You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard Previous Sessions
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 19 and 20 in this large grouping. The Government have conceded some of the provisions that we requested, such as 17 members for most police authorities, but political balance is the key to the way in which police authorities operate. It has kept them free from party political control for many years, not to mention free from control by extremist groups, single issue groups and so forth. This means that the police, and particularly the chief officer, are not controlled in a partisan way, whether political or otherwise, and leaves him or her free to use best professional judgment. An approach that did not guarantee political balance would mean that police authorities were not properly representative of the communities they serve. The measure must be written into primary legislation as an underlying principle of the councillor membership of police authorities or this balanced approach risks being lost.

Amendment No. 20 addresses the deputy chairs of the NPIA. The Bill proposes that in addition to nominating the chair—which I understand the NPIA somewhat reluctantly accepts—the Mayor of London can also nominate the two vice-chairs of the body. The NPIA should be able to elect its own vice-chairs, as do all other police authorities. If that were not the case, it would be undemocratic. It is necessary to underpin local accountability for policing with the police authority, as distinct from the local authority. The two have different responsibilities and we should not blur them.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I hope that I shall contribute to the wonderful atmosphere to which the Minister has referred by thanking her for agreeing not to throw out the baby with the bath water in getting rid of the magistrates’ representation on the new authorities. They are a vital part of the mix. I am trying to choose my words with care. To do away with them would be absolute folly. Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister, as I am sure are others. I dare say that in some cases you could have more than one of the relevant people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. I again thank the Minister.



9 Oct 2006 : Column 24

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to change the tone of some of the discussion that has taken place, but I will do so in the nicest possible way. First, I apologise to my noble friend for having missed the first few seconds of her remarks in introducing her very welcome group of amendments. They are welcome as regards what they say; my concern is about one or two things that they leave out and where they have gone beyond what makes sense or beyond a consensus that is emerging around those issues. I will speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 19 and 20.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 19 make it a requirement that the local authority members of police authorities and the GLA members of the Metropolitan Police authorities should be selected so as to deliver a proportion of members broadly in line with the political balance in the areas concerned. That is important because it makes it an obligation on councils in nominating members to police authorities. Currently, local government law requires that an individual local authority making nominations to an external body should do so in line with political balance, but it is not at all clear that there is such a requirement where this is being done jointly by a number of local authorities, particularly where there are authorities with different levels of responsibility in that mix. That is extremely important in the context of the operation of police authorities.

Clearly, a great deal of effort has been put in over the years to achieve a balanced membership of police authorities, so that until now elected members have been in a majority of one over independent and magistrate members. That provides a democratic legitimacy to what is being done but with room for a range of other experience and backgrounds to be represented as well. The principle that councillor members should reflect the political balance of the area that the police authority covers is important because it emphasises that democratic link, but it also ensure that the full range of political views in an area is represented.

I put it to your Lordships that if there were an area where most of the local councils were led by one political party rather than another, a committee of those authorities would automatically send to the police authority representation solely of that political party. There might be a circumstance in which a political party led by one seat in each of the councils, but the nature of bringing them together in a joint committee and inviting them to nominate could, without this amendment, lead to a single party dominating the situation. The removal of the provision for a majority of one—we talk simply about a majority, for reasons that we all understand—could lead to the domination of a police authority by one political party.

I suppose that, like the political Members of your Lordships’ House, if it was our political party in that dominant position we might think that that would be absolutely fine and dandy, but I rather suspect that the reality would be much more complicated. It seems to me that ensuring such a balance is a way of ensuring that decisions about policing are achieved by cross-party consensus in the areas concerned. It has

9 Oct 2006 : Column 25

been the reality that police authorities around the country have operated in a consensual fashion on most of the issues with which they have had to contend. That does not mean that there have not been political arguments or arguments about matters affecting policing, but those arguments have tended not to be along party political lines, except on very specific matters. We are in danger of creating a situation where police authorities as a whole would be attacked on political grounds by people from other political parties who had been unfairly excluded from the process or had had reduced representation because there would not be the requirement for political balance.

If we want, as I am sure all your Lordships do, a fair and impartial service that is seen to be fair and impartial and one that is not influenced by the political concerns of one political party or another, it is important that that principle is written into primary legislation. I would have thought that my amendments would enable that to happen and would ensure that the political membership of police authorities was balanced across the area concerned. Those are my reasons for tabling Amendments Nos. 13 and 19.

3.45 pm

Amendment No. 20 looks at the unique position of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I declare a current interest in that I remain a member of that authority. Indeed, I am grateful to my noble friend for reinforcing the position under which I hold a mandate to sit on that authority by ensuring that that mandate is contained within the Bill and that I am the Home Office nominee to the police authority in London.

In London, following consultations conducted by the government office over the past year, it has been decided that the chair of the police authority should be appointed by the Mayor of London. A broad consensus has emerged and the formulation contained in the Bill on that matter is probably the best statement that one can have: that the Mayor can chose to appoint himself, or herself, to the police authority, in which case he should chair the authority. That is a sensible arrangement should the Mayor, whoever that might be, want to be seen to be taking the lead role on policing. But if the Mayor chose not to appoint himself to that office, he would choose from among the members of the police authority. The inclusion of that provision is welcome and there has been some discussion about that.

But nowhere previously has there been any discussion about the Mayor of London appointing the vice-chairs of the police authority—and I am not sure where that suggestion has come from. It does not seem to have emanated from the Mayor’s office or from New Scotland Yard; and I can assure noble Lords, given my discussions in the past week, that it has not emanated from the Metropolitan Police Authority. It may be that some over-worked civil servant, desperate to prepare the amendments in time for consideration by your Lordships’ House, has simply read across from one bit of legislation to another. After all, these things do not happen in such a slapdash and inconsequential way, but there seems

9 Oct 2006 : Column 26

to be some strange read-across regarding this. We want to avoid a situation in which the other members of the police authority feel alienated from the Mayor of London. There may be an acceptance that the Mayor should chair the police authority, or should appoint the chair, but it would seem a step too far to state that the main officers of the police authority should be mayoral appointments, even if they are members of the police authority.

Perhaps my noble friend might take this away. There are several days before we need to consider this Bill at Third Reading and there will be ample opportunity to put this matter right. I am not sure that such a proposal was the original intention and it was certainly not discussed during the earlier phases of consultation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I will be able to reassure my noble friend Lord Harris that comity can prevail. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for his thanks, because I know how anxious he has been on behalf of magistrates. It has given me considerable pleasure to give him a little pleasure in relation to this matter.

My noble friend Lord Harris’s amendment to place the principle of political proportionality in the Bill is important. In deciding what to place in the Bill and what to leave to secondary legislation, we have had carefully to balance the need to protect the constitutional position of police authorities against the need to increase the flexibility of the legislation. We feel that we have struck the right balance with these amendments. However, I accept that the principle of political proportionality is important and my noble friend’s comments graphically illustrated why. That principle was also conceded by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I make no comment about their two names, but they always appear to act in unison in relation to these matters. I am happy to give an undertaking that it will form part of the regulations that the Government intend to table under this provision because I understand the anxiety about them.

I shall also respond to my noble friend’s amendment in relation to the appointment of the vice-chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority and explain how this came about. As my noble friend identified, Amendment No. 18 enables the Mayor of London to appoint the chairman and the vice-chairman of the authority. My noble friend’s amendment gives the power in relation to the vice-chairman to the authority itself. It is our view that, as a vice-chairman is empowered to act as chair in the absence of the chairman, it is logical for that position to be appointed in the same way. That will bring the authority into line with other Greater London Authority functional bodies.

I hope that, in the light of the movement that the Government have made on the other issues, my noble friend—

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend in full flow, but can she remind me of the provisions that say that the Mayor of London appoints the vice-chairman of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority?



9 Oct 2006 : Column 27

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand that the Mayor currently appoints the other chairs, the vice-chair fulfils the position in the chair’s absence and that that is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with these matters. Bearing in mind the munificence that the Government have showered on the Bill so far, I hesitate to suggest that my noble friend would not appreciate the delicacy of the balance that we now seek to strike. This is our current view, and I hope my noble friend will be able to accept it as an appropriate accommodation. I understand if he wishes to talk further, but I assure him that this is not a capricious settlement. It has come about as a result of looking at all the other issues and reaching a fair accommodation and a proportionate settlement. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his objection and that the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Harris, will also do so.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 not moved.]

The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I must advise the House that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 by reason of pre-emption.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 18:

SCHEDULE 2A

Section 5C

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY Membership of Authority (a) persons appointed from among the persons specified in sub-paragraph (3), and (b) other persons, including at least one lay justice. (a) the Mayor of London, and (b) members of the London Assembly. (a) specify the number of members falling within paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (2), and (b) secure that the majority of members of the Authority are persons falling within paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph. (a) how a member is to be appointed; (b) disqualification for membership; (c) the tenure of office of a member (including the circumstances in which a member ceases to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office); (d) re-appointment as a member;

9 Oct 2006 : Column 28

(e) the validity of acts and proceedings of a person appointed as a member in the event of his disqualification or lack of qualification; (f) the validity of proceedings of the Authority in the event of a vacancy in membership or of a defect in the appointment of a member or in the composition of the Authority; (g) the payment of remuneration and allowances to a member and the reimbursement of expenses. Appointment of members from London Assembly etc Appointment of other members (a) one of the members falling within paragraph 1(2)(b) is to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and (b) the other members are to be appointed by the existing members of the Metropolitan Police Authority from among persons on a short-list prepared by a selection panel. (a) the number of members of a selection panel; (b) how and by whom a member of a panel is to be appointed; (c) disqualification for membership; (d) the tenure of office of a member of a panel (including the circumstances in which a member ceases to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office); (e) re-appointment as a member of a panel; (f) the conduct of proceedings of a panel, including any procedures that a panel is to follow; (g) the validity of acts and proceedings of a person appointed as a member of a panel in the event of his disqualification or lack of qualification; (h) the validity of proceedings of a panel in the event of a vacancy in membership or of a defect in the appointment of a member or in the composition of the panel; (i) the payment of remuneration and allowances to a member of a panel and the reimbursement of expenses. Chairman and vice chairmen (a) if the Mayor of London is a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, he is to be the chairman; (b) if not, the Mayor of London is to appoint a chairman from among the members of the Authority. (a) qualification and disqualification for appointment; (b) the tenure of office of a chairman or vice-chairman (including the circumstances in which a chairman or vice-chairman ceases to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office); (c) eligibility for re-appointment; (d) the validity of acts and proceedings of a person appointed as chairman or vice-chairman in the event of his disqualification or lack of qualification;

9 Oct 2006 : Column 29

(e) the validity of proceedings of the Authority in the event of a vacancy in the office of chairman or vice-chairman or of a defect in the appointment of a chairman or vice-chairman; (f) the payment of remuneration and allowances to a chairman or vice-chairman and the reimbursement of expenses. Standards committees Consultation (a) the Metropolitan Police Authority, (b) the Association of Police Authorities, (c) the Greater London Authority, (d) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of London boroughs, and (e) such other persons as he thinks fit. Supplementary Interpretation

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 23:

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 24:

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 tackles another aspect of the Secretary of State’s powers to supervise police authorities. Yet again, the Government are trying to move matters from primary legislation to secondary legislation. This amendment removes two paragraphs from Schedule 2. Paragraph 9 adds to the general functions of a police authority that are set out in Section 6 of the Police Act 1996. The primary duty under existing legislation is to secure an efficient and effective police force for the police authority’s area. The change introduced in paragraph 9 makes clear that it is the job of police authorities to hold the chief officer of police to account in the exercise of his functions and those of persons under his control and direction. The change has been welcomed by the Association of Police Authorities, but ACPO is concerned about it. Its view is that this new provision, when taken together with other changes currently taking place to the way in which the personal performance of chief

9 Oct 2006 : Column 30

officers is assessed, will create a linear relationship between police authorities and chief officers. They are also concerned about moving to secondary legislation the provisions relating to policy plans.

When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, responded to the debate in Committee, at col. 703 of Hansard, he said that the Government were prepared to look at this issue in particular in time for Report. I tabled the amendment to ask the Government whether they have used the past three months since Committee to consult ACPO further on these matters, and, if so, what the response has been. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 25, 26 or 27.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 25 in my name and, in doing so, shall comment on the points that have just been made by the noble Baroness in respect of Amendment No. 24.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page