HC Deb 08 June 1964 vol 696 cc195-7

Lords Amendment: In page 58, column 3, leave out lines 17 to 25 and insert: Section 30. Section 34(3)(c). Section 66. In section 78(1) the words 'either alone or jointly with the quarter sessions'. Section 81(7) and (8). Section 93.

Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

May I, at the same time, refer to the next two Amendments? They are all inter-connected.

This group of three Amendments will repeal the statutory provisions which require the appointment of standing joint committees, together with various provisions associated with them. The reason is that the Bill will transfer their police functions away from standing joint committees. Since the Bill was introduced an Amendment has been made in another Bill, the Administration of Justice Bill, which will transfer away the remaining functions of standing joint committees. The appropriate course to take, therefore, is to repeal the statutory provisions which require standing joint committees to be appointed.

Standing joint committees, which were first appointed ad hoc in 1888, have played for over three-quarters of a century a notable part in county administration, and I do not think that we should see their demise without that word of appreciation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 53, at end insert:

"7 & 8 Eliz. 2.c. 38. The Police Federation Act 1959 The whole Act.
9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c.51. The Police Federation Act 1961. The whole Act."

Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

If it is agreed, this Amendment will increase the number of Acts repealed by the Bill to 25, which is probably a good thing in itself in clearing the Statute Book. This will add to the repeals the Police Federation Acts of 1959 and 1961, which made minor changes in the constitution of the Federation, which had nevertheless to be done by legislation.

The Police Federation has been consulted over this change in the Bill and it is acceptable to it. The explanation is that the substance of these Acts will be repeated in regulations which are to be made under Clause 44, and when those regulations come into force there will be no need for the Acts to remain on the Statute Book. This most closely concerns the Police Federation itself, and I am in a position to say that the Federation is quite content with this rearrangement.

Miss Bacon

How long will it be before we see the regulations under Clause 44? I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that the Police Federation agrees to this repeal, but I should like to be assured that the Federation approves of it wholeheartedly and thinks that the provisions would be better in regulations than in these two Acts.

Mr. Brooke

The Police Federation approves wholeheartedly of this and it is accepted in all quarters that it would be better to have it in regulations than that we should keep the Acts on the Statute Book. If further amendments are needed in the Federation's constitution, they can be made by further regulations. The matters concerned are relatively small. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that there is entire agreement that this is the right course to follow.

Question put and agreed to.