding the House why we included it in the first instance. There is widespread agreement that agencies involved in tackling crime and disorder can work best together if their boundaries are aligned. This is particularly true in the case of basic command units and local authorities, which are the two key pillars of crime and disorder reduction partnerships and strategies. Most, if not all, chief constables already recognise this, but it is open to any new chief constable to alter BCU boundaries.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 2, therefore, simply sought to enshrine in statute the requirement for BCU and local authority boundaries to be aligned and coterminous, and to place a duty on chief constables
9 Oct 2006 : Column 18
I repeat that, in bringing forward this provision, we are concerned solely with ensuring that BCUs are coterminous with local authority boundaries to aid partnership working on community safety issues. Happily, the police service shares that objective. A number of chief constables have moved during the past year or so to review their BCU boundaries. I am now aware of only six BCUs out of some 225 which are not coterminous with local authorities, and in four of these cases the discrepancy is very minor.
As the situation on the ground now largely reflects the outcome we were seeking, the Government are ready to withdraw this provision from the Bill. My ministerial colleague, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, has, however, written to the Association of Chief Police Officers to reinforce our expectation that the principle of coterminosity will be observed, save where there are compelling reasons for departing from this general rule.
We have a happy situation here where a policy objective is shared; there is commitment to it; and, in large measure, it is in place without the more rigorous hand of statute imposing its print on the way in which policing operates. That happy outcome enables me to move the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, in Committee, we were accused of being paranoid on these issues, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have moved to consider our concerns. I am very grateful to them for doing that. This is one of the smaller issues which we wanted to bring forward and on which we wished to see some movement. We will raise rather larger issues later, which we also hope that they will consider.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 by reason of pre-emption.
3.30 pm
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 11:
“ In section 4 (membership of police authorities outside Greater London), in subsection (4), for “Schedules 2 and 3” there is substituted “Schedule 2”.
9 Oct 2006 : Column 19
1 (1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision in relation to the membership of police authorities established under section 3.
(4) Those regulations may make further provision as to qualification for membership, and may provide for a specified number of the members of a police authority to be persons of a specified description.
3 (1) Regulations under paragraph 1 shall provide that the members falling within paragraph 1(2)(b) are to be appointed-
(2) Those regulations may make provision as to qualification for membership of a selection panel, and may provide for a specified number of the members of a panel to be persons of a specified description.
9 Oct 2006 : Column 20
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may make further provision about how a chairman or vice-chairman is to be appointed, and provision as to-
5 The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the payment of remuneration and allowances to, and the reimbursement of expenses of, members of the standards committee of a police authority established under section 3.
7 (1) Regulations under this Schedule may make different provision for different police authorities.
(2) Regulations under this Schedule may make transitional, consequential, incidental and supplemental provision or savings.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
9 Oct 2006 : Column 21
8 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule a council is a “relevant council” in relation to a police authority in England if it is the council for-
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule a council is a “relevant council” in relation to a police authority in Wales if it is the council for a county or county borough which constitutes, or is wholly within, the authority's police area.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that I can continue in the happy frame in which we have started. I assure the House that we listened very carefully to debates in Committee on the provisions of the Bill that relate to membership of police authorities, and to the discussions that we have had in the mean time, before Report. I appreciate the concerns that have been so elegantly articulated about the need to retain the core principles governing the composition of the police authorities in primary legislation. The government amendments in this group will restore much of the detail of these provisions to the Police Act 1996.
The Bill currently leaves the procedure for appointing the members of the police authority entirely to regulations and, in particular, does not specify who is responsible for appointing the councillor and independent members. Having heard the arguments in this House and those put to us by the Association of Police Authorities, in these amendments we seek to strike a better balance between primary and secondary legislation. It became clear in our debates that there was no difference between us on this; it was simply a matter of how we were going to express our comity in relation to this area.
The amendments put into primary legislation a provision to stipulate that councillor members should be appointed by the councils from which they are drawn and that independent members should be appointed by the existing membership of the police authority from among the shortlist of candidates recommended as suitable for appointment by a selection panel.
I also understand the concerns that several noble Lords have raised about the appointment of the chair and vice-chairs to the police authority. Accordingly, the amendments will now stipulate in the Police Act who should make these appointments. The chair and vice-chair would, as now, be appointed by the authority from among its members. Amendment No. 14, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is in similar vein. Other provisions relating to these appointments, including eligibility for appointment and the duration of such appointments, remuneration and allowances, should rightly be left to regulations.
I have also listened closely to the heartfelt views expressed by many noble Lords on retaining the separate category of magistrate members on police authorities. I feel some confidence that that will give particular pleasure to the noble Baroness opposite. As
9 Oct 2006 : Column 22
Finally, the government amendments restore the existing Section 4 of the Police Act, which provides for police authorities to have a standard membership of 17. I recognise that the Bill could, hypothetically, empower some future Home Secretary to create police authorities with a membership of as few as three. That was never our intention. We will retain, as now, a power to increase the size of individual police authorities by regulations.
I trust that the amendments I have tabled will give the House the reassurance that many noble Lords have asked for. I am sorry that we have not been able to make all the amendments that noble Lords have sought, but I hope that the major amendments about which people were most anxious have all been satisfied, and this wonderful atmosphere that we are developing in debating this Bill can continue for a while longer. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we look forward later on today to the Minister conceding on other matters and accepting our principles with regard to issues on tripartite balance. The comity could continue—let us see.
I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and the government amendments. As the Minister said, we return to the concerns that we expressed in Committee regarding the Government’s intentions in shaping the membership of police authorities. The Minister says that the new amendments achieve a better balance between what goes into primary and secondary legislation. We are prepared to accept the government amendments, although not on the basis that we think that they are 100 per cent correct, because we would have preferred to retain the matters in primary legislation.
We noted the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which states at paragraph 20 that it considered it inappropriate for the Bill to leave so much to subordinate legislation. The committee drew attention to the fact that a police authority has a key role to play in the delicate constitutional balance between the Secretary of State, the police authority and the chief constable. The composition of the authority is therefore more significant than that of many other statutory bodies.
However, we accept that the Government have tabled amendments which meet most of our concerns. As the noble Baroness anticipated, I am grateful to her that the position of lay magistrates on the authority will be protected and that at least one member should be a lay justice. I recognise the ability and expertise that is brought to police authorities by lay magistrates. I hope that in areas where it is appropriate more than one will be appointed. The police authority should make that decision. In particular, it is important that chairs and vice-chairs
9 Oct 2006 : Column 23
I certainly welcome the progress that has been made. I shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, says. His proposals have the full support of the Association of Police Authorities. I record my thanks to that association for coming to the House during the Recess to brief me further on progress that might be made on the Bill. I support the government amendments and will not press mine.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, support Amendment No. 10, which puts magistrates back in a separate category of member, and Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which concern electing chairs and vice-chairs—which has been dealt with by the Government’s amendment—although, frankly, I prefer the Conservative amendment which deletes all regulation-making powers.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |