| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: The Government recognise that police authorities in England and Wales will have a legitimate interest in the way the National Crime Squad performs the role set out for it in the Bill. That is why the Bill provides for nine police authority members, plus a representative of the police authority for the Metropolitan Police, to sit as members of the National Crime Squad service authority. It is also why the Bill provides no fewer than five separate requirements for police authorities in England and Wales to be consulted about important matters relating to the service authority and the National Crime Squad itself.
Clause 46 requires the Secretary of State to consult persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities before making an order to vary the size of the National Crime Squad service authority. Clause 48 requires the service authority to consult with representatives of police authorities before determining its objectives for the National Crime Squad. Clause 70 places the same duty on the Secretary of State before he sets objectives for the National Crime Squad. Clause 83 places a general duty on the service authority to make
arrangements to obtain the views of police authorities. There is a similar duty on the director general of the National Crime Squad to consult chief officers of police. There is a duty in paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 for the Secretary of State to consult police authorities before deciding whether or not to approve the levies proposed by the NCS service authority. This is in addition to the provisions at paragraph 1 of that schedule which ensure that police authority members sitting on the service authority are in the majority when any decision is taken about the levies to be charged to police authorities in England and Wales.As well as these specific requirements for the Secretary of State or the service authority itself to consult police authorities in England and Wales about matters relating to the service authority, the Bill also requires the service authority to provide all police authorities in England and Wales with a copy of its service plan and annual report. Clause 71 allows the Secretary of State to set performance targets for the National Crime Squad. These measures will assist individual police authorities in judging the extent to which the National Crime Squad is efficient and effective.
There are other measures in the Bill which ensure that the performance of the National Crime Squad is closely scrutinised. Principal among these is the role for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Secretary of State's power to require the service authority to take remedial action in the light of an adverse report.
I hope the Committee will agree with me when I say that together these measures ensure that police authorities in England and Wales are fully consulted about matters relating to the National Crime Squad and its service authority in a manner which is consistent with the existing tripartite structure of policing in this country.
But it is not for this reason alone that I must oppose the amendment. The amendment cuts across the primary role of the National Crime Squad service authority. It is its duty to ensure that the National Crime Squad is an efficient and effective service. I doubt that any police authority in England and Wales would be prepared to accept being second guessed in the way this amendment would lead to the National Crime Squad service authority being second guessed. It is also at odds with one of the basic tenets of policing in this country: the operational independence of chief constables. Under this clause, police authorities would be able to question operational decisions taken by chief constables.
The Bill already contains adequate and extensive measures to ensure police authority involvement with the National Crime Squad. In view of this and given the way the measures in this clause would interfere with the operational independence of the director general of the national crime squad and cut across the primary duty of the squad's service authority I hope that the Committee will agree that the proposed new clause should not be included in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As I predicted, the Minister has given an impressive list of reports which fly backwards and forwards and consultations which
take place, although the Committee will have observed that most of them involve the Secretary of State requiring reports. It is mostly top-down consultation rather than bottom-up consultation.The purpose of the amendment was rather different. We sought to require the people who are accountable to local people on the ground in individual police authority areas to do something comparable to that which the Secretary of State in other circumstances quite properly is authorised to do. I emphasise again that it is not intended that the power should be used frequently. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides:
- "A matter of concern to which this section applies is an exceptional matter of concern".
The word "exceptional", as the Minister will recognise, has legal significance, as we shall no doubt hear again when we come to the Crime (Sentences) Bill. I also emphasise that it is not a report being made by the director general to an individual police authority. What we are asking for is a report being made by the director general to the service authority.
The service authority shall consider that report and make such conclusions as it thinks proper and notify the police authority about those conclusions. That is what is provided for in subsection (3). So there is no question here of what the Minister calls "second guessing". We are not saying that the police authority has the right to go to the director general and say, "Provide me with a report about this". It is only the service authority which has that power in many other respects to require reports from the director general. All that happens here is that there is an additional trigger for a report which reflects the proper concerns of a police authority.
I understand the Minister's concerns, although I do not accept that what is proposed runs counter to good policing principles. I shall think again about how these provisions fit in with the many other complex provisions which are in this part of the Bill. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Officers and employees]:
Clause 61 [Power to issue levies]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Codes of practice]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 not moved.]
Clause 80 [Discipline regulations]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 26, line 6, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of").
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) A police member of the National Crime Squad to whom section 54(2)(a) applies and who is dismissed or required to resign by a decision taken under or by virtue of regulations made under section 80 may appeal to an appeals tribunal against the decision except where he has a right of appeal to some other person; and in that case he may appeal to an appeals tribunal from any decision of that other person as a result of which he is dismissed or required to resign.
(2) Section 85(2) to (5) of, and Schedule 6 to, the Police Act 1996 (police appeals tribunals) shall apply, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, in relation to an appeals tribunal and an appeal under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a police appeals tribunal and an appeal under section 85(1) of that Act.
(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Application of police complaints regime to National Crime Squad]:
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
7.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations are being made under Section 37 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which allows the removal without replacement of certain health and safety statutory provisions which have been shown to be outdated and to have no practical effect. They will remove 16 pieces of redundant legislation which relate specifically to the textile and agricultural industries.
First, the textiles provisions: some of these have reached their 90th birthday and are long overdue for retirement, if not burial. They cover three subjects: artificial humidification; kiers; and cotton shuttles. It is
an historical fact of life that, in the early part of the century, textile workers were exposed to some pretty unpleasant--and sometimes dangerous--working conditions which were caused by a combination of high temperatures and humidity.Steam injection systems were used to humidify workrooms, and were controlled by hand. Steam is no longer used as a means of humidification and modern monitoring and control systems are automated. The related legislation is, therefore, simply redundant.
Then we have the provisions relating to kiers. Some of your Lordships may think that "kier" is a delectable drink which should not be made redundant. But in this case a kier is a big vat, possibly one which might be suitable for boiling Members of the Opposition, but which is more usually used for boiling textiles and which allows water to percolate through the textiles. The regulations apply to kiers in print works, bleaching and dyeing works, or works where cotton or cotton waste is bleached. There are few, if any, kiers still in use. Even if some still survive, the specific requirements, which are set out in the Kiers Regulations, are now superseded by up-to-date health and safety legislation.
Then we have the regulations on cotton shuttles. They prohibit the use of shuttles which are threaded by mouth suction in cotton cloth factories--not a very delicate method of threading shuttles. The regulations were necessary because of the risk of contracting a serious disease like tuberculosis. Fortunately, technology has advanced a little by now, and shuttles are not threaded by mouth. This means that these regulations are obsolete.
The agricultural provisions cover four subjects: field machinery (which includes stationary threshing machines and balers); ladders; workplaces; and poisonous substances. From 1st January 1997, the regulations on field machinery and on stationary threshing machines and balers will be duplicated by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 and the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992. They are, therefore, simply not needed.
The regulations on ladders place a specific obligation on agricultural employers to ensure that their ladders are properly constructed and that they are safe to be used. The construction and use of ladders in all sectors of business is now covered by up-to-date legislation and modern manufacturing standards. So these regulations are redundant.
In a similar way, the requirements in the regulations which cover the safety of agricultural workplaces are now superseded by the regulations which cover all places of work. Those regulations are the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
Most of the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 has already been repealed. Only those sections remain which refer to the taking of samples of those substances to which the Act still applies. These powers in relation to sampling procedures are no longer used by health and safety inspectors because they have other powers to take samples under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The Health and Safety Commission has consulted widely with industry on all these proposals. The responses have shown that there was no objection either from those organisations which represent employers or from those which represent employees to the repeal and revocation of these Acts and regulations. I hope that your Lordships will be of the same opinion.
The Health and Safety Commission has therefore recommended that the legislation which is referred to in the draft regulations can be removed without replacement and without endangering health and safety standards.
The removal will have the advantage of simplifying the present legislation, and of making it easier to understand. And in the words of 1066 and All That, that must be a Good Thing. I commend the regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].--(Earl Ferrers.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page