Mr.
Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because
the burden of my argument, in a different context, is that pooling
throws up all sorts of issues—he has added one to the list that
I was
enumerating. The
experience of parts of public service outwith policing is that many
bodies think that they are operating a proper, formal pooling
arrangement in partnership. We applaud and embrace such collaborative
working and cross-cutting departmental efforts. To repeat: we do not
believe that the police should be the only people tasked with
delivering crime reduction and crime fighting. However, in contexts
outwith law and order, those who have no formal arrangements or
agreements—if they do not have an up-front, written agreement
about what happens on exit or withdrawal—can suddenly find that
they have let themselves in for all sorts of
liabilities. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that disagreements can be difficult to resolve, but,
in addition, arguing over compromises about what should happen if one
partner prematurely, for unforeseen reasons, wants to exit can take up
a lot of management
time. 6.45
pm Arguing
by analogy, then, it seems that the same problem might be in the offing
if we have more and more collaborative agreements involving police
authorities,
chief constables and their forces. That is why my amendment
53 says that any such collaboration
agreement “shall
include procedures for achieving a settlement of all outstanding
financial and legal liabilities between parties upon a party
terminating its contractual obligations under a collaboration
agreement.” Rather
like my earlier amendment, this amendment seeks to strengthen, improve
and build on the thrust of the clause, rather than to undermine it. We
need that clarification about collaboration arrangements, of which I
hope there will be many more, whether under this Government or a future
Government of whatever stripe.
We must
ensure that such agreements are carried out in a wholly professional
way, and we should not rely on good will or that things will be alright
on the night. As I have said, too many co-operation and partnership
agreements fall foul of the highest standards of planning and
governance. While one would not want to be bureaucratic, my amendment
signals that collaboration agreements will be written—we will
get on to this in the clause stand part debate—that they will be
very detailed and that they will have to cover as many eventualities as
possible. That is why clear procedures should be written into
contractual arrangements.
I know of
individuals who have been on one side of contractual negotiations in
private finance initiative contracts, though not in relation to the
Home Office. In one PFI contract, the most obvious, boilerplate clause
was seen to be so blindingly obvious that neither the legal advisers to
the financiers on one side of the negotiations nor the civil servants
on the Whitehall side of negotiations thought of putting it in, and
there were problems as a result. When push came to shove and the
unforeseen happened, there was disagreement and argument with the
attendant waste of management time in working out what was to be done.
In the spirit of tightening arrangements for collaboration agreements,
I proffer this amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the
Member for
Hornchurch.
Mr.
Coaker: Having received my orders from two separate
sources, I shall be brief. Without wishing to carry on the love-in, I
accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said and that he seeks to add
value to the clause, but there is an issue with the amendment. I accept
that financial and legal liabilities might be issues, but there might
be other areas to be sorted out, such as staffing and equipment. I draw
his attention to proposed new section 23F in clause 5, which is on page
7. It refers to guidance with respect to collaboration agreements,
which is something that I will emphasise in the clause stand part
debate. Regarding the amendment, I make a commitment to include some of
the points he made in the guidance, because that is
important.
I also stress
the importance of the second part of proposed new section 23F, which
states: “In
discharging their functions, chief officers and police authorities must
have regard to the guidance.”
I hope that that answers
the hon. Gentleman’s point and with that I ask him to withdraw
his
amendment.
Mr.
Ruffley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Ruffley: I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5,
page 7, line 21, leave out paragraph (b). I
will be brief. We seek to firm up the obligation for the collaboration
agreement to be published. The amendment deletes what I consider a
weakening of that overriding obligation to publish the agreement
because the sub-clause that I seek to delete states that the
alternative to full publication would be
to “publish
the fact that the agreement has been made and such other details about
it as the person thinks
appropriate.” In
the world of transparency in which we all say we believe and want to
work towards, there should be a straightforward commitment and duty to
publish the agreement, not to state the fact that an agreement exists.
Again, in the spirit of honest and probing inquiry, I rest my
remarks.
Mr.
Coaker: I understand the point that the hon. Member for
Bury St. Edmunds is trying to make about transparency with respect to
collaboration agreements. However, the Bill as drafted does balance the
need for transparency and operational effectiveness and I believe that
the balance as currently constructed in the Bill is right. I know that
this is not his intention, but I am concerned that if his amendment
were accepted and the argument was taken to the logical conclusion of
saying that collaboration agreements carte blanche have to be
published, there might be a case in which the location of firearms
units, firearms officers and other sensitive policing matters might
have to be put into the public domain. I do not think that it is his
intention to compromise operational integrity, but it might be an
unintended consequence of his amendment. I hope that he will withdraw
the amendment. It is my intention, because I believe it is important,
that as much as possible should be published without compromising the
operational effectiveness of those police forces that have put together
that
agreement.
Mr.
Ruffley: Having regard to the Minister’s comments,
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned. —(Mr.
Austin.) 6.54
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 4 February at Nine
o’clock.
| 
