Column Number: 29
Standing Committee D
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
Derek Conway †Mr. Greg Pope
†Barlow, Ms Celia (Hove) (Lab)
†Blears, Hazel (Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety)
†Brokenshire, James (Hornchurch) (Con)
†Carswell, Mr. Douglas (Harwich) (Con)
†Fabricant, Michael (Lichfield) (Con)
†Featherstone, Lynne (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD)
†Flello, Mr. Robert (Stoke-on-Trent, South) (Lab)
†Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
†Herbert, Nick (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
†Horwood, Martin (Cheltenham) (LD)
†McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Mactaggart, Fiona (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
†Morden, Jessica (Newport, East) (Lab)
†Pound, Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)
Pritchard, Mark (The Wrekin) (Con)
†Ryan, Joan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)
†Wyatt, Derek (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Frank Cranmer, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 31
Thursday 16 March 2006
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]
Schedule 1
National Policing Improvement Agency
1 pm
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 51, line 30, leave out ‘objects,’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 48, in page 51, leave out line 34.
Lynne Featherstone: These are probing amendments to find out the Government’s thinking. Why do the Government want powers to change by regulation the objects set out for the agency? The Minister said that the it would be police-owned and led, but that is hard to conceive. It will be staffed by regulation made by the Secretary of State, and the chief executive will be chosen by the Secretary of State. It all begins, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, to sound like doublespeak.
It seems that the Secretary of State will be able to change the whole purpose of the new agency at will. Theoretically, he could take out all the objects and put in, for example, “create a national police force”. Then where would we be? While this Home Secretary seems benign—benignish—future Home Secretaries might not be so cuddly. Trust has no place in legislation. I wish the Government would come back to Parliament. The Bill seems to continue the trend that began in what we have subtitled the abolition of Parliament Act to seek continually to alter legislation by regulation.
The tripartite balance to which the Minister referred is the pillar on which we depend to protect us against over-interventionist intentions and political intervention. Police operational freedom is paramount, and the police are pretty heavily scrutinised already. To be able to change entirely the objects of the agency by regulation seems out of kilter. Can she see why some of us on Opposition Benches regard the measure as unbalancing to the tripartite structure, weighting it toward Government intervention? I look forward to her explanation why the Government wish to reserve that swingeing power, and why they do not wish to come back to Parliament to get its approval.
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): The hon. Lady made a strong point. The objects in paragraph 1 are already anodyne and wide in scope. It is interesting to wonder in what circumstances they would need to be altered. Paragraph 46 reserves a wide-ranging
Column Number: 32
power for the Secretary of State effectively driving a coach and horses through all the structures and protections put in place by the other parts of schedule 1. The issue must be addressed.
I am sure we shall hear some warm, cuddly, encouraging noises from the Minister about the use of the powers reserved by paragraph 46, but the provision is wide in scope. It is strange to think that the objects would need to be changed. Surely this is our opportunity—here, at the moment—to examine the objects and ensure that the scope, breadth of operation and function of the agency are as they should be. To reserve powers to restrict them or expand them even further makes our debate difficult, as we are seeking to frame the powers, the structure, the organisation and the operation of the agency. Paragraph 46 says that the whole thing can effectively be changed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with certain agencies, which affords some protection, but the paragraph also appears, on one reading, to perpetuate the view that it reserves power back to the Secretary of State. The centralisation approach is the theme that comes through from the reservation of that power.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that is not the intention and that protections will be afforded before that strong and stringent power is operated. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone); I am concerned about the continued introduction of such order-making powers by way of primary rather than secondary legislation, without Parliament being able to review the situation properly. There is a need therefore for reassurance about the use of that power and the safeguards that might be put in place to ensure that it is not used aggressively. Will the Minister provide that reassurance?
The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Hazel Blears): I join hon. Members in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Pope. I was going to apologise for getting the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mixed up this morning, but he is unfortunately not in his place. My officials have since provided me with some lovely colour photographs of all members of the Committee—it is one of the best-looking Committees on which I have had the pleasure to serve, particularly on the Government side. Hopefully there will be no more mistaken identities.
On amendment No. 47, I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green and for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). We want to ensure that, as far as possible, we have the opportunity to debate the objects. [Interruption.] That was quite warm and cuddly enough. The objects in paragraph (1) are fairly wide ranging, but they will not necessarily cover every eventuality for the next three, four or five years. The agency will be able to look to the future to find threats that we might face, of which we have no knowledge today. There may be circumstances in which it is necessary to make amendments.
That would not be without precedent; I understand that there is a similar provision in relation to the Police Information Technology Organisation under which
Column Number: 33
the Home Secretary can confer additional functions on, and modify PITO’s constitution as well as confer extra powers on himself. That was introduced under section 99 of the Police Reform Act 2002, but was not debated at the Committee stage. I am not sure whether we have more incisive Members on this Committee determined to hold us to account. However, at that previous stage, all members of the Committee were perfectly content with such a provision. The national policing improvement agency must be nimble, flexible, quick on its feet and able to adapt to changing circumstances.
On the point raised by hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green about Parliament having an opportunity to discuss the matter, I say that regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure and so will be fully debated in both Houses before changes can be made. The safeguards are sufficient to ensure that the objects of the national policing improvement agency will not be changed on a whim. It is important that our legislation is flexible enough to allow us to consider all eventualities, and I ask the Committee therefore to resist the amendment.
Lynne Featherstone: Having listened carefully to the Minister, I am a tiny bit reassured—I am being as generous as possible—and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 2, in schedule 1, page 55, line 4, at end insert—
‘62A In section 59 (Police Federations), after subsection (7) there is inserted—
“(7A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is—
(b) an employee of the Agency,
shall be treated as a member of a police force in England and Wales, and references in this section to police service shall be construed accordingly.”
62B In section 61(1) (Police Negotiating Board), before paragraph (c) there is inserted—
“(bb) the members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who are constables,”.
62C (1) Section 62 (functions of the Police Negotiating Board) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (duty to consult Board before making regulations about certain matters), after paragraph (c) there is inserted “or
(d) regulations under paragraph 17B of Schedule 1 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 (regulations as to constables who are members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency),”.
(3) Before subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(1D) Before issuing a document under paragraph 17A of Schedule 1 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 (rules and principles for contents of contracts of employment of constables employed as members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency), the Secretary of State shall—
(a) consult the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom about any provision in the document which relates to any of the matters mentioned in section 61(1) (other than pensions), and
(b) take into consideration any recommendation made by the Board.
Column Number: 34
(1E) Before determining the terms and conditions on which a constable is to be appointed to the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency as an employee of the Agency, the Secretary of State (where the constable is to be appointed as the chief executive of the Agency) or the Agency (in any other case) shall—
(a) consult the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom about any term or condition which relates to any of the matters mentioned in section 61(1) (other than pensions), and
(b) take into consideration any recommendation made by the Board.”
(4) In subsection (2) (arrangements under section 61(3) apply in relation to recommendations under section 62), for “subsection (1) or (1A)” there is substituted “subsection (1), (1A), (1D) or (1E)”.
62D (1) Section 63 (Police Advisory Boards) is amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(1C) The Police Advisory Board for England and Wales shall also advise the Secretary of State on general questions affecting members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who are constables.”
(3) In subsection (3) (Board to be consulted on certain regulations), after paragraph (b) there is inserted “or
(c) regulations under paragraph 17B of Schedule 1 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 (regulations as to constables who are members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency), other than regulations with respect to any of the matters mentioned in section 61(1),”.
62E In section 64 (membership of trade unions), before subsection (5) there is inserted—
“(4C) This section applies to a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is—
(b) an employee of the Agency,
as it applies to a member of a police force, and references to a police force or to service in a police force shall be construed accordingly.
(4D) In its application by virtue of subsection (4C), subsection (2) shall have effect as if the reference to the chief officer of police were a reference to the chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency.”.’.—[Hazel Blears.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2
Amendments to the Police Act 1996
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope, as it was this morning under Mr. Conway. I shall not re-introduce into our proceedings the partisan note that the Minister struck in relation to the looks of hon. Members on each side of the Committee.
This is a significant clause. It is arguably the Bill’s key clause, because it amends the Police Act 1996 so as to give the Home Secretary considerable new powers in relation to the intervention of police authorities and their appointment. The provisions come partly on the back of the Government’s proposals to amalgamate police forces, which will, they argue, create a need to reshape police authorities. They want to do that in the easiest possible way. However, there are also proposals to extend the Government’s powers to intervene in the work of police authorities that have
Column Number: 35
nothing to do with amalgamation and everything to do with the increasing use of such powers in the past few years.
We have concerns about both parts of the proposals. First, the ability of the Home Secretary to reconstitute, by order, the shape of police authorities has, rightly, been criticised by the Association of Police Authorities. It has grave concerns, considering that such sweeping provisions should not be made by delegated legislation, which will enable the Home Secretary to reshape the police authorities by order, particularly when that order is to be approved by negative resolution, as proposed under the clause.
The discomfort of many of us—at least on this side of the Committee—about the potential use of the power is increased by the way in which the Government have proceeded with regard to amalgamations. The lack of consultation on those amalgamations, the speed with which they are being progressed and the failure to take into account the objections of many police authorities to the process have contributed to our sense that once the power has been conferred on Ministers, there will be no opportunity in future to give the powers proper scrutiny, or for the House automatically to vote on them. The wholesale reorganisation of police authorities will then be possible. That is a matter of some constitutional significance, and should not be decided simply by ministerial diktat.
Later amendments seek to examine the use of the powers and to substitute the use of the positive procedure, so as to ensure that a vote will take place. Our amendments—
The Chairman: Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that we need to debate the amendments when we reach them. At the moment, we are debating clause 2 stand part, and clause 2 is a one-line clause.
Nick Herbert: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Pope. It is slightly problematic that the Bill has a one-line clause to bring into a force a schedule that is incredibly comprehensive and prescriptive about new powers and the amendment of existing powers to reshape police authorities and to direct them. Our dilemma is whether to oppose parts of that schedule piecemeal in order to raise our concerns, or whether, instead of having a lengthy debate on clause 2, we should have a debate on the schedule after consideration of the amendments.
1.15 pm
The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help. The best way forward is probably to hold that debate when we come to schedule 2 and the amendments thereto, rather than now.
Nick Herbert: I am happy, Mr. Pope, to accept your guidance. Rather than make a lengthy and important speech now about a one-line provision, and provided that we have the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate with the possibility of a vote on the schedule, I
Column Number: 36
am happy to conclude my remarks. My concerns about the operation of the clause and the powers that it will put in place will be considered shortly.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6.
[Division No. 1]
AYES
Barlow, Ms Celia
Blears, rh Hazel
Flello, Mr. Robert
Gwynne, Andrew
McDonagh, Siobhain
Morden, Jessica
Pound, Stephen
Ryan, Joan
Wyatt, Derek
NOES
Brokenshire, James
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Herbert, Nick
Horwood, Martin
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Amendments to the Police Act 1996
Nick Herbert: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in schedule 2, page 59, line 9, leave out paragraph 3.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in schedule 2, page 59, line 16, at end insert—
No. 14, in schedule 2, page 59, line 17, after ‘council’ insert ‘(aa) magistrates’.
No. 68, in schedule 2, page 59, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert
‘persons who are directly elected by members of the public’.
No. 69, in schedule 2, page 59, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
‘(a) a person who is directly elected by members of the public, and
(b) other appointed persons who shall serve in an advisory capacity.’.
No. 15, in schedule 2, page 59, line 22, after ‘(a)’ insert ‘paragraph (aa)’.
No. 16, in schedule 2, page 59, line 25, at end insert—
‘(3A) The number of members of a police authority specified in subsection (3)(a) should be an odd number, equal to or greater than seventeen, specified by regulations.’.
No. 17, in schedule 2, page 59, leave out lines 26 to 40.
No. 70, in schedule 2, page 59, line 27, leave out ‘appointed’ and insert ‘directly elected’.
No. 71, in schedule 2, page 59, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (g).
No. 18, in schedule 2, page 59, line 41, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 13 on page 60.
No. 19, in schedule 2, page 60, line 14, leave out from first ‘The’ to end of line 17 and insert,
‘police authority must appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman from amongst its members, and set out—’.
Column Number: 37
No. 72, in schedule 2, page 60, line 14, leave out
‘Secretary of State may by regulations’
and insert
‘Association of Police Authorities may publish guidance’.
No. 20, in schedule 2, page 60, line 35, leave out from first ‘The’ to second ‘the’ and insert ‘police authority may decide’.
No. 21, in schedule 2, page 61, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
‘(13) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament’.
No. 73, in schedule 2, page 61, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
‘(13) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament’.
No. 22, in schedule 2, page 61, line 25, after ‘(3)’, insert ‘,
No. 23, in schedule 2, page 61, line 35, after ’(a)’ insert ’, paragraph (aa)’.
No. 24, in schedule 2, page 61, line 38, at end insert—
’(4A) The number of members of a public authority specified in subsection (4)(a) should be an odd number, equal to or greater than twenty-three, specified by regulations.’.
No. 25, in schedule 2, page 61, leave out from beginning of line 39 to end of line 8 on page 62.
No. 26, in schedule 2, page 62, leave out lines 9 to 28.
No. 27, in schedule 2, page 62, line 29, leave out from first ’The’ to end of line 32 and insert
’Metropolitan Police Authority must appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman from amongst its members, and set out—’.
No. 28, in schedule 2, page 63, line 1, leave out first ‘the’ to second ‘the’ and insert ‘police authority may decide’.
No. 29, in schedule 2, page 63, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
‘(11) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
Nick Herbert: This group of amendments enables me to resume some of the concerns that I set out earlier.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): From the beginning?
Nick Herbert: The Committee will be relieved to know that I am not about to start from the beginning. My previous remarks will stand.
Amendment No. 66 deals with provisions that will enable the Secretary of State, by order, to shape police authorities. I believe that the matter is of sufficient concern that we should consider striking out paragraph 3. As I said earlier, the APA has expressed concern that it will reserve too much power to the Secretary of State who, whether or not he is willing to consult on such matters, may by order and not necessarily with a vote, entirely reconstitute the basis on which police authorities are settled. Indeed, the APA has gone further by suggesting that the schedule fundamentally changes the tripartite relationship that
Column Number: 38
the Minister referred to earlier when she spoke of the need for a proper balance between police authorities, the Home Secretary and the police themselves.
The APA argues persuasively that it is not necessary for the Government to take those additional powers in order to achieve the reshaping of police authorities consequent upon police amalgamations. That can be done without the powers set out in the Bill. We Conservatives have great concerns that the larger police authorities created by amalgamation will necessarily be less representative of local communities, because the numbers of people serving on them will not, presumably, be increased in proportion with the increased population that they serve. Perhaps the Minister could deal with that.
Amendment No. 67 relates to magistrates. The schedule will remove the specific provision that exists at the moment, under the Police Act, for magistrates to have a guaranteed place on the body of police authorities. It could be that the independent members appointed to police authorities are magistrates, but it has historically been the case that magistrates form a part of police authorities. There are lots of good reasons why magistrates should be on those authorities. The APA feels quite strongly about that. Magistrates plainly bring their experience in relation to the administration of the local justice system and a guaranteed independence from political matters, which we will talk about in future. I do not understand why it is necessary to remove a reference to the place of magistrates from the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are designed to tease out a debate that we had, albeit imperfectly, on Second Reading, and which I suspect will become more important as time goes by, about whether police authorities are sufficiently in touch with and known by their communities and able to respond to concerns and discharge their functions properly.
One change that has taken place, and one of the threats to the tripartite relationship that the APA has discussed, is the way in which power has increasingly been centralised on the Home Secretary, as he has taken powers to intervene in police forces and authorities, and with the establishment of the centralised bodies that we were discussing this morning. The truth is that there has been an increasing, effective political control of the police, not from the local community, but from the centre by national politicians. To a greater extent than ever before in this country, the Home Secretary now seeks to dictate the broad, strategic framework, at least, of policing and seeks to take direct measures to lift standards and interfere in the operation of police forces, just as Secretaries of State have done in relation to health care and education.
|
