HC Deb 13 March 1946 vol 420 cc1175-82
Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after "scheme" to insert: and comprising only members of the police authorities whose areas are amalgamated by the scheme. The genesis of this Amendment was the fear or—-perhaps that is too strong a word to use—the anxiety felt upon all sides of the House that this Bill might be used to create a national police force, or something approaching it, not, I may say, by the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Home Secretary, but by someone who may later reign in his stead. Hon. Members will observe that under Clause 3, which provides details of the scheme to be used if com- pulsory amalgamations are brought about, Subsection (2) (b) contains these words: the maintenance of the combined force by a combined police authority constituted in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. In the proceedings in Committee I moved an Amendment to try to make it perfectly clear at this point that the Home Secretary could not become either a part of a combined police authority or the combined police authority itself, as it did not seem to me to be clear in the Bill that he could not take on that function under a scheme. At that time I was referred to Clause 5, which defines a combined police authority, and I think it will be clear if hon. Members look at it The first few words are: The combined police authority constituted by an amalgamation scheme shall consist of such representatives of each of the constituent areas as may be prescribed by the scheme. We wanted it made perfectly clear that the Home Secretary could not be a representative, and therefore a part or the whole of a combined police authority. The Attorney-General was not able to be present at the Committee meetings but the Home Secretary was good enough to obtain an opinion from him, and I would like to read it to the House. The learned Attorney-General said this: I have read the report of the debate in Committee and considered the point raised, namely, the danger that the Secretary of State might nominate himself as the police authority for a Combined Police Area, thus in effect opening the door to the nationalisation of the police forces. Clause 4 (1) "— which is now, of course, Clause 5 (1) under the amended Bill— provides that the Combined Police Authority shall consist of such representatives of each of the constituent areas as ' may be prescribed by the scheme,' and in my view it would be inconsistent with this Clause for the Secretary of State to appoint himself the authority for the combined force, since the Clause clearly requires representatives of each constituent area and is mandatory and not merely discretionary. Moreover, the Clause contains no provision for anyone who is not a representative of a constituent area to be included in the combined authority. It would, I think, be quite inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill for the Secretary of State to prescribe himself as ' a representative ' of one of the constituent areas, and I feel no doubt, that Clause 4 (1) taken alone precludes the possibility of his prescribing himself as the representative of all the constituent areas."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5th February, 1946; c. 147-8.] We have there the opinion of the Attorney-General that the point we wish to protect is provided for in the Bill. But, on considering the matter, I still think that rather than let it rest on the opinion, however good, of the Attorney-General, it would be just as well to insert the words I propose, in the Bill itself. It makes it perfectly clear that the Home Secretary cannot in any case become himself either a part of or the combined police authority under an amalgamation scheme. I hope the Home Secretary will consider accepting these words. That would not provide anything which he does not intend should be a part of the Bill. Instead of resting the matter on the opinion of the Attorney-General, it should be put into the Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will agree that it is desirable to put the words in, having regard to the fact that it is merely, so to speak, dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the opinion the Attorney-General has given.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I beg to second the Amendment.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has just said, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept it because, in fact, it is not limiting him in any way. It is merely putting on to paper that on which the Home Secretary himself found it necessary to get counsel's opinion. If the Home Secretary, with all his learning and knowledge, had to consult counsel before the position was made absolutely clear to him, I feel that the private citizen should have it made so simple and clear on paper that he, in turn, shall not have to consult counsel when the Bill comes into operation.

Mr. Ede

I think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) will find that his memory, for once, has played him false. I did not have to go to the Attorney-General for advice on this point. I expressed a certain opinion and was quite certain it was right. Hon. Members opposite who were serving on the Committee expressed doubts, and I was anxious to resolve those doubts. They suggested that the proper person to resolve them was one of the Law Officers of the Crown. I went to the Attorney-General and procured a letter which I read to the Committee and which now the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has read. I was never in any doubt whether it would be possible for any Home Secretary to be the representatives—in the plural—of more than one police authority. I know at least one past Home Secretary who has been alluded to as Jehovah. But after all, the thing about Jehovah is that He is a unity and therefore not capable of what would be required to comply with the situation presented by this Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

I am bound to point out that, in spite of what has been said, these words would limit me in the selection 01 the combined police authority. It has to be borne in mind that the police authorities are not the councils concerned. In the case of a county borough, the police authority is the watch committee In the case of a county, the police authority is the standing joint committee. It may be that a county borough which had been, after all processes had been gone through, brought into a combined police authority, could then defeat me, or the Secretary of State for the time, by declining to appoint a watch committee Then I would have no body from which I could select the borough representatives. A county borough might, by the process of selecting the members of its watch committee when the watch committee had lost its police powers, exclude from the watch committee, certain members of the council who might be very desirable as members of the combined police authority.

During the Committee stage, I expressed views I hold very strongly with regard to standing joint committees. In view of the peculiar way in which those bodies are constituted, it might very well be that either the justices, or the county councils, would deprive me of the proper width of choice by declining to put certain appropriate people on the standing joint committees. I could not then bring them on to the combined police authorities. What I am prepared to do is to say that in selecting the representatives on the combined police authorities, I will not go outside the bodies who elect the appropriate committees which become on appointment the police authorities for the boroughs and the counties. That, I think, is what this Amendment is really aimed at-a desire that a person who is not a member either of the borough council in the case of the county borough, or of the county council or' the justices in Quarter Sessions in the case of a county —should not be appointed. I am quite prepared to say that that will be the line I shall adopt in any case where a combined police authority is set up. I do not think that is anything more than a common sense view. But to confine me to members of the police authority, would mean that I should be limited to the members of the committees that the parent authorities have set up. I think that might, in certain circumstances, limit me far too much.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Oliver

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert: (g) the delegation to any constituent authority of any functions of the combined police authority under Section five of the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, or under the House to House Collections Act, 1939. This Amendment, with the Amendment to the Third Schedule, page 24, line 16, to leave out sub-paragraph (1) relates to non-county boroughs, and fulfils an undertaking which the Home Secretary gave in Standing Committee to make special provision with regard to street collections and house to house collections.

The Amendment makes it clear that an amalgamation scheme has to make provision for the delegation to constituent authorities of any functions of the combined police authority in respect of street collections and house to house collections under the 1916 and the 1939 statutes. That will mean that a county borough which is included in an amalgamation scheme, although it ceases to have separate police powers, can continue to exercise the functions of a police authority under these statutes, under powers delegated to it by a combined police authority. A request was made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) about the question of retaining power under Section 1 (4) of the House to House Collections Act, 1939, under which a chief officer of police has power to issue certificates of exception in respect to local collections, and it was desired that that power should be exercised by some responsible police officer in the borough as opposed to the chief constable in the county or a combined area.

The answer to that question is that under Section 7 (2) of the Act of 1939 a chief officer of police has power to delegate his functions to an officer of a rank not below that of inspector. It is proposed to advise chief constables of county and combined forces that in the case of amalgamation schemes, where power is delegated under the scheme to constituent authorities in those cases where non-county boroughs retain their functions under these Acts and under the proposed Amendment to the Third Schedule, they shall delegate their functions under Section 1 (4) to the police officer who is in charge of the borough or division in which the borough is situated. The difficulty can well be met administratively, and no statutory prevision is necessary. It will be found that the Home Secretary, with this Amendment, and the Amendment to which I have referred in the case of the non-county boroughs, has implemented his promise.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for inserting this Amendment. It is held by the smaller non-county boroughs that these are functions peculiar to the non-county borough itself, and the provision which has been made is satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out, "made before the appointed day."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Mr. Peake

The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a purely drafting Amendment to Subsection (4). I must confess that I cannot make head or tail of Subsection (4), with or without the words he proposes to omit from it. The Subsection states: In relation to a borough comprised in a county to which an amalgamation scheme made before the appointed day applies, Section 1 of this Act shall have effect as if for references therein to the police area of the county, the county police force and the council of the county there were substituted respectively references to the combined area … I cannot for the life of me see how Clause 1 of this Bill, which deals with the abolition of non-county borough forces, can in any way apply in the case of amalgamation schemes, because these non-county borough police forces will, by virtue of Clause 1, have been abolished, and therefore an amalgamation scheme under Clauses 3 or 4 can only relate to the county boroughs or to the county police forces. I must confess that, even leaving out the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit, I cannot see the meaning of the Subsection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little further explanation.

Mr. Ede

If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that I am not quite sure how far an elucidation would be relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Peake

What is the effect of leaving out the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit?

Mr. Ede

After the passage of the Bill it may be that certain county boroughs will, on the recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners, be reduced from county borough status to the status of non-county boroughs. Then they will, of course, lose their police powers, and a scheme for dealing with such a new non-county borough which was formerly a county borough, might be made after the appointed day for this Bill. It is necessary to have a provision in the Bill to meet such a contingency. Subsection (4) of this Clause is aimed at dealing with that situation. This Amendment to leave out the words "made before the appointed day" is moved because if that were not done, a special Act of Parliament would be required after the passing of the appointed day, in order to deal with the situation which would arise over a borough which, having ceased to be a county borough, had lost is police powers, and the county had no power to pick up the police powers which had been lost by the county borough. One might have the somewhat anomalous position of an area of a former county borough in which no one had any police powers which could be exercised.

Mr. Peake

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 42, leave out "Section one," and insert" the foregoing provisions."

In page 4, line 2, leave out "that Section" and insert "Section one of this Act."—[Mr. Oliver.]