---

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MYA:

Insert the following new Clause--

CONTINUATION IN POST OF CURRENT COMMISSIONERS AND COMMANDERS
(" .--(1) Any appointment of a person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 1 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 248 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9B of the Police Act 1996.
(2) If, immediately before the coming into force of section 250 above, there is in force in respect of a person who is one of the Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis an authorisation under section 8 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 (authorisation of one of the Assistant Commissioners to act as Commissioner in case of vacancy, illness or absence) that person shall be taken, as from the coming into force of section 250 above, to have been appointed as the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9D of the Police Act 1996.

7 Jul 1999 : Column 944

(3) Any appointment of a person (other than a person in relation to whom subsection (2) above has effect) as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 2 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 252 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9F of the Police Act 1996.
(4) Any appointment of a person as a Commander in the metropolitan police force which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 253 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as a Commander under and in accordance with section 9G of the Police Act 1996.").

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments contains Government Amendments Nos. 354MYA and 354MZA and Opposition Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. Government Amendment No. 354MYA inserts a new clause which makes transitional provision in respect of those individuals in one of the four senior ranks of the Metropolitan Police--commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or commander--on the date when the new provisions applying to the appointment of those ranks come into force. This will be 3rd July 2000. The clause provides that these individuals will be deemed to have been appointed under the new arrangements inserted into the Police Act 1996 by the Bill.

This amendment will confirm that those individuals will remain in post and ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements. It will also have the effect that those concerned are subject to other provisions made in the Bill in respect of those ranks.

These various provisions will be applied to senior Met officers appointed on or after 3rd July 2000, and we think it is right that individuals who are in post on that date should similarly be subject to them. This will not mean any worsening of conditions for these individuals. But it will mean there is no delay in conferring the full range of powers and duties on the Metropolitan Police Authority. Special transitional provisions are not needed for officers below the rank of commander--the Bill does not give the MPA a role in their appointments, which will continue to be made by the commissioner in accordance with regulations made under Section 50 of the 1996 Act.

The other government amendment--Amendment No. 354MZA--clarifies the wording in new Section 9H of the 1996 Act. This section sets out the ranks that may be held in the Metropolitan Police. These are the four senior ranks to which I have just referred--namely, commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner and commander--together with the ranks of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. The current wording might be regarded as being ambiguous and that is why we want to put the matter beyond doubt.

I now come to Opposition Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. These amendments are also concerned with Clause 254. At present, the clause provides that, in addition to the four senior ranks, the ranks that may be held,

"shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations".

7 Jul 1999 : Column 945

It goes on to provide that these ranks shall include those of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. This wording means that the Met (like other forces) must have these ranks. It would be possible to add to them using the regulations, but it would not be possible to delete any of them. This is consistent with the position outside London. The amendments would change this wording to say that the ranks,


"shall be superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable or such as may be prescribed by regulations". The effect of this change is that it would be possible for the regulations to provide not only for additional ranks to those listed, but to dispense with one or more of the listed ranks. This would be inconsistent with the position outside London. We believe that the same set of ranks from superintendent level down ought to obtain generally. Therefore for the reasons I have indicated briefly, I cannot support those two amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Minister has pointed out, the two amendments standing in my name in this group are Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. The Minister has just described their effect. The first point that attracted my attention was the transitional one with regard to what the ranks would be in the first place. As I read the Bill, a new regulation would have to be introduced in order to create these ranks. I seek to provide that they should continue, at least until there is a further regulation. But I believe that the Minister has covered the point about the transitional provisions and therefore my amendments are no longer required in that regard.

However, I sought to provide not only that the traditional ranks could be created but also that other ranks might be removed. In recent years the rank of chief superintendent has been removed. In all kinds of organisations there is a tendency to shorten chains of command and the number of ranks that exist. At some point in the future there may be further movement in that direction. I do not propose that that should happen, but if it should occur I seek to remove the need for primary legislation to be introduced to secure that end. However, in view of the fact that these ranks have relatively recently been reduced in number and there is no immediate expectation of any further reduction, I think perhaps it is unnecessary for me to move these two amendments when we reach them.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have already moved Amendment No. 354MYA which is the first amendment in the group that we are discussing.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 254 [Other members of the metropolitan police force]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MZA:

Page 137, leave out lines 32 to 43 and insert--
(""Other members of the metropolitan police force.
9H.--(1) The ranks that may be held in the metropolitan police force shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations under section 50.

7 Jul 1999 : Column 946

(2) The ranks so prescribed in the case of the metropolitan police force shall include, in addition to the ranks of--
(a) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
(b) Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
(c) Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and
(d) Commander,
those of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB not moved.]

Clause 254, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 255 agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MZC:

Insert the following new Clause--

SECONDMENTS TO MEET DEMANDS CAUSED BY THE BOUNDARY CHANGE
(" .--(1) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis may, on the application of the chief officer of police of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 for the police area of Essex, Hertfordshire or Surrey, provide for that force constables from the metropolitan police force.
(2) An application under subsection (1) above may only be made for the purpose of, or otherwise in connection with, meeting the demands placed, or reasonably expected to be placed, on the resources of the police force in question in consequence of the change effected as a result of section 255 above in the police area for which that force is maintained.
(3) While a constable is provided under this section for a police force, he shall be under the direction and control of the chief officer of police of that force, notwithstanding section 9A(1) of the Police Act 1996 (metropolitan police force to be under the direction and control of the Commissioner) or any other enactment relating to the direction or control of the metropolitan police force.
(4) The police authority maintaining a police force for which constables are provided under this section shall pay to the police authority maintaining the metropolitan police force such contribution as may be agreed upon between those authorities or, in the absence of any such agreement, as may be provided by any agreement subsisting at the time between all police authorities generally, or, in the absence of such general agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any other power of a chief officer of police to provide constables or other assistance to another police force.
(6) Expressions used in this section and in the Police Act 1996 have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Act.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 354MZC, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 354MD.

The new clause proposed in our amendment gives power to the commissioner to provide police officers to the county police forces of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. These three forces will have the area they police enlarged on 1st April 2000. Changes to the boundaries are provided for in Clause 255 of the Bill.

To police their enlarged areas, Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will need additional officers. We need a seamless transfer of responsibilities between the Met and the county forces on 1st April 2000 so that there is no loss of service to the public.

The four forces concerned have, since last summer, been holding discussions between themselves and with Home Office officials about issues which derive from

7 Jul 1999 : Column 947

the boundary changes. A key part of these discussions has been how to decide the best way to provide increased police officer numbers. In the longer term the majority will be obtained by direct recruitment. Some officers will transfer on a voluntary basis from their current forces. However, not all the newly recruited officers will be in place and fully trained by next April. The new clause provides a way of bridging the gap. It enables Met officers to be loaned for a period of time, which we would expect to be between six months and two years. They will retain the pay and allowances of a Metropolitan Police officer but will be under the direction and control of the chief constable of the force to which they have been seconded. At the conclusion of the secondment, the officers would return to the Met.

The wording of the new clause is based closely upon an existing provision; namely, Section 24 of the Police Act 1996, which provides for aid from one police force to another.

Opposition Amendment No. 354MD seeks to insert a new clause which would require the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to certify that the Metropolitan Police had a sufficient number of police officers before the commissioner was able to second police officers to another force. It is not a necessary amendment. There is no requirement that the commissioner should second officers to Essex, Hertfordshire or Surrey; our new clause simply gives him the power to do so. He plainly would not do so if he was left with insufficient officers to police his own district to the required standard. As I have said, we believe it will be possible for sufficient police officers to be seconded without jeopardising the standard of service.

In addition to being unnecessary, we believe the amendment to be inappropriate. It is a matter for the commissioner to decide how many officers he needs to police the MPD within his available resources, just as it is a matter for other chief officers to determine the number of police officers required in their forces. Bearing in mind the explanation I have given, I invite the noble Lord, in due course, not to move his amendment.

---