HL Deb 12 May 1964 vol 258 cc220-8

1. Where the Secretary of State proposes to make an amalgamation scheme under subsection (2) of section 21 of this Act, he shall give to the police authorities for the police areas proposed to he amalgamated a notice describing the general nature of the proposed scheme and specifying the period within which objection may be made thereto.

3. If, within the period specified in the notice, any police authority or council to whom the notice is given gives notice to the Secretary of State of an objection to the proposed scheme or any feature of that scheme, the Secretary of State shall, before making the scheme, cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of that objection by a person appointed by him (who shall not be an officer of police or of any Government department).

VISCOUNT AMORY moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "that objection" and insert "the proposed scheme". The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to widen somewhat the scope of the public inquiries provided for when objections are made to amalgamations promoted by the Secretary of State.

Clause 21 authorises the Secretary of State to promote amalgamation schemes when he considers they will be expedient for efficiency. Schedule 3 deals with the procedure for making such a scheme. The Secretary of State has said, I understand, that in practice, before promoting an amalgamation scheme, he will invite the police authorities to consider voluntary amalgamation. It follows that the Secretary of State will be taking the action proposed in Clause 21 only when objections are made. Schedule 3 gives police authorities the opportunity to state objections at an independent inquiry, and I would emphasise the word "independent"; and also the Secretary of State must consider the report before deciding to approve a scheme, and a copy of the report has to be laid before Parliament with the draft of the statutory instrument.

I ought to declare an interest because I have the honour to be the President of the County Councils Association. Our members are at one in their concern about what they believe to be a weakness in the proposals. The weakness is that the inquiry is to be limited to considering objections, and is not going to be allowed to consider the merits of the scheme itself. This inquiry is an independent inquiry, not an internal departmental inquiry. In those circumstances it would appear highly desirable and important that the person holding the inquiry should hear argued the reasons for, as well those as against, the proposals, otherwise it is difficult to see how he could reach an independent and fair judgment.

I submit that the wider scope which I am proposing in this Amendment would be wholly in accordance with precedent as regards general practice in such matters. The Police Act, 1946, lays it upon the Secretary of State to show that any amalgamation suggested is "expedient in the interests of efficiency"; and the Royal Commission, in paragraph 289 of their Report, said that under that Act the Secretary of State must show expressly at the inquiry that greater efficiency would result. The proposals in the Bill seem to me to throw the onus entirely on the objectors to prove their case, and, by doing this, I should have thought tilted the balance somewhat in favour of the Secretary of State's proposals in a matter where it is important that the balance should be evenly held between central and local Government, and in fact, where in doubt, there should be a slant in favour of the status quo.

Secondly, I should have thought that the person holding the inquiry would be hampered if he considered the objections without hearing argued the merits of the scheme itself. That, I think, was the view expressed by the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries. If I may quote a few words of their Report, they said: The right of individuals to state their case cannot be effective unless the case of the authority, with which they are in dispute, is adequately presented. An objection cannot properly be considered or developed in isolation from the proposal objected to. The third point is that, unless police authorities are given a full statement of the Secretary of State's reasons for the proposal and an opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses, they in their turn would be hampered, too. The Secretary of State himself sees some force in this, because on January 16 in another place he gave an assurance that an inspector would be present to explain the proposals. But I should have thought that a simple Amendment to the Bill was better, in a matter like this, than such an undertaking from a Home Secretary, because even Home Secretaries come and go.

Lastly, I think it is significant that, even in cases under Acts that do not specifically so provide, it has been found desirable, in practice, for consideration to be given at inquiries to the merits of the proposals, as well as into the objections. Examples are the Local Government Act, 1929, and the New Towns Act, 1946. The point I want to make is that the purpose of an independent inquiry is not primarily to inform the Minister, who will already know the police authority's objections. That is the distinction, I think, between an independent public investigation and a departmental inquiry. That distinction, I am informed, was clearly drawn in the judgment in the case of the Magistrates of Ayr v. the Lord Advocate in 1950. In that case it was held that the Secretary of State was not entitled to proceed with the scheme.

Apart from the merits of this particular case, I think many will feel concerned lest this procedure becomes a precedent in future cases. I have little doubt that my noble friend, when he replies, will remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission favoured in this case that the inquiry should be limited as proposed in the Bill. But it is not apparent in the Report that in fact the disadvantages of that limitation were brought to the Royal Commission's attention. These amalgamations do affect the interests of the public, and of private people, too. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary suggested in another place, when a similar kind of proposal was made, that it would amount to an obstacle, if adopted, to the Government's programme of amalgamations. I should be sorry if I thought that were so, because in general I am strongly in support of the proposals in this Bill, but I should have preferred to regard my Amendment as a safeguard rather than an obstacle. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 29, leave out ("that objection") and insert ("the proposed scheme").—(Viscount Amory.)

LORD MTLVERTON

I do not wish to detain the House at this time. I rise merely to say that the case that has just been so lucidly and convincingly put before the Committee has the complete support of all the authorities concerned, because in this case the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations coincide entirely with those of the County Councils Association. It is to be hoped—and I am confident of this—that this will be the exception in this Committee stage, and that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will finish in a blaze of enlightened reason by allowing this Amendment to be approved.

LORD STONHAM

In order to make it unanimous, may I make it clear to the noble Lord that the lucid and cogent case which has now been put forward has the unanimous support of all the noble Lords now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.

7.34 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

I do not think that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench ought to make up their minds till they have heard me speak. The effect of the Amendment would be that a local inquiry concerning a proposed compulsory amalgamation scheme would be held in respect of the scheme generally and not, as is the present effect of the Bill, into objections to the scheme. The need to reduce the number of separate police forces by a series of amalgamations was fully accepted by both sides of the House in the other place, and I think that at this stage of the Bill we can say that it is fully accepted here as a matter of principle. It is essential not only that adequate powers should be available to support this policy, but also that the procedure should not be allowed to frustrate it.

Under the proposals in the Bill, the Secretary of State will be bound by the reference in Clause 21(2), as my noble friend said, to "the interests of efficiency", and his power to make a compulsory amalgamation scheme will be exercisable only where he considers that it is expedient in the interests of efficiency to do so. It is right, I think, that the responsibility for judging whether an amalgamation would be in the interests of efficiency should rest on the Home Secretary, who, in exercising this judgment, will be advised by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. At the same time, it is important that the Home Secretary, in reaching his decision, should give full weight to any objections to his proposal. The Bill therefore provides for the setting up of an inquiry under an independent person to hear any such objections, and the inquiry will be specifically into the matter which is the subject of the objection.

May I interpose here that my right honourable friend has undertaken that the case for him will be put at the inquiry by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. He will put the Home Secretary's case. If the Home Secretary decides to proceed with the amalgamation scheme, the scheme—I am talking about procedure now—together with the report of the inquiry, must be laid before Parliament. In the course of any debate on a Prayer for its annulment Members of Parliament will then be fully informed both of the Home Secretary's proposal and of the objections to it, so that that is all aired in public.

I regret to say that I do not like the Amendment for this reason, and for this reason only. I believe that the form of inquiry provided for in the Bill is going to do what my noble friend in fact wants, but we do not like the Amendment because it would extend the scope of the inquiry to cover the whole scheme, whatever the nature of the particular objections raised and however limited their scope. If, of course, there were a complete case against the scheme, that would be heard at the inquiry, but if there were only certain objections my noble friend's Amendment would still make the whole subject of the scheme debatable at the inquiry, and that would be unnecessary. We cannot accept the Amendment for those reasons, if for no others.

But I think that what my noble friend wants is that, in the event of its being unnecessary to cover the whole scheme, the Home Secretary's case will be heard and the objector's scheme will be heard. Then, at the end of the day, if the Secretary of State says, "I am going ahead with the scheme, having taken all this into account", the scheme is then debated in Parliament, and it is up to Parliament to give the final decision. In view of what I have said, and in view of the fact that if the Amendment is carried it will make for inquiries into matters which, in fact, were not raised as objections, I hope my noble friend will see his way to withdrawing his Amendment.

VISCOUNT AMORY

I own that I feel very disappointed indeed. I think my noble friend is a hardhearted man, and I felt pretty sure that I was going to turn up a lucky timber this evening. I see so much eye to eye with him on so many issues that I felt sure I had a distinct pull over the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I think my noble friend would have slept better if he had found it possible to give me some crumb of comfort. I own that I am not very much comforted by what he has said, or by the objection that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble friend see to this Amendment. As 1, frankly, do not feel comforted, I think it would be rather pusillanimous on my part to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. The powerful cohorts that were supporting me have temporarily left the battlefield, and therefore it may well be that my view will not prevail and I may be over-whelmed by a force majeure.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedules 4 to 8 agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

LORD DERWENT

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 55, line 22, at end insert—

(" The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946.9& 10 Geo. 6. c. 62. In Section 78 for the words 'that Act' there shall be substituted the words 'The Police Pensions Act 1948'.")
—(Lord Derwent)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Enactments Repealed]:

LORD DERWENT

May I speak to Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 together? These Amendments repeal the statutory provisions requiring the appointment of standing joint committees, together with associated provisions. The Bill already transfers from standing joint committees their police functions, and since the Bill was introduced an amendment has been made in the Administration of Justice Bill to transfer their other functions. The way is now clear, therefore, to repeal the provisions requiring the appointment of standing joint committees, as was done in the other case. The Amendments mark the final demise of standing joint committees, and these bodies, which were formed ad hoc in 1888, have played for over three-quarters of a century a notable and distinguished part in county administration. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

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.")
—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

I beg to move Amendment 45.

Amendment moved—

Page 58, line 54, at end insert—

(" 21 & 22 Geo. 5.c. 45. The Local Government 9 (Clerks) Act 1931. Section 5(4)
In Section 15 the definition of 'Joint committee'.")
(Lord Derwent)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

I beg to move. —

Amendment moved—

Page 58, line 58, at end insert—

("23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 51. The Local Government Act 1933. Section 157 (2). In Section 159(1) the words from 'including' to the end.
In Section 305 the definition of 'Standing joint committee'.")
(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This Amendment adds to the Repeal Schedule the Police Federation Acts, 1959 and 1961, which made minor changes in the constitution of the Federation. The substance of these Acts will be repeated in the Regulations to be made under Clause 44, and when these Regulations come into force the Acts should be repealed. The Police Federation have been consulted. I beg to moved.

Amendment moved—

Page 60, 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.")
(Lord Derwent)

LORD STONHAM

As I had the pleasure of seeing both the Acts through all their stages in your Lordships' House, I should like to know whether it is the case that, under this Bill, the changes made by these two Acts which we are now repealing will continue without alteration. And, as I shall not be speaking again, I should like, whilst regretting the noble Lord's success at stonewalling, to thank him for the very courteous manner in which he has discharged his task.

LORD DERWENT

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I do not say the changes will not be altered in the Regulations, but the substance of them will not be altered.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.