POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 20 December 1966)

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that the next Amendment can be taken with this.

§ Mr. Willis
That is so, Mr. Speaker.
The first of these two Amendments removes from the Bill the requirement that, before making an amalgamation scheme under Section 18 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, the Secretary of State should provide police authorities concerned with a notice describing the general nature of the proposed scheme, and substitutes for it a requirement that he should provide them instead with a copy of the proposed scheme.
In the case of Ayr Burgh v. the Lord Advocate in 1950—a case which arose out of an attempt by the Secretary of State to make an amalgamation scheme 1373 under statutory provisions similar to those contained in Section 18 of the 1956 Act, the Lord Ordinary, Lord Birnam, expressed the view that all parties concerned should have an opportunity of offering their comments, if any, upon the details of the draft scheme. Lord Birnam's remark would seem to support the conclusion that the Secretary of State should supply the police authorities before the inquiry with a draft scheme of amalgamation and this would, no doubt, be the practice followed by Secretaries of State in making schemes under Section 18. The Amendment makes specific provision by Statute for this practice.
It will be evident that if police authorities are to be supplied with a draft scheme of amalgamation, there remains no need to supply them with a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme, since a draft scheme of amalgamation contains all the material which might be included in such a notice.
The second Amendment is simply a matter of drafting and is consequential upon the first.

§ Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)
The House will be very glad to support the hon. Gentleman's proposal. As he has said, as the Bill stands, there could be a procedural gap, as it were, which could lead to misunderstanding in future.
He referred to a case which is now something of a classic—the provost, magistrates and councillors of Ayr versus the Lord Advocate in 1950. It is quite clear from what the hon. Gentleman said and from the debate in another place that the Amendment is an improvement and will avoid misunderstanding by providing that police authorities shall have the complete details of a scheme well in advance, instead of just its general nature, for which the Bill originally provided. We welcome the Amendment and regard it as a distinct improvement to the Bill.

§ Mr. Willis
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State in laying a draft Order before Parliament is not bound to lay the identical proposed scheme which he sent to the police authorities and which was in the hands of the person holding the inquiry. Instead he may modify it in the light of the report of the inquiry, upon the representations by the police authorities concerned, or in such other manner as he thinks fit.
It might be argued that this Amendment is superfluous since Section 18(1) of the 1956 Act appears to have this effect already. However, no harm can be done by making the point explicit and this is what the Amendment does. The form of words which has been used is identical to that in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 of the Police Act, 1964.

§ Mr. N. R. Wylie (Edinburgh, Pentlands)
I echo the Minister of State's closing words. No harm is done by the Amendment, but it is quite unnecessary. The only possible interpretation of Section 18(1) of the 1956 Act is that the Secretary of State has power to vary the original proposals in the light of any recommendations which are made. But there is no disadvantage in having matters put in for the avoidance of doubt, and. accordingly, we do not oppose the Amendment.