Clause 25.—(CAMBRIDGE AND PETERBOROUGH.) (Hansard, 12 March 1964)

§ Mr. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out "shall" and insert "may".

It might be convenient if we also took the Amendment to line 36, at the end to insert: (4) On the coming into force of an order under this section in respect of either of the said cities, the functions exercisable in respect of that city by a police authority under section 5 of the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and under the House to House Collections Act 1939 shall vest in the council of that city and shall, unless and until the Secretary of State otherwise directs, be exercised by that council in consultation with the police authority for the police area in which the city is situated. The effect of the first Amendment will be that I shall have a discretion instead of an obligation to make an order under the Clause depriving Cambridge or Peterborough of its special police status from the date of the local government reorganisation. This reorganisation was approved by the House the other day. I do not think I need describe in detail how Peterborough and Cambridge were the two places which acquired this special status under the 1946 Act, but they are unique in this respect. They will, however, under the local government reorganisation, no longer have populations which exceed half of the combined population of themselves and the surrounding area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) raised certain points on the Clause in Standing Committee. He urged that Cambridge should retain its own special force and that, if that were not possible, it should have direct representation on the police authority on the grounds, as I understood it, that it might be hard on the city if it did not have direct representation at a time when the University was retaining its direct representation on a larger amalgamated force.

790 I made it clear, and I must now repeat, that I do not think it would be practicable for me to hold out any hope that Cambridge City could properly retain its own separate force under the future arrangements. I have been carefully considering the problems of policing for this area in the Eastern Counties, and I shall shortly be having a communication sent to the various existing police authorities giving my ideas as to what the arrangements for future policing shall be. It will then be for the existing police authorities to consider my letter carefully and let me know in due course their reactions to it.

I am moving the first Amendment because it would be somewhat inappropriate if in advance of that I tied myself to making an order under subsection (2) of the Clause. I would, therefore, prefer to have, as the Amendment would allow, discretion rather than an obligation to make this order. I must say to my hon. Friend and the City of Cambridge that if I ask for a discretion rather than to be bound by an obligation, that does not necessarily mean that I would net wish to exercise that discretion; but it would be a mistake if I were to bind myself under the Clause to make orders in respect of Cambridge and Peterborough, whatever happened.

There is a case for refraining from making an order at this time. The whole position can be carefully considered after the Bill becomes law and in the light of whatever the reactions of all the authorities may be to the proposals I shall make.

The second Amendment will, I hope, be generally acceptable. It will provide that in the event of an order being made under subsection (2), the city concerned, whether it be Cambridge or Peterborough, will have control over street and house-to-house collections in the city. A deputation from the city council made this point to me.

The situation is that when the non-county borough police forces were abolished by the Police Act, 1946, those forces were allowed by that Act to retain these functions. This would appear to be the case under paragraph 11 of Schedule 10 of the Bill. It really would be unfair if, through an Order made under subsection (2) of the Clause, Cambridge and Peterborough were to be put 791 in a worse position than they would have been in save for the abolition of the non-county borough police forces in 1946.

I think it right to amend the Clause in both respects but, as I have said, neither in the case of Peterborough nor of Cambridge must I be taken to be meaning that no Order will be made. I should like, however, to retain the discretion until we can look at the whole situation when the Bill has become law, and when the eventual form of a new police authority—because I am sure that there must be a new police authority—and a new police area becomes clearer than it is at this present moment.