Lords Sitting of 15 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Religious Education
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the report by the Chief Inspector of Schools published on 7th December that in primary schools "standards were generally unsatisfactory in Religious Education (RE)" (Pt. II para.4.).
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government take every opportunity to promote good quality religious education in schools. In particular, local authorities in England and Wales are required to review their agreed syllabuses for religious education. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has been asked to develop model RE syllabuses. A new circular has been issued to give guidance to schools on their duty to provide religious education. The Ofsted inspection system will monitor and identify any school failing to do so.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful for that helpful and encouraging reply. Does the noble Baroness agree that many teachers who are not specially trained in the subject do not feel comfortable delivering the RE syllabus? What action is being taken to ensure an adequate supply of suitably trained teachers to deliver that important and sensitive subject?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord is important. It is vital that teachers should feel comfortable with the subject and to that end the grant for education support and training is making money available. Religious education has been added to the number of subjects for which it can be made available to help with improving specialisms in schools and improving co-ordination for religious education in schools.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1993 a survey by the Religious Education Council found that more than half those teaching religious education in secondary schools had no formal qualifications in the subject? Will she accept that the figure, which is lower than for any other national curriculum subject, is bound to affect the quality of RE teaching? Can she give an assurance that the matter will be addressed urgently?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no overall shortage of religious education specialists, either in terms of those recruited to initial teacher training or of those employed in the schools. In the January survey
92
there were only 15 vacancies in the subject in the country overall. It is true, however, that of 13,100 religious education specialists in the country, only half were teaching their own subject. It is not therefore a shortage of specialists; it is a shortage in terms of the importance which both LEAs and schools give to the subject and of the necessity to make sure that specialisms are used in the right place.
Baroness David: My Lords, following up that answer, can the Minister say how many teachers of religious education in primary schools are not qualified in the subject at the moment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the number will be a great many. Primary school teachers are generalists, not specialists. A primary school teacher with only religious education as a specialism would be quite seriously disadvantaged in having to cope with teaching maths, English, science, history, geography, art, music and so on. It is essential that we do more to provide good quality support with teaching materials and advice and to ensure that the grant which I mentioned is made full use of so that specialisms and co-ordination can be much improved in primary schools.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to what extent is the teaching of religion in primary schools confined to the religion to which the child has been accustomed and in which it has been brought up? Would it not be better if the teaching were confined in that way and if the teaching of other religions were postponed until the child was older and in the secondary school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend the assurance that Christianity, as the main religious tradition of the country, will be taught at every key stage, at Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4, and that knowledge of other religions is also a requirement. Also, model syllabuses have just been released for consultation. There is a real anxiety, which I share with my noble friend, that young children aged between five and 11 are required to cover too many religions. That question will be covered during the consultation period.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this subject is different from all the others? It is not only a matter of training and qualifications but also one of religious commitment. Most teachers nowadays take the view that to try to teach the subject without religious commitment is sheer hypocrisy. That is the problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to make the distinction between learning about religion and teaching for belief. Learning about religion is an educational process which has an importance. What is important is learning about religion as a cultural, historical tradition of the country. It must be for the Churches and families to go further and to instruct to promote belief, if that is what the noble Lord is hinting at.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that subjects are nevertheless best taught by those who have a sympathy for them? In the light of the fact that

93
80 per cent. of school pupils in the primary sector are taught all subjects by the same teacher, will she encourage, so far as the remaining 20 per cent. are concerned, where specialists are employed to teach particular subjects, giving priority in respect of religious education where the teacher has no such sympathy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a number of very good reports encourage primary schools to look at and exploit the specialisms of the teachers on their staff. That would cover people who have a specialism in teaching this subject. Sadly, it is also true that some schools will not allow people who are specialists in the subject and who can speak about it with authority— for example, local vicars, priests and faith healers— to help in a school. Where schools exploit the expertise in the community the school is enriched by it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this area of education is absolutely central to our future as a stable multicultural society? Does she further agree that teachers must have in-depth knowledge of the traditions and faiths with which they deal? Does that not emphasise the absolute importance of the relationship between higher education and teacher training?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a matter of Professor Joad and not Professor Judd on this occasion. It really does depend on what one means by multiculturalism. So long as the integrity of each religion is preserved, then education is very sound in prospect. Sadly, however, it has become a melting pot and, as my noble friends like to refer to it, a mish-mash. I do not believe that it does any more than serve to confuse children if it is done badly. What is absolutely essential is that the integrity of each of the religions is properly preserved when taught.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the view expressed in the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and by my noble friend Lord Elton represent the outlook of most parents who are concerned about having religious education from the start of a school career?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important that whatever is taught to a child between the ages of five and 11 the child is able to benefit from it educationally. If the child is overloaded by being presented with a curriculum that he or she simply cannot manage, then that will create confusion. But it is also important to say that one of the objectives of this whole exercise is to underpin all education both morally and spiritually. I believe that we are doing a great deal to get that right.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend explain the arrangements in the teacher training colleges? How will the teachers who want to teach religion be taught?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are two points. If it is a question of an RE specialist, it will be the family subject. If it is a school teacher who will teach a range of subjects in primary school, one measure that will help is the introduction of the six-subject Bachelor of
94
Education degree. Maths, English and science will be the core three subjects; the other three subjects will be of choice. There is therefore an opportunity for one of those subjects to be religious education, and it will be taught in greater depth to those teachers.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

British Library: St. Pancras Site
2.46 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future development of the vacant St. Pancras site immediately north of the British Library.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government plan to dispose of the land to the north of the St. Pancras site once it is no longer needed for the building project. The British Library is preparing a case for retaining some of the land for further library buildings. We shall, of course, consider the library's proposals carefully when they have been finalised.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer so far as it goes. However, is she aware that three important functions of the British Library— namely, the National Sound Archive, the Photographic Processing Unit and the Conservation Bindery— are in other parts of London and cannot be included in the present building? Would it not make administrative sense if at least part of this site could be reserved specifically for the British Library so that in any future extension those units could be incorporated?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the case for relocating the areas about which my noble friend spoke will be considered when the British Library has completed its investment appraisal for use of the surplus land. Those sections operate satisfactorily from their present locations. Knowing that this Question was coming up, I took the opportunity last Friday to spend an entire morning on the site in the building—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: — and I brought back a pack full of riveting information for your Lordships which I have placed in the Library; that is, the Library in this House, not that library.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the retention of this site is essential for expansion since, after 14 years in construction, the British Library will have room for only 1,200 readers — that is, not many more than Great Russell Street— while the French national library, which has taken only five years to build and will be completed next year, will have room for 3,500 readers? Is it not therefore essential that the new site should be used for an additional reading room?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in the long run it is a question of cost. The reason why our British

95
Library will have fewer places than the French library is that, although it was originally planned to have 3,000 places, further examination, which was undertaken very, very thoroughly, proved that that is really not necessary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I declare an interest in this Question as a user of the British Library. Is the noble Baroness aware that a national library must grow? Will she also bear in mind that none of us is in a great hurry to go through again the expense and dislocation of the relocation of the British Library? Is she therefore aware that if this land is not made available to the Library that might happen rather sooner than we wish?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I answered the first part of the noble Earl's question when I said that it was a question of future cost. We are already spending a great deal of money on the first part of this library and we shall have to examine the future costs very carefully. I put it to the noble Earl that it would be a sad reflection were the field of creative endeavour in which this country has most excelled over the centuries— in other words, literature— to have no single focus for celebration, preservation and active use. It is very important that this library continues. Perhaps I may also remind your Lordships that we are not talking about the library in this Question but about the site at present used by the builders.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most people regard the way in which the national library has been planned and built as a total national disaster and a vast waste of public money?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. Furthermore, as I have already said, today's Question refers to the builders' site and not the library.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if the Government are not prepared to retain the land, perhaps for the future development of what must be regarded as one of the world's greatest libraries, will they at least give a categorical assurance, preferably in this House and now, that the British Library will be given the opportunity to raise funds to purchase the land itself, so that the future development of that library will be possible?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government would be prepared to consider proposals for private funds; but the British Library would also need to prepare a business case showing how it would meet the cost of the building and the ongoing costs.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be better to lease the land for a period of time, perhaps long enough for the anguish felt about the cost of the library as it currently stands to abate and when perhaps more optimistic views could be entertained? The land on which it is sited will not be recoverable once it is sold. It was a unique happening to find 13 acres of land together in the Somerstown site. That will not occur again. The drawing together of the parts of the British Library has largely been achieved by the existing structure. Is my noble friend concerned—
96
indeed I ask her to show some concern about the matter herself— at the remoteness of the newspaper library, which is way up in the rustic, further regions of the Northern Line? Does she agree that the great virtue of the existing site is that it is on the inner circle? Is not the accessibility of the site its greatest virtue?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the present building meets the British Library's key requirements. It is already library policy to operate from the two sites: London and Boston Spa. There is room for expansion at Boston Spa. There is another element, on which your Lordships have not touched, concerning this land. It is why we are being very cautious about our plans for it. The Union Railways has indicated a requirement to lease 2.8 acres of the land for site purposes from 1997 to 2003. But that will depend on the timetable for the construction of the Channel Tunnel link.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the site referred to is not of great market value, in the sense that it is scheduled by the planning authority for use only as an open space or for community housing? Is she also aware of the fact that the National Sound Archive, which is now housed at Exhibition Road in South Kensington, ought to be next door to the Music Library? It has always been the ambition of the library to put it there. Furthermore— I speak from direct knowledge because I negotiated the arrangement— is she aware that, if that site of the National sound Archive at Exhibition Road is sold, under the terms of the agreement that money can be used only to provide similar accommodation elsewhere? In other words, first, the land is cheap, if it is realised, and, secondly, already the British Library has an asset at Exhibition Road which can be used to defray the cost of some of the building. Will those factors please be taken into account?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the last factors mentioned by the noble Lord will be taken into account. The current value of the land is estimated at £ 1.5 million. But at the time of any sale the value would be determined by the most favourable planning consent that could be obtained at the time.

Accident and Emergency Services
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will undertake to improve conditions and standards of care in accident and emergency units.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumlberlege): My Lords, the aim of the Government's policies is to ensure that patients receive high quality accident and emergency services whenever they need them. We are continuing to take action to develop and improve standards and conditions in accident and emergency departments.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that accident and emergency cases which arrive at the hospital have probably been sent there by a doctor and must therefore be treated immediately? Is she aware that there is much concern, particularly in the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and Unison, that emergency and accident cases are put on trolleys in corridors? That situation ought not to be tolerated. Will she at least be prepared to examine what appears to be— I have made some investigations— a somewhat distressing situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we shall certainly undertake to do that. However, I should like to set the situation in context. Over 13 million people attend accident and emergency departments annually. The Government find it absolutely unacceptable for people to wait on trolleys once a decision for admission has been made. But sometimes it is necessary to wait, for observation purposes or for diagnostic treatments which have to take place in the accident and emergency department. It is interesting to see how similar hospitals vary, even within the same vicinity. We believe that a great deal of that is due to poor management.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a danger in looking at accident and emergency departments in isolation from the rest of the hospital? If beds are blocked, for example by geriatric patients, in medical or even surgical wards, will there not be a trickle-down effect, making it impossible for the patients who need to go up to the other wards to get out of the accident and emergency department?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is essential that the hospital should have a good discharge policy and that there are community facilities to support people once they leave the hospital. We know that, with some of the new procedures that are being introduced, that is possible and when a patient comes in for treatment a discharge policy is worked out almost immediately so that the support services can be in place when the time comes for that person to leave.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister studied the report of the Royal College of Nursing which was published only last month? It shows that in one third of accident and emergency units in hospitals patients have to stay overnight before they are admitted to a ward. Does she accept that that is not a satisfactory situation and that in fact it is worse outside London than it is in London itself, contrary to some views? The average waiting time is five and a half hours. Will she confirm that that is a situation to which she and her colleagues must address their minds?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a very interesting aspect of the review of the Royal College of Nursing was that resources were not the issue. The Royal College itself said that it was management that needed to be tightened up. The survey carried out was a
98
telephone survey. In two of the hospitals that were rung up, it was difficult to find the person who had replied to the survey.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, but does the noble Baroness agree that in that report it was said that a high proportion of the cases were as a result of bed closures, which surely must be linked with resources?
Baroness Cumberlege: I do not accept that, my Lords. One can look at some of the London hospitals — for example, University College Hospital — where 71 beds have been closed. We know that it has one of the best accident and emergency departments in the country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she found it "absolutely unacceptable" for patients to wait in a corridor on a trolley. Did she mean the word "absolutely" literally enough to be prepared to commit additional money to prevent that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear what I meant. I qualified it by saying that of course there are times when patients do have to wait on trolleys for diagnostic, observation and other purposes. But, once admission has been agreed, then that patient should be admitted. That is our policy and that is what we are working towards.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there have been some improvements in the accident and emergency departments since consultants were appointed? And can she say how many accident and emergency departments do not have consultants in charge and leave patients to junior doctors?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We notice that, where consultants are in charge, the difference is very great indeed. I am afraid I do not have the figures but I shall certainly make them available to her. We note also that, where there are hospital discharge managers and where senior nurses are bed managers, the difference is considerable. That is what I am saying in terms of the managing process.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that nearly half of all surgical units are cutting back on operations and one-third are giving priority to patients of GP fundholders? Is she aware also that more than half of the NHS trusts are facing a steep rise in emergency admissions as the GPs fight to obtain beds for their patients? Does the Minister agree with the view therefore that nurses should be given the authority to admit patients to hospital, provided there is a bed, without having to wait for a decision to be made by a doctor?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the question of GP fundholders is not an issue in this case. The patients of GP fundholders have direct access to A&E departments, as does every other patient in the country. Where patients need accident and emergency treatment, they receive it.

Grant-Maintained Schools
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What future plans they have for grant-maintained status for schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we will continue to make sure that parents and governors have the opportunities and information to exercise their right, under the law, to choose grant-maintained status. We are also developing a common funding formula for self-governing schools which is fair both to the schools themselves and to the local education authorities, which is transparent and which offers a reasonable prospect of stability in funding.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the Minister say how much money has been spent on the so-called "cash protection" for grant-maintained schools? Will she confirm that the nearly £ 250,000 being spent on advertising grant-maintained schools is additional to the funds required to carry out the first part of her Answer? Only 1,000 of the 24,000 schools opted out during the five years of the scheme. Does that not suggest that the schools, governors and parents are not convinced of the advantages? In those circumstances, will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that no opt-out will be allowed without a ballot?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is intensively anxious about this policy. If it were as unsuccessful as the noble Lord believes, he would not be exercised about it. Secondly, the noble Lord confuses cash protection with money for providing information to parents. If we take all the money spent since the policy was established in 1988, it still does not amount to 20p per child. As I said in a previous Answer, that would barely buy a pencil for each child. The noble Lord asked four questions and I believe it is traditional to answer two at the Box.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister clarify once and for all whether or not the Government are committed to free choice by parents in this matter? If they are, will they honour that commitment by recognising that the overwhelming majority of parents want lo stay with local authorities and that therefore local authorities should be given all the backing and support possible by the Government to make a success of their role in the future?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we remain absolutely committed to parents being the key determinant as to whether or not a school should go grant maintained. The noble Lord is not in a position to say that the overwhelming number of parents do not support being grant maintained. Until the new Act of Parliament came into being, not all parents were given an opportunity to answer the question. It is now necessary for every governing body to return to that question on an annual basis.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many parents and teachers who have been deeply dissatisfied and disillusioned by local authority schools have set up their own new schools which are providing excellent education and meeting most parental wishes, often with strong spiritual and moral values? Can my noble friend give an assurance that, if those schools wish to take advantage of the new legislation and opt in to grant-maintained status, they will be given every encouragement?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is, absolutely right. There is a new measure in the recent Education Act 1993, and any application will be considered on its merits. We will continue to support that. With regard to local education authorities, the situation is quite depressing. Only two weeks ago I visited a local education authority which had a five-point educational strategy for the authority; one was to oppose at all costs a parent's right to opt out.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as we know, having been told twice by the Minister, the cost of a pencil is 20p. Can she tell us therefore what the overall cost has been and is for cash protection for grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give the precise figure at the Dispatch Box. It is public information and I shall make it available to the noble Lord and place the information in the Library.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that grant-maintained schools have been extremely successful not only in raising academic standards and helping parents, but also in improving the fabric of the buildings? That is something which has been drawn to my attention on many occasions. Does she also agree that many of us regret the fact that many parents find it difficult to exercise their right to vote because there is so much opposition to the opting-out principles from officials at local level?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's second point is absolutely right. It was again quite depressing to see that a Member in the other place, Mr. Don Foster, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, had actually written to every chief education officer about campaigning against the opting-out policy. My noble friend's first point is also correct. All the surveys that have been carried out— one was very recently reported — show that the amount of value for money obtained for every grant-maintained school outstrips that for LEA-maintained schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Government allow the Electoral Reform Society to have the monopoly of balloting parents when they make every other affair a matter for competitive tendering?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give an absolute answer to that question. It would be wrong for me to guess. As far as I know, it has been involved in most of the ballots so far. However, discussion is taking place about whether it alone should

101
be used. We need to be concerned that, whatever organisation is involved in the balloting, it should be seen to be done properly.

Business of the House: Debates,16th February
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Boardman and the Lord Brougham and Vaux set down for 16th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours. — (Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: police areas]:
[Amendments Nos.1 and 2 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No.3:
Page 50, line 24, at end insert:
("British Transport Police
The British Transport Police").
The noble Lord said: I am raising this issue today in order to give the Government the opportunity to tell the Committee what action they propose to take in respect of a serious error which has been made in the rail privatisation legislation. It is an error which will lead to the powers of arrest of the British Transport Police being drastically curtailed.
As from 1st April this year the British Transport Police will only be able to arrest offenders on British Rail property. But most of the property of British Rail will, as from April, be owned by Railtrack. From that date the British Transport Police will not be able to follow alleged offenders to their homes, interview them and, when appropriate, arrest them, for the Department of Transport has inadvertently removed their powers as constables. This will create a truly remarkable situation. A police force of 2,200 officers will at a stroke have its powers removed.
Let me illustrate the seriousness of the forthcoming situation. There are 23 police forces in this country which are smaller than the British Transport Police. The transport police investigate more crimes than 24 other
102
police forces. In 1992–93 they were called upon to investigate 1,237 crimes of violence. I exclude for various reasons those committed on the London Underground. In addition, they had to investigate 388 sexual offences,928 robberies,3,097 burglaries,2,862 cases of fraud and 37,582 cases of theft. Yet as from April, as a result of the Government's own legislation, they will in the overwhelming majority of these cases no longer possess the powers of constable and thus be able to follow through their investigations.
A number of questions arise from this unhappy situation. First, how did this extraordinary mistake come to be made in the first instance by the Department of Transport? I hope that the noble Earl will be able to explain this matter to us. Secondly, what action do the Government propose to take to rectify this situation? I hope that we will be assured in unequivocal terms that government amendments will be introduced to the Bill at the Report stage. Thirdly, assuming that amendments are introduced to rectify these errors, what will happen in the period between April and the day when the Bill receives Royal Assent? Presumably the rest of the police service, overburdened as it is with the investigation of crime, will have to carry the burden caused by the Department of Transport's errors. I should be grateful if the noble Earl was able to answer these questions.
Next, has the Association of Chief Police Officers yet been told that as from April the police will have to take on this burden of work which has been removed from the British Transport Police as the result of an error in a government Bill? If it has been so informed, I should be very grateful if I could be told on what date it was informed. I am sure that the Government will appreciate the indignation that the police will feel, overburdened as they are with work, that they will now have to use their scarce resources to deal with criminal conduct arising on the railways
Lastly, who will pay for this work? The Department of Transport has made a serious error. Can we be assured that police authorities will receive financial compensation for the work that their forces will have to carry out?
There is a further matter which I have drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport in correspondence. I refer to the need to establish a new and representative police authority for the British Transport Police. Given the creation of Railtrack, the constitutional position in respect of the accountability of and support for the British Transport Police is clearly most unsatisfactory. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure us that on this issue too there will be government amendments on Report to deal with this important matter.
The British Transport Police carry out work of high national importance, not least in the area of terrorism. It is essential that the problems I have identified this afternoon are resolved before the Bill leaves the House. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to support briefly but wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is an extraordinary catalogue of errors. One can well understand how errors could have occurred during the somewhat chaotic passage of the Railways Bill, but what cannot be understood and what is quite inexcusable is the fact that no adequate steps have been taken to correct those errors and to ensure the continued existence of the transport police, who have the sole responsibility for policing large public spaces in this country and, as the noble Lord made clear, do it on a considerable scale very effectively. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to make a favourable reply to the arguments raised.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, posed a number of questions. His amendment highlights a difficulty into which we have run. The noble Lord will know that the amendment as it stands will not work because it appears to treat the British Transport Police as an area of England and Wales, which of course would be unsuitable.
No doubt the noble Lord's main purpose in moving the amendment is to explore questions about the powers and jurisdiction of members of the British Transport Police. There appears to be some doubt as to the British Transport Police's position in respect of Railtrack from 1st April. The British Transport Police will continue as a single police force responsible for policing Britain's rail network after 1st April. British Rail is to remain the employer of the British Transport Police for the immediate future. In order to ensure that the British Transport Police will continue to police the whole of the restructured railway, an order amending the British Transport Police Force Scheme 1963 will be laid before Parliament shortly.
The inference behind the noble Lord's amendment is that the British Transport Police will not have full jurisdiction on Railtrack property. I can assure the Committee that that is not the case. The intention of the Railways Act 1993 was that jurisdiction of the British Transport Police should be unaffected. However, we are aware that there may be some doubt now as to the precise extent of the powers which the British Transport Police may have beyond Railtrack property. The British Transport Police may act as constables on and in the vicinity of Railtrack's property. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is urgently considering, in conjunction with British Rail and the British Transport Police, whether the wording represents a problem and, if it does, how best to address it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the Government would bring forward an amendment at Report stage. There is a problem here which my right honourable friend is addressing. The action we take will depend on the outcome of those consultations and discussions. The problem has only recently been identified, arid it is one to which a solution is being sought.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I should like to ask a practical question arising out of this matter. Until an hour or two ago I did not know that this problem had arisen. The date of 1st April has been on the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and of the noble Earl the Minister. I used to represent part of the city of Leeds. Noble Lords will have heard recently of behaviour at Elland Road football ground on the death of Sir Matt Busby. One can only wonder what kind of people we are dealing with. Many of them arrive at the main city station on the day of the match. They come early and they then have to make their way to Elland Road. There are often real problems.
Out in the street I have seen mounted police charging down rather like a scene from the battle of Balaclava Inside the station problems arise and it is nasty to be involved. In those days I often travelled on a Saturday afternoon. As regards this date in April, I can understand that the Minister of Transport is concerned, but unless something is done pretty quickly there will be a lot of people in Leeds worrying about what is going to happen around the station. There is this small group of people, not always from the town or city concerned, who behave in this abysmal way. The British Transport Police have a very good record at stations and on the trains as they move from one part of the country to another. Will that be all right? Will they be able to do that after April or is this problem going to carry on?
Earl Ferrers: I hope that I can allay the disquiet of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. The fact is that the British Transport Police at the moment have control and jurisdiction over all the railway system in, on and in the vicinity of the railway organisation. In other words, they are responsible for what happens on the trains, on the railways and in the stations. They can actually chase after a person outside the station if that is their wish. At the moment that will continue to be the case. The only difficulty is the interpretation of the words and whether or not "in the vicinity of" is more constricting than we anticipate. It is that point which needs to be addressed. I can assure the noble Lord that the British Transport Police will have full jurisdiction on and in the vicinity of the stations, which is the point that the noble Lord is anxious about. That will continue just the same after 1st April as before.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not propose to develop this argument further this afternoon. The noble Earl has said two things. As I understand it, there is some doubt about the situation. According to the British Transport Police there is no doubt about the matter at all. Their powers as constables have been inadvertently removed by the Department of Transport and that is the reality. The second statement made by the noble Earl was that London Transport is urgently examining the situation and, I trust, with the Home Office at the same time. Perhaps I may make this suggestion to the noble Earl — that is, that we discuss this matter between now and Report stage so that it can be clarified. I am sure he will understand that we shall not feel able to ignore this issue in the period between the beginning of the Committee stage today and 'Third Reading. We expect government amendments to be introduced.

105
At the same time I have asked a number of questions which have not been answered. I asked whether members of the Association of Chief Police Officers have been told that they are likely to have to take over many of the responsibilities of the British Transport Police as from 1st April. That question has not been answered. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me an answer, perhaps in correspondence following this discussion, and also the date on which ACPO was informed.
I am sure that the noble Earl will realise the implications for the rest of the British police service; namely, that as from April this year they have to take on a heavy burden of work which is now being carried out by the British Transport Police. We cannot allow this situation of doubt to continue any longer. I shall certainly ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment but, as I am sure the noble Earl will recognise, we shall be coming back to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Police forces and police authorities]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.4:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("2A and 3") and insert ("and 3 (as amended)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I have to apologise to the Committee if its meaning is not immediately clear even to the keen minds which are present in the Chamber. My justification for the amendment is of course the particular clause in the Bill which my amendment seeks to change. I admit that, on the face of it, both are entirely incomprehensible. Wishing to understand what exactly is the law which we now seek to amend does not seem to me to be an elaborate precaution. I sought the help of the Public Bill Office. I was referred to Statutes in Force, the 1979 edition, which is the latest existing in this House. I found that that edition revealed what has happened since to Sections 2 and 3. However, it made no reference to Section 2A. The Notes on Clauses were equally silent on this important matter. I was then zealous to understand. I resorted to Halsbury's Statutes, volume 33; 1993 edition. I studied most carefully pages 675 to 677. There I found an account of what has happened to Sections 2 and 3 and, for the first time, light was shed on Section 2A.
From time to time I have ventured to express some doubt as to whether our legislative procedures were as excellent as I am sure that this House would wish them to be. When I recently suggested in the most mild terms to Her Majesty's Government that they might consider some form of inquiry into our legislative procedures to see whether they were as high class as they should be, I was given a very negative reply, the clear inference of which was that they could not possibly be improved. That is a proposition which is open to doubt.
I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time, but without driving Members of the Committee into a very deep sleep perhaps I may quote one passage from page 675. It is a small section of a footnote which gives an account of the history of the section in the
106
Police Act 1964 with which we are dealing. The Committee will be well aware that we have moved on from the sections of the Police Act and that we are dealing with what has happened to those sections since then. I thought that the Committee might be interested in the sort of guidance which is made available so fortunately to us so that we can have our minds very clearly focused on the issues.
The footnote to which I refer on page 675 reads as follows:
"The words omitted from sub-ss (1), (4), (5), and the whole of sub-s (3), were repealed, and sub-s (6) was substituted, by the Local Government Act 1972, ss 196(1), (2),272(1), Sch 30. The words in square brackets in sub-s (1) and in the first pair of square brackets in sub-s (2) were substituted, and the words omitted from para 2(b) and the whole of para 2(c) (both of which had been inserted by the Local Government Act 1972, s 217, Sch 27, Pt II, para 18) were repealed, by the Local Government Act 1985, ss 37,102, Sch 11, para 1, Sch 17. The words in the second pair of square brackets in sub-s (2) (b) were substituted by the Courts Act 1971, s 53(5)".
It may be a total inadequacy of my dwindling intellectual powers, but I find that extremely difficult to follow. It will be comforting to me at any rate to know that even so eminent an ornament of the present Administration as my noble friend also finds that material a matter for stumbling and that he is not perhaps inclined to give it the crown of lucidity. I do not wish to prolong my remarks too much, but I seriously believe that that is not the way in which our legislative procedures should be carried out.
I have always had very limited sympathy with what is, in my view, rather misdescribed as "industrial action". But there is one instance of industrial action in history with which I feel increasing sympathy. It took place quite a long time ago and is known as the "Secession of the Plebs". There were two occasions on which the workers of Ancient Rome said that they had had enough and withdrew from the city. As far as I recollect, the terms of their return were that somebody should write down the law in comprehensible terms and that a special officer, a Tribune, should be appointed who could, if necessary, explain the law to them. I believe that such an officer is very badly needed in this Committee. I am certainly not that man and would not dream of offering myself for such a ghastly post.
Not for the last time during the passage of this Bill, I feel constrained to offer my very deep sympathy to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He has the very unpleasant duty of explaining and justifying the drafting of this measure. I hope— it would be an unexpected realisation of an ambition but nevertheless "hope springs eternal"— that my noble friend might get up to say that, as a result of these few remarks that I have been tempted to make, some kind of effort will be made to tidy up the processes whereby such stuff is allowed to appear on the pages of the statute book. I recall that when the Charities Bill was in Committee my noble friend who was dealing with that Bill on behalf of the Government was exceedingly helpful. I hope that he will show the same degree of good will today and devote his very considerable energies to persuading those professional obfuscators responsible for this kind of garbage to do better in future. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with his usual wonderful combination of modesty and vehemence, has drawn our attention to the very confused situation that arose after the Police Act 1964 had been in force for some years when the government of the day, of whom we were both supporters, in the 1970s and later tried to modify it in order to make it dovetail with the local government reforms which we supported. I agree with my noble friend that an unsatisfactory situation was created in our legislation. In passing, I should like to say how much I am sure that we all welcome the efforts of my noble friend to get legislation simplified.
I should like to try to comfort my noble friend on the matter that he has raised, if that is possible. By getting rid of Sections 2,2. A and 3 of the Police Act 1964, as they have been amended, and substituting Clause 2 of this Bill, simplification will be achieved so far as the form is concerned. I do not speak of the substance of the matter because so many of us have some doubts about the substance, to which we shall come later. However, it seems to me that we have to get rid of Sections 2,2A and 3 of the Police Act 1964, as amended, and we are clearly doing so in this provision. I think that, as a result, this is an improvement on the law as it at present appears on the statute book.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to intervene in family quarrels, but surely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was making is that there is no Section 2A in force at present. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can find it, we shall be grateful to him.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that the modesty of my noble friend Lord Peyton is overwhelming. He said that he found enormous difficulty in understanding the provisions and referred to how difficult that is when one has "dwindling intellectual powers". My noble friend has the advantage of me there: I have never had any dwindling intellectual powers simply because I never had any intellectual powers in the first place.
I agree with my noble friend that in all cases I find dealing with matters of legislation enormously complex. When my noble friend was kind enough to say that he looked to me for help as being "an ornament" on the Front Bench, I was not quite certain whether that was supposed to be a compliment. I thought that an ornament was something that sat upon a shelf and looked pretty but did not actually do anything. I only hope that I shall be able to do something for my noble friend in trying to persuade him that this is not all that bad.
My noble friend will not be surprised to learn that I believe his amendment to be unnecessary. It is not always easy to get to the bottom of every detail of a Bill which refers to earlier legislation. I am sure that my noble friend will sympathise with me because I do not have the advantage of legal qualifications, which he manages to make up for most adequately.
Legislation is complex. We should do what we can to keep it clear and simple. I agree that one needs a fully up-to-date text of the Police Act 1964 in order to
108
decipher every last dot and comma. I am glad to know that a text is readily available. I agree also that if my noble friend took the simple course of comparing the Bill with the 1964 Act as printed he would have run into trouble. He needs to compare it with the 1964 Act as amended by various statutes. My information is that Halsbury's Statutes contains that information. The volume has recently been fully updated to contain the legislation relating to the police. I was concerned when my noble friend said that when he looked at Halsbury he found that it did not contain the right words. I wonder whether he looked at the "right" version, so to speak — the last version. My information is that that is the correct authority—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: said that the 1979 edition, which is the latest edition of statutes in force, failed to make clear what Section 2A was about. Indeed, there was no mention of it. On the other hard, Halsbury's Statutes does refer to it.
Earl Ferrers: I should have thought that that would satisfy my noble friend. I agree that the position is easier when Bills are consolidated and contained in one consolidated Act. Obviously, I cannot give my noble friend an assurance that that will be done; I hope that in due course it will. My noble friend will then be able to refer to the Act with total simplicity and will be able to find his way through it. The original Acts will be amended as they have been and will be after this Bill has been passed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I realise that I must be satisfied with that explanation. I shall do my best. The simple proposition that I sought to put forward was that when law has been amended it should be possible for those who wish to understand the Government's intentions to find out relatively easily what the law is. I suggest that that is far from easy and that even if one can find a reference it is not easy to understand.
Earl Ferrers: I cannot dissent from my noble friend on either of those propositions.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not have even a vague hope of gaining further progress on this difficult subject and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Perhaps I may remind the Committee that if Amendment No.5 is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No.6.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("a") and insert ("The Secretary of State shall by order establish").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.6 to 8,10 to 22,27,124 and 125. I apologise for the size of the grouping but it was agreed among all concerned that it would be: better for the Committee to have a single debate on the size and composition of police authorities rather than a series of debates on closely related issues. Although the

109
amendments have been grouped together by agreement, they are not all expressing the same point of view. I shall expand the argument in a moment.
Briefly, my Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 provide that the size of a police authority should not be restricted to 16 members but should, by order, be between 16 and 24 members. They also provide that two-thirds of those members should be appointed by local authorities in the area concerned.
Amendments 6,7,12 to 14,16,19 and 21 stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The most significant is Amendment No.21. They too provide for flexibility in the size of police authorities and for their composition to be such as to secure a majority of not less than three local authority members.
Amendments Nos.10,15 and 20 are government amendments. They provide for greater flexibility in the size of police authorities— that is, between 16 and 24 members to be determined by the Secretary of State — and for the Bill's existing proposition that only 50 per cent. of members should be from local authorities. Of the remainder some should be magistrates and some should be appointed by the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos.17,18 and 22 stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. They too provide for flexibility in the size of police authorities and propose that half the members should be from local authorities and the other half should be magistrates.
I hope that that makes the issue clear. When I seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No.5 I shall be seeking agreement only to that amendment and its related amendments, Amendments Nos.8 and 11. If the Committee disagrees with my amendment, or if it is withdrawn, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is put, a decision by the Committee will relate only to the amendments standing in his name. There are before us four alternatives, which we are debating together. The next group of amendments, Amendments Nos.23 to 25 and 28 to 30, are consequential on some of the amendments in this group. If some of the amendments are carried the Committee must consider whether to agree also to amendments in that following group.
So much for the procedures and the outline of the subject for debate. The issues now before the Committee are at least as important as any in the Bill. The Government have made welcome propositions on a number of matters in relation both to the police part and to the magistrates' courts part of the Bill. As regards the police part, the Government, under considerable pressure from their Members and Members on these Benches, have made the welcome concession that the chairmen of police authorities shall no longer be appointed by the Home Secretary but shall be elected from among the members of the police authority. In response to criticisms made on Second Reading, they have also provided that the size of a police authority shall not be limited to 16 members but can, by order of the Secretary of State, be extended to 24 members. We recognise all those concessions, and we are grateful for them.
The trouble is that having agreed to a more flexible approach to the size of the police authorities, and despite many effective speeches from the Conservative Benches on Second Reading, the Government have not taken the opportunity to return to the tripartite system of policing in this country, which was the essential element of the 1964 Act that is, in effect, being replaced. I refer to only one passage from the Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said that the people in question should be genuinely locally appointed.
What is now proposed is that whatever the size of the police authority, there will still be a body of appointees appointed by the Secretary of State. In Amendment No.27, the Government propose a slightly different or more explicit procedure as to how those appointments shall be made. The Government are proposing that they shall be made,
"from a list of persons compiled in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State".
It appears to be claimed, at least in the press, that that somehow provides for appointments to be made at arm's length from the Home Secretary. With that wording I cannot see how that can be the case. If the list of persons is compiled in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State then makes the appointment, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for all stages of the process. We still have a centrally appointed part of the local authority.
I give an example of how that may work in terms of numbers. Let us suppose that there is, as there is in Greater Manchester at present, a political composition of the councils where of the eight local authority members, five are Labour, two are Conservative and one is a Liberal Democrat. Let us also assume that on politically sensitive issues, as is normally the case, the magistrates would not vote. Let us assume further that the Secretary of State's appointees would, as would seem entirely plausible, vote in accordance with the wishes of the Secretary of State and that he is a Conservative. In an area with a substantive Labour majority that would give a Conservative majority on the police authority. There would be the possibility of conflict between the police authority and the local authorities in the area which are jointly responsible with the police authority for many aspects of policing by consent.
I chose an example with a Conservative Secretary of State and a Labour majority. However, I ask Members on all sides of the Committee to consider that that could work the other way round because a Labour Secretary of State could exercise exactly those powers in an area which has a Conservative majority on the local council or councils. I ask the Committee to think of this matter not as a party issue between Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat but rather to consider whether it is right for a Secretary of State of any political persuasion to secure, by appointment to a police authority, political control from the centre of that police authority. That is what the Government's present proposals would still achieve.
It is our view, and the view which finds expression in Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11, that we should return to the tripartite system of policing, which is a partnership

111
between the chief constable, the local authority in the area and the Home Secretary. That tripartite arrangement has worked extremely well for 30 years. There have been minor conflicts in some parts of the country, but nothing to justify the proposed wholesale removal of the partnership
We welcome the Government's proposals as far as they go but we must point out that they leave police authorities in an unstable situation. The police authorities would not be robust to changes of government and would not be responsive to the needs of local people as expressed through their elected members. The Government's proposals are inadequate as a final solution to the issues raised on Second Reading.
I remind the Committee that on Second Reading,35 out of 37 speakers spoke largely against the tenor of the Bill, with various reservations of all kinds. I remind the Committee also that one of the principal anxieties about the police part of the Bill was the removal of the tripartite system and the concentration of power in the hands of the Home Secretary. Our amendments would restore democratic accountability for police authorities and they would remove the proposed concentration of power in the Home Secretary. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: Any discussion of this group of amendments must surely be conducted against the background of the vital Amendment No.31 concerning the chairmen of the police authorities, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I wish to record my gratitude to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for his immediate understanding and recognition of the very strong feelings expressed in all parts of the House during the Second Reading debate.
Amendment No.31 confirms that a chairman of a police authority will be elected by the authority itself instead of being appointed by the Home Secretary, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said. That major change ensures the independence of the authorities and also, crucially, the operational independence of the chief constables. I know that that change will be most welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, in this Committee and also widely throughout the country.
I welcome also two further amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Ferrers which are to be discussed this evening. Amendment No.20 gives the Secretary of State power to increase the number of police authority members above 16 As I said on Second Reading, I believe that some areas will need to have larger authorities because of their size or, indeed, their particular problems, geographical and otherwise.
I welcome too Amendment No.27 which sets out plans for the appointment of members of authorities by the Secretary of State. Those will have the sanction of having to come before Parliament before acceptance. Again, that is extremely important.
Against the background of the proposed Government changes, we must consider the membership of the authority and the appointment of some members. I must make it clear at once that I personally do not regard
112
those decisions as a constitutional question, as most certainly was the appointment of the chairmen. Therefore, I am glad that the idea of appointed or co-opted members as well as magistrates seems now to be fairly widely accepted, if I understand the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
I have reached the same conclusion that as a method of appointment co-opting is right and makes sense. By saying that, I have no criticism of the existing police authorities. My experience as Home Secretary— I must admit, now some 10 years ago— was that, on the whole, they did a very good job. But I accept that the importance of law and order today demands a broad approach and possibly some new ideas.
There are certainly people in our community who feel that they have a special contribution to make in that field and would like to take part, although they are not able to go forward for election to local councils. I know that that is the very strong view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and is also the view of a good many Members in another place and in this Chamber. Therefore, I come down firmly in favour of the principle of appointed members. However, at this stage I must part from Amendment No.11 on the method of their selection for two reasons. First, if we are to seek a broader approach to the problems of law and order, I feel that we need a broader electorate than the existing members of a police authority.
Secondly, I believe that the method of selection that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has proposed in Amendment No.27 is a broader method of selection than that proposed elsewhere. I also believe that it is not so subject to all the other particular points suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that it can be made to work. With the background of proposed amendments and what can be done by Parliament as a result, it is a sensible way of proceeding. I, therefore, conclude that on that point the Bill should stand as it is.
In general, I strongly support my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the plans that he now puts forward for the organisation of police authorities: in tackling the serious problems of law and order which we all face in this country today.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to take the opportunity to refer very briefly to one of my amendments to Clause 2 which reads:
"Page 2, line 18, after the second ('of') insert ('not less than')".
I should like to put those words on the record. They were printed on an earlier sheet but, somehow or other, they have disappeared from the current Marshalled List.
In referring to the amendments tabled in my name, I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to recount in full the arguments with which Members of the Committee are already familiar. Like other noble Lords, I was greatly influenced as regards my opinion of the Bill by the remarks made by no fewer than three former Home Secretaries; namely, my noble friends Lord Whitelaw and Lord Can and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.

113
I believe that it would have been absurd to have imposed upon police authorities a uniform number of 16 without regard either to the size of the area with which they were concerned or the numbers of the population. It is very easy to find examples to show just how absurd that would be. For example, the result for a large area like Devon and Cornwall with 4,000 square miles, now having 30 elected members, but reduced under the Bill to eight, would be absurd. Likewise with Greater Manchester. It has a dense population of 2.6 million. It now has 30 elected members with 35,000 people per member, but it would end up with 324,000 people per member. I also think that that would be absurd.
As regards those who have objected to a body of large numbers and stressed the need to reduce the number to 16, my noble friends on the Front Bench would do very well to give their attention to the possibility of reducing the number of the Cabinet to 16. I shall forbear from making detailed suggestions as to which of those distinguished people should be dispensed with; nevertheless, it might be to everyone's advantage if the Cabinet was reduced to 16. I have personally thought so for a very long time.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to my amendments, and especially to Amendment No.21. I share his view that that is probably the most important of all the amendments with which I am concerned and to which I have put my name. It is unnecessary at this stage to add to my remarks. However, I believe that the overwhelming need here is to strengthen the representation of elected members on police authorities and to turn away from the trend, as I see it, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written into the Bill, of increasing the power of central government.
I am certainly not an unqualified admirer of all our procedures in local government. However, before central government goes further down the road of usurping functions which are now those of local government, it will have to persuade a large number of people that its own performance justifies such a course. For myself, I do not believe that it does.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I believe that a contribution from the Cross-Benches might not be out of place at this stage as the issue that we are discussing (by way of a rather complicated group of amendments) is, as the debate has already shown, one not to be settled just on party lines. Like previous speakers, I greatly welcome the concessions proposed by the Government on the police aspect of the Bill. Nevertheless, given what had already been said in this Chamber and by every body that they consulted, I cannot refrain from commenting that I simply cannot understand why they were surprised at the reaction to their original proposal.
However, welcome though the concessions are, I find them falling short of the ideal in three respects. First, I do not want to repeat what has been so eloquently said about the need for putting the elected local government representatives in a clear majority, but it certainly seems to me that, unless that is done, the whole concept of the triple partnership and all the fine words about local
114
accountability are seriously at risk. To my mind, the case has not been made out— or, indeed, anything like it — for so fundamental a change.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave one illustration of how things might work out in practice. Perhaps I may take a shot at another. Under the Government's proposals, if the other two non-elected elements on the authority combined and then elected one of their number as chairman (perhaps at a meeting when a couple of the local authority representatives could not be present), the local authority members would, in effect, be in a minority. After all, those bodies are precepting authorities. I think it crucial that those who have been elected by their local communities should be in a clear majority. I sympathise with the proposition in that regard set out in Amendment No.21 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Secondly, as regards size, the government amendments still seem to contemplate that 16 should be the norm; but, in practice, I would expect a great many exceptions to be made — for example, where there are a number of constituent authorities as in Greater Manchester, which has a combination of urban areas and large rural areas, or where the authority tends to function through many sub-committees each of which has to be manned, as in Merseyside. I am bound to say that my own view is still that the size, within the limits laid down by statute with a minimum of 16 or 18 and a maximum of 24, would best be determined locally. If we are not going in for a national police force, I still cannot see what it has to do with the Secretary of State, and why the Home Office should be settling the size of 43 or so police authorities. At all events I believe that the views of the local authorities should ordinarily prevail.
It follows from this that I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with his well-known moderation and desire to compromise, has gone rather too far in meeting government intentions. But at all events I go along with his proposal that, if this measure is to be done by order, it would be right that the order should be laid before Parliament to make quite sure that justice has been done.
Thirdly, there is the question of how the minority of non-elected members should be composed. I accept that there is a good case for including magistrates, who have trailed clouds of glory, as it were, from Tudor times when the justice of the peace was local government, and then historically through their membership of the standing joint committees. But I still find it hard to accept— here, with great regret, I differ both from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw— the power of the central government to make at least five appointments to each authority (that is somewhere between 200 or 300 appointments) direct. We have heard various explanations of who these people might be. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, takes some comfort from Amendment No.27, but, looking at that amendment, I am afraid it does not take us far.
The Government say that one of their main aims in all this is to go for greater local accountability. However, these people can hardly claim to know more about the community than the elected representatives, or more, for example, about education and social services

115
activities, which can be relevant to police concerns. There are many local government members, as inquiries have shown, who can claim outside management and financial expertise. I am sorry to say this but my fear is that the reality is that they would be a substantial minority with weighty voting powers who would look to their appointing authority for a lead. In the event of a dispute with the inspector of constabulary, or with the Home Office, where would their loyalties lie, and how independent would the authority remain?
I can put a point rather more crudely than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put it. I realise that the present Government find it inconceivable that one day they will be in opposition, but I wonder whether they would have shown quite the same enthusiasm for this solution if it had been forthcoming from a Labour government. I accept the argument which the noble Viscount put so clearly; namely, that there may be a case for bringing in some outside people, but if this is to be done it seems to me that the police authority itself is the authority best able to judge what particular gaps need to be filled. One of the amendments to which I am speaking contemplates giving power to the authority to co-opt members with experience which might not otherwise be available, for example from among the ethnic minorities. That works for education authorities and it could work here but the needs vary a great deal from locality to locality and are not really suitable for decision in Whitehall, or to be more accurate, Queen Anne's Gate.
I am left in a slight dilemma in that none of the amendments we are discussing is absolutely ideal from my point of view in meeting the three difficulties which I have touched on. The amendment to which I have put my name, Amendment No.11, would be better if it mentioned a minimum number of 18 rather than 16 so as to simplify the arithmetical processes of contemplating a two-thirds majority. Of the amendments which we are discussing I would, if the opinion of the Committee were sought, go along with Amendment No.5 and the two other associated amendments which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has submitted for the consideration of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I begin by welcoming the decision of the Government to drop the provision in the Bill which gave the Secretary of State the power to appoint the chairman of the police authority. It was a wholly objectionable idea and it was rightly opposed by nearly everyone who spoke in the debate. The Government have withdrawn from that position and I welcome that unreservedly. However, a great deal that is objectionable remains in Clause 2 of this Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, put it extremely well and extremely persuasively when he spoke on Second Reading on the question not of the chairman but of the five Home Office nominees. He said:
"Is it really wise to replace local authority members with the Home Secretary's nominees? Will the nominees really know
116
more about local policing and more about their areas than the people from local authorities already do? It is extremely doubtful"— [Official Report, 18/1/94; cols.480 and 481.1
The objections to this provision, quite apart from the point identified, rightly, by the noble Viscount on Second Reading, raise, in my view, far wider matters. They raise major constitutional issues. Are we prepared to destroy the tripartite system that has been developed in this country since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and the Local Government Act: 1888? For, make no mistake about it, Clause 2 of this Bill effectively destroys the careful balance that has been developed over more than a century between chief officers, local police authorities and the Home Secretary. Why is this being done? We have still had no serious explanation from the Government as to why they have brought these proposals forward. Indeed the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has paid a warm tribute to the existing system. I remind the Committee of what he said in our debate on the Government's proposals last year. He said:
"In the 30 years that have passed since the previous police Act became law the old tripartite structure, which consisted of police authorities, chief constables and the Home Secretary, has provided an effective police service which can still truthfully be described as being not only the best in the world but also the envy of the world"— [Official Report, 26/5/93; col.345.]
I believe that view expressed by the noble Earl is widely shared in this country and indeed— this is even more significant— outside this country. As I have indicated in the past, not only is our police service admired but so is our policing structure. Senior police officers from the United States and from our partners in Europe believe that we have succeeded in creating a police service that is politically independent, unlike those in their own countries, where all-powerful politicians, be, they ministers of the interior or mayors, have imposed their will upon the police, often with the most damaging consequences.
That being so, I find it extraordinary that the Government have brought forward this proposal. As has already been pointed out, there has been no independent inquiry, no Royal Commission, no report from a Select Committee of the House of Commons and no pressure from outside Parliament. Indeed, on 19th January the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told me that of the 360 letters which had been received from a wide variety of organisations, representing people of totally different political opinions, following the publication of the White Paper not one supported the Government's proposals in relation to the membership of police authorities. Not one organisation wrote to the Home Secretary indicating support for what the Government have now put before the Committee.
As the Committee is aware, the proposals are opposed by the entire police service of this country. They are opposed by the Police Federation, by the Police Superintendents' Association arid by the Association of Chief Police Officers. They have taken that position not because they are resistant to change but because they believe that the proposals will politicise the British police service. In my opinion they are entirely right to take that view.
Instead of the present arrangements which have served us so well, a politician in London who is for the

117
time being Home Secretary will appoint five members to the police authority — or roughly a third when the membership of the authority is more than 16. He will be able to do that with the police authorities in Norwich, Chelmsford, Newcastle, Penrith, and all the other force areas in England and Wales. What has that to do with the quality of policing in this country? Those political nominees will be accountable not to the local community but to the politician in London, of whatever political persuasion he may be.
During the previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, professed to be wounded by the suggestion that Mr. Howard has the intention of putting political friends into those jobs. Let us assume for a moment that he has no such intention and that no such idea has ever crossed his mind. I fear that that does not even begin to address our anxiety. The assurances that were given on the previous occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in relation to the Home Secretary's attitude, which will no doubt be repeated later this afternoon, will hold good only for as long as Mr. Howard is Home Secretary. His successors, of whatever party, will not be bound by anything the noble Earl may say this afternoon. It is inconceivable that in five or 10 years time a Home Secretary will say, "What did Lord Ferrers say in February 1994? I really musn't do what I thought of doing given the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave certain assurances". He will do whatever he considers on that occasion to be right. The Committee must recognise that.
As we all know perfectly well, future governments, whatever their political persuasion, will be tempted to fill these posts on police authorities with political allies. On every police authority of 16 members there will be five nominees of the politician in London, three Justices of the Peace and eight councillors from different political parties, as required by the legislation. In my view it is right that that should be required by the legislation. The five Home Secretary nominees, with the support of even a minority of, say, three of the councillors, will almost certainly be able to elect the chairman of the authority, who will then have a casting vote in addition to his deliberative vote. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said on many occasions that Justices of the Peace do not become involved in matters of this sort. The Home Secretary of the day— of whatever party — will then have his majority on nearly every police authority in England and Wales.
Do we really want to give a politician in Whitehall such power on the overwhelming majority of police authorities in England and Wales? We should remember the other provisions of the Bill: the national policing objectives, which will be laid down by the Home Secretary of the day; performance related pay for chief officers, to be determined by the police authority; and, most significant of all, fixed-term contracts for chief officers.
Consider the position in relation to the chief officer's operational independence. That independence is the immense strength of our system and our guarantee that all-powerful politicians in Whitehall, and, for that matter, members of police authorities, cannot apply
118
improper pressures on the police. If this clause is allowed to go through unamended there is a serious danger that a future Home Secretary's friends on a police authority could indicate that if a chief officer did not see things as they did, and as the Government of the day saw them, his contract might not be renewed. There is no point in the Government denying that there is such a danger. Pressure of precisely that character has been applied to chief officers of police outside our own shores. That is why so many of them admire our system of carefully designed checks and balances, which has served this nation so well.
In a few minutes the Committee will have to vote on this issue. It is probably one of the most momentous in the history of the British police service. There is a real danger that the passage of this clause unamended will do the most grievous damage to the British police service. That is not simply my view, it is the opinion of every chief officer of police with whom I have discussed the matter.
If this Bill had been introduced by a government of a different political persuasion from the present Government I would have spoken in precisely the same terms as I do today. I believe that in such circumstances the overwhelming majority of this Chamber would have taken precisely the same view. Members of the Committee should have no doubt of the gravity of the decision they will make this evening. As I said at Second Reading, this Chamber is the ultimate guardian of the constitutional liberties of the British people. I hope that the Committee will strike these repugnant provisions from the Bill.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I did not speak at the Second Reading of the Bill because I spoke extremely critically in the debate on the White Paper on 26th May last year. Because I was so critical I should like to commence by joining with my right honourable friend Lord Whitelaw in welcoming the changes which the Home Secretary has now proposed. He inherited the Bill, and it is not always easy to make changes of the radical nature which he has proposed. Ministers often find themselves in grave difficulty these days. If they do not listen they are accused of being autocratic. If they do listen they are accused of making U-turns. Even the Gadarene swine did not have to make a U-turn: a change of direction would have been quite sufficient. I welcome the change of direction which the Home Secretary has made.
The objectives of this Bill are to be commended, but it has been perfectly clear from the outset that we cannot combat crime by antagonising everyone concerned with the enforcement of law and order: the police authorities, the police and the magistrates. I think that the Home Secretary has gone a long way to meet many anxieties, but I hope that he will be willing to go a few steps further. As other speakers have said, it is important that there should be a majority of elected members serving on the police authority, preferably by retaining the two-thirds requirement or at least ensuring, as my noble friend Lord Peyton has suggested, that there is a clear majority. I will go on reiterating the principles

119
enunciated by Professor F. A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom. He is an author much commended by some elements in the Conservative Party. He said:
"You cannot have real, effective democracy without real, effective local self-government".
He made that comment in the light of his experiences in pre-War Germany. Perhaps I may repeat what I suggested in the debate on the White Paper. There is a comparison— perhaps pushed a little far— with the national socialists in Germany who said that a locally-elected mayor like Adenauer does not represent the wishes and interests of the people of Cologne as well as perhaps an appointed businessman by the name of Krupp.
That may be pushing it too far, but there are real dangers in giving a Home Secretary of any party the powers suggested in this Bill. We ought to look at legislation on the basis not that we give powers to a good Minister but that we may be putting powers into the hands of a bad Minister in future years. The point has been made about the importance of having local businessmen. I think it has been established that 38 per cent. of those who now serve on police authorities have business experience. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I do not really appreciate the need for the changes that are suggested in this Bill. I ask the Government to think again and, to use a phrase coined by Sir Winston Churchill, "trust the people".
The police authorities, the local authorities and the magistrates may be thought to be indulging in special pleading, but I assure your Lordships that they are not alone in expressing their anxieties about this Bill and its proposals. As an example, I should like to refer to a letter I have received from Justice, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and which has as its vice-chairman the noble Lord, Lord Archer. It says:
"As an all-party human rights organisation, Justice considers that the composition of police authorities is an important constitutional issue affecting the independence of policing. Although we accept that the Government's recent concessions go some way to meeting the concerns expressed at Second Reading, we believe an additional amendment is crucial. This amendment should ensure that there is a majority of elected members serving on the police authority: either by retaining the present two-thirds requirement or by providing for a simple majority".
It gives two main reasons for that. The first is:
"A majority of elected members simply provides a better form of local democratic accountability".
Secondly, it says:
"It is a necessary counter-balance to other proposals in the Bill and helps to preserve the checks and balances of the tripartite relationship".
I believe that those checks and balances, built up over many years, are essential to the maintenance of true democracy in this country and for those reasons I commend Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 to your Lordships.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I can be quite short about this. The real trouble with these provisions is that they gather more power into the hands of the Home Secretary. Whatever may be said and whatever the intentions are, this is a centralising Bill which strengthens Whitehall and weakens local authorities and
120
local representation. That is the fundamental objection to what is proposed in the Bill. That it is a centralising measure was shown quite clearly by the desire of the Home Secretary to increase his own powers when he announced the intention of appointing the chairman. It was absolute impudence, in my view, to suggest that he should have the power to appoint the chairman. Although congratulations have now been poured upon him for withdrawing from what was an untenable position, I would sooner congratulate your Lordships, all of whom spoke in such a manner that it would have been impossible for the Home Secretary to have carried the measure through.
So this was, and is, gathering still more powers into the hands of the Home Secretary. If I may take the appointment of the independent members, he has certainly separated himself directly from their appointment by having this regional instrument. He said in a Written Answer:
"All applications received will be considered it the first instance by one of six regional short-listing panels. Each regional panel will consist of a professional recruitment consultant and two people independent of government.
I shall select those I wish to appoint as members of police authorities from the short list"— [Official Report, Commons,17/1/94; col.377.]
So he has at least separated himself from that; he has put up at least one barrier. Presumably he will still appoint the regional panels, the professional. recruitment consultant and the two people who themselves will be independent of the Government. He will do that, so he will be directly responsible for selecting the panel which will select the independent members on the short list and recommend them to him. I suppose that that is a barrier of some sort, but it does not strike me as being a very strong one. I would say to noble Lords in all parts of the Committee: all this is part of the continuing destruction of local authorities. It is all part of gathering more power, whatever may be said by the Government about their intentions, into the hands of Whitehall and of Ministers who at the moment will be Conservative but who very shortly, I think, are likely to be Labour. That is an argument that ought to appeal to noble Lords opposite, if nothing else does.
I feel very strongly about this. We all know that democracy does not just consist of electing a national parliament once every five years. We all know that the strength of democracy comprises a web and complex of local institutions and local bodies made up of people serving in different ways, not necessarily elected. That is what comprises democracy and it is that which is being undermined by the measures in this Bill. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I would say to your Lordships that there has been no demand for this locally. So far as I know, there is no requirement that it should happen, except the desire of the Home Secretary to strengthen his influence in these bodies. I am against that and I am therefore against, I regret to say, what the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said. Indeed, I am extremely sorry to see that he has moved in this particular matter, because no case has really been made out for this.

121
Of course some very good people may be added; I do not know, and maybe none of us knows. They will get their expenses and allowances. I do not know what those allowances will be. I would not assume that their independence will necessarily be lessened because of receiving allowances, but it is weakening the powers of local institutions which are an essential part of our democratic society. For that reason I am totally opposed to this. I believe that the House should insist on a majority of local authority members and I believe that these so-called independent members are quite superfluous to requirement. We would be creating another semi-quango. More power is being concentrated in the hands of the Home Secretary and for that reason, although I do not wholly agree with the amendments that have been put down, I shall certainly vote for them all.
Lord Mottistone: Amendments Nos.17,18,22 and 125 are in my name. I do not propose to speak to Amendments Nos.22 and 125 since they are closely related to Government amendments which I wish to discuss separately. Amendments Nos.17 and 18 relate to the theme mentioned by many Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan — the importance of local people being on the new police authorities. I seek to remove the five people— or any people— appointed by the Secretary of State to the authorities. For reasons already explained to the Committee, which I shall not pursue, it seems that everyone is agreed that it is important that local authority representatives should be in the majority. I have to admit that my amendments do not go that far. I am concentrating on putting the magistrates back where they should be.
An interesting point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. At cols.480 and 481 of Hansard of 18th January 1994 my noble friend Lord Whitelaw questioned whether it was appropriate that the Home Secretary should make those appointments. I believe that it is extremely difficult to persuade the right people to do such jobs. Most of the people who wish to give voluntary public service are either local councillors or local magistrates. Not all, it is true, but most of them. Many of the people who would be suitable by anyone's standards, whether locally or centrally, do not volunteer because they may find working with councillors and local officials uncongenial, particularly when, in recent years, local authorities have become much more party political. That is a pity. Alternatively, suitable people do not volunteer because they are too busy running their own businesses.
There are exceptions; those who are neither councillors nor magistrates and who are prepared to do the job. But there are not many in relation to the numbers required for the task. There are many other activities for which they are required. They may be serving as school governors or helping on various health bodies. They do not have the time, and if they had they are probably not suitable. I have experience of people who volunteer for such tasks. Many are not people whom one would like to have sitting on various local
122
bodies. We have to discourage them in one way or another. Therefore, although at this moment I am close to the problem in the smallest county in England, I have had experience also in three other major counties in mainland England and have encountered the same difficulty of finding people who will be councillors or magistrates, let alone take on the other jobs for which the Home Secretary seeks people.
In any case, if we are to have extra people, the best arrangement would be that some of those appointed should have been encouraged to offer their services by the police authority itself. If the police authority were invited to co-opt people to add to its numbers, making sure that the majority remained with the councillors, I do not believe that there would be too much objection. But if it is to be done by way of central allocation in the form mentioned on 17th January in the Written Answer from the Minister to my noble friend Lord Lyell at col. WA 37, to which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred then I am staggered. I have to stop and say that the insolence of the Home Office in writing down job descriptions and personal profiles for people who will function locally staggers me. Anyone wishing to know whether people are right to perform a local duty does not want an official or a management consultant who is eager for a job and the extra money paid by a dumb government department. If such people are to tell us the kind of member who is to serve on police authorities, it will be total insolence. I trust that whatever happens to the Bill, the Written Answer given on 17th January is removed and replaced by something else, if it has to be replaced at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, the Written Answer mentions six regional short-listing panels. With six panels to cover the vast area of England, Wales and the Isle of Wight— because we are separate from the rest — how can the people appointed know what it is like in Cornwall if the region is run from Bristol? How can two people and a management consultant know what is going on and who are the right people to supplement the police authority? It is absurd.
When I had occasion to talk to the Home Secretary, I asked him about that. He said: "We want it to be local. " I said: "You mean local, not regional?" He said: "Yes, local. " I hope that my noble friend who was there will remember that when he decides whether the proposal for regions ever gets a running. I trust that if there is to be any question of names coming forward to be approved locally— I hope not selected— they will come from the local level at which the police authority functions and not from other counties without the area.
I suggest that the best bet to go for is Amendment No.5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his supplementary amendments. I suggest that Amendment No.20 be resisted by the Committee because it states,
"one half of the members shall be members of a relevant council".
I suggest above all that Amendment No.27 be cast into outer darkness.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: In the 18 months I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House, I have often asked myself what are our functions. With the debates we have had on the police Bill, I have learnt what the functions of the House are all about. The speech which has just been made sums up entirely my views on the matter.
My experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is that one is Home Secretary for the Province. Many people in your Lordships' House have had the job, including the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who, I accept, set the tone for the way we all proceeded. On the basis of that experience, I know that one thing we had to do there was to bring democracy back to policing. Everything that I learnt as Home Secretary was that there should be a stop to the growing centralisation and the weakening of police authorities and police forces proposed by the Bill.
One of the questions I ask myself is: whatever their numbers, what are the appointees for? We have had an exposé (if that is the right word) of the method of appointing them, but I ask from my own experience in my own area: where will they come from? What functions will they carry out?
I have been clearing my mind on the role of the chief constable and the police committee. What is certain is that on the basis of a judgment made in 1968, when my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff was Home Secretary, which made it quite clear, no Minister of the Crown can tell a chief constable that he must or must not keep observation on this place or that. I wonder whether that has been carried out to the letter on one or two occasions in the past 10 years. He cannot be told that he must or must not prosecute this man or that; nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility is on him. He is answerable to the law alone.
Whatever else these appointees may think that they will do, they will not be telling the chief constable what to do. Their knowledge of the area may be slight. It may he greater than perhaps we think. But they will not be able to tell the chief constable what to do; and that is the glory of our system. It is against the system in continental Europe; it is against the system that I saw in the occupied West Bank when I went out with the police there last year; and against what I saw in South Africa when a fortnight ago I went out with police there into the shanty towns and other areas. In our experience, the chief constable is independent and subject to the law.
What are these appointees supposed to do? I had a look at the powers of the police authority. They are restricted to financial and administrative responsibilities. One could take that argument further and say that of course the chief constable has to take that into account. It is the financial and administrative side about which I suspect the Home Office is concerned. I believe that it has gone the wrong way about it. I learnt as Home Secretary that as Home Secretary with a police department, with the inspectorate, one has backing. The local police authorities do not. It is time that they had that backing. If we need people with financial and managerial experience, then appoint them to the police
124
committee. Give them a job to do. They are the ones who should advise the chief constable and the police committee as to whether they are spending the right amount of money on computers and using that money properly, not whether they are using them operationally correctly. So let us sweep aside this idea of appointees because the Home Secretary of the day, his predecessor, the Home Office and the inspectorate feel that the police authorities are not doing a proper job. Let us give them the tools to do a proper job.
The other day I was talking to someone in the Police Federation and trying to tease out this idea. That person suggested a sort of Permanent Under-Secretary. That is getting nearer to what is needed. But that role should not be members of the police authority, who should have the role of non-executive directors. I appeal to the Government to think again. This proposal goes clown the wrong road. We do not need appointees appointed by the Home Office. I know how things are done. I understand this new method. There is a list of the great and the good. There will of course be bias one way or the other arising out of the very method by which appointments are made. We do not want that. The appointed members system will be wrong. It will be against the whole trend of policing from 1835, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, spelt out. I appeal to this Committee to reject the method that the Government are putting forward, which is wrong. That is the function of this Chamber.
Lord Renton: In my opinion this is the most important debate that we shall have at this Committee stage. It is for that reason, and also because for four and a half years (which I believe is regarded as a very long time) I was answerable for police affairs with the Home Secretary in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will remember— my experience goes back many years to January 1958, when I became Under-Secretary and he was political adviser to the Police Federation; and I am happy to say that we very rarely disagreed— that I agree with what my noble friend Lord Mottistone said about this matter, and broadly agree with what my noble friend Lord Rippon said. It is of vital importance to the successful operation of the police that they should have the co-operation of the public. They are much more likely to get it if democratically elected representatives of the public are well represented, indeed are in a majority at least on the police authority. Without that, in my opinion, public confidence is not as good as it should be. I also consider that, in view of their experience in the courts, magistrates on the police authorities have a vital part to play.
We have a plethora of amendments on this subject. There is great scope for confusion. I am going to make a suggestion to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He has heard all the views which are critical of the Government's approach. Quite frankly, I would not have thought that he had much hope in the Division Lobby this evening. Therefore I suggest to him that he should give an undertaking on two points: first, that he will consider this matter very fully and in consultation with the Home Secretary between now and Report

125
stage; secondly, that his consultation will extend across this Chamber. In the light of the discussion which we have already had, there is a consensus emerging among Members of the Committee which it would be well worth my noble friend following up.
Having said that by way of what I hope is a generally helpful suggestion, perhaps I may make one or two comments about matters in the government amendments which trouble me. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone about Amendment No.27. It is phrased in a most unusual way. Subsection (1) states that,
"The members of a police authority referred to in section 3A(1) (b) or (1A) (b) of this Act shall be persons appointed by the Secretary of State from a list of persons compiled in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State".
I have never seen a provision like that put forward for legislation before. If noble Lords know the good precedent, let us hear about it, but I have never seen one. Perhaps I am being unfair and there has not been the opportunity, but so far we have had no explanation from the Government as to how it is proposed that that list shall be compiled. However it is compiled it would run contrary to the principles which my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Rippon have already stated, and which have been stated in all parts of the Committee. The Government have a very great difficulty in this matter. As Members of the Committee know, I am a keen and sympathetic supporter of the Government, but on this occasion I think that we are entitled to ask them to think again.
5 p.m.
Lord Knights: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which I believe is fundamental to the future policing of this country. I am sorry that local authorities and police authorities are being separated in the way that Clause 2 proposes. I was brought up in the days of the old police Acts. As an assistant chief constable I served a city watch committee in Birmingham. I was subsequently chief constable of the combined Sheffield and Rotherham police force, which, while it was a joint body, still regarded itself very much as serving the two separate authorities. Finally, I was chief constable in a metropolitan county with a county council and in turn a police committee.
I am quite sure that the police were much more sensitive to the needs and wishes of their local communities after sitting at a meeting— not necessarily a police committee meeting but a county council meeting when the minutes of the police authority were discussed. You certainly knew what they thought about how you were going about your job as chief constable.
But I accept and understand that there are some feelings today that the old system, which dates from the Victorian days, is in need of reform and should be brought up to date. Indeed, the first moves in that direction occurred in 1986 when, as the Committee will recall, the metropolitan counties, or at least their county councils, were abolished and police authorities were
126
created for the same areas as freestanding corporate bodies. They precept on the constituent district councils and receive direct grant from the Government.
The problems encountered in Derbyshire, where the county council reduced the budget approved by the police authority, have been quite eliminated. That is the only reason that I have been able to trace so far for amending the law, as the Bill proposes. Nothing else need to have been done to overcome the current problems which the Home Secretary has faced in the last year or two.
The metropolitan county authorities are composed entirely of councillors representing districts and magistrates. I believe that they have proved to be responsible bodies which have worked well with their chief constables and the local authorities that their members represent and they are proud of the forces that they provide. They differ from the authorities that are now proposed in that the local authority representatives are currently clearly in the majority. I have no doubt that in consequence the authorities see their loyalties lying toward the district councils and the communities that they represent.
In turn, the district councils regard the police forces that they provide as their police. That is an extremely important factor when considering the reduction of crime. There is considerable evidence to show that partnerships between the various departments of local authorities, voluntary agencies and the police, working together, are most likely to curb crime and improve the quality of life in local communities. However, if that is to happen I believe that it is essential for local authorities to feel that they have a real contribution to make in the policing of their areas. Equally, I believe that local communities too must feel that the police are accountable to them if they are to give the positive help that the police need successfully to detect and prosecute the criminals who prey on those communities.
However, I suggest that that is not likely to happen if the police authorities come to be regarded as accountable to Whitehall rather than the town hall. I suggest also that it is a very valuable discipline for the police when deciding policy matters to have to say to themselves, "I wonder what they will think about this at the council house?" Whitehall is much too remote to create that same sensitivity.
I am not persuaded either that the inclusion of nominated members with special skills will add very much to a police authority's decision-making, bearing in mind the experience that is already there, which has been referred to earlier in the debate. Indeed, I wonder whether it will have the time to perform the many tasks that are taken on by police authority members, including lay visiting of police cells and attending national committees, on a number of subjects, or local consultative bodies. There is a whole list of duties and responsibilities which members of police authorities undertake. Certainly, the minimum of one-and-a-half days a month envisaged by the Home Office as all that will be required seems to me to be very wide of the mark.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that it is vital for the elected representatives

127
on the police authority to be clearly seen to be in the driving seat of the committee. I believe that it is a view held by everyone connected with policing at local level. Additionally, the continuation of the tripartite system, with its essential checks and balances on the activities of the three parties involved— that is the real importance arid value of the tripartite system— depends on the local authority being seen to be in the driving seat. Therefore, I support Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Elton: I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the Minister, will feel able to take the advice of my noble friend Lord Renton. I do so for a particular reason, which is not quite his reason.
I do not see the answer that we want within this plethora of amendments. I see two or three narrow misses. The Committee is in danger of getting into the mood of treating the debate as a cavalry charge with a single issue to be decided on a single vote. In fact, we are addressing four questions and three subordinate questions. Only one of them has been resolved so far; namely, whether the chairman of the police authority should be appointed by the Home Secretary or by the authority. I think that we are all happily agreed that it should be by the latter.
The next question is whether the membership of the authority should be as it has traditionally been, or whether it should contain some members recruited from a wider constituency. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and one or two other Members have argued against it, but I believe that on trial the Committee would feel that there should be a wider constituency. That being so, should those recruits be secured by co-option, by appointment or in some other way?
The principle of co-option has been espoused by a number of your Lordships as an extension of the principle of democracy. I call on my experience— not the experience of a year as Minister responsible for the police under my noble friend Lord Whitelaw but my three years' experience as Minister for the Prison Service. In that service in each prison there was a board of prison visitors. I observed that the membership of the prison population was becoming increasingly black but that the membership of the boards of prison visitors was remaining stubbornly white. I made it known that I thought that there should be some way to redress the balance.
The system is, as it were, a supervised co-option. The local board makes a proposal and the Minister does or does not approve it. I had to refuse five successive proposed co-options of white members to an all-white prison board for a prison which was predominantly black in population because it was alleged that there were no suitable black people available. In effect, I had a power of appointment and it was very badly needed. Therefore, I believe that there should be a process by which the Secretary of State can be involved in getting people on to a police authority.
But should those people be in a position at any time to be in a majority or the predominant voice on the authority? Amendment No.11, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has his name, suggests something of that
128
nature but does it by co-option. I do not feel that co-option is satisfactory under these circumstances. The noble Lord has a good number but a bad route; and my noble friend is in a position to propose a good route if he will get the right number. I do not see that in any combination of the amendments. I hope that my noble friend will come back at Report stage with grateful thanks for having found a process which will produce a body of appointed members on the police authorities in a position to influence but not to determine its policy. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that that should be a position subordinate to that of the magistrate.
Lord Tebbit: First, I apologise that I was not able to hear some of the earlier speeches in the debate,. However, it seems to me to be a most interesting discussion. I must confess that I always become slightly uneasy when the great and the good— I suppose that we should collectively cast ourselves in the role of being the great and the good of the establishment— are all of one view. I wonder whether it is necessarily right. I therefore begin to question whether the Committee's enthusiasm for many of the amendments and the attack upon the Government's proposals is necessarily as soundly based as we might think if we listened casually to it all.
Noble Lords: Casually!
Lord Tebbit: If I may say so—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that he has only been here for half of the debate. In those circumstances, as he cannot possibly have heard all the arguments, it is a bit rich for him to call us "casual".
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I mean no offence. But we should be a little careful in accepting this "cavalry charge", as it has been described, too easily. Let me put it this way, and this may please the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. There are moments when this Chamber is in danger of being too conservative. We should accept that the island on which we live is becoming smaller day by day, as it is becoming more urbanised. We should accept that its population is becoming, perhaps with the assistance of a little advice from myself from time to time, rather more mobile than it used to be. And we should all accept, as I am sure we do, that criminals do not have any particular respect for local authority boundaries. Indeed, the existence of the motorway system— despite the M.25— to a great extent encourages mobility of crime and criminals.
We should also reflect upon who it is receives the blame when policing falls below the standards which we all think appropriate. We seldom read in the tabloid press, "Local police force fails". We may frequently read that the Home Secretary failed. We seem to be saying that all the responsibility should be local yet all the blame when things go wrong should go to the Home Secretary.
I have some sympathy for the Home Secretary in these matters. He is not an officer of state for whom I normally have a great deal of sympathy, whoever

129
occupies the position. But on this occasion I do. We tend to forget that we are willing to trust the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, in recent years, has usually doubled as the Chairman of the Conservative Party— a dubious appointment no doubt in the minds of many Members of your Lordships' Chamber— to appoint the magistrates upon whom we place such responsibility and on whom we shower such great praise. If the post is doubled in the way that it has been in recent years, and as it was in my case, we trust the Chancellor of the Duchy (also the Chairman of the Conservative Party) to maintain the dignitary of the magistracy; to make sure that there is a firm balance among magistrates who are appointed in terms of political views or even those who have no political views, ethnic make-up and things of that kind. Yet now, at a time when our police forces need to move into the present day and prepare themselves for the challenges of the crime and the criminals at the end of this century and into the next century, we have some misgivings about giving the Home Secretary the powers placed in the Bill.
I do not believe that those powers would be abused. I take the view that they would not have been abused by past Home Secretaries such as the late Chuter Ede, or the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Callaghan. They would not be abused today by my right honourable friend Mr. Howard. I doubt that they would be abused by Mr. Blair should he become Home Secretary. We are becoming attached to a slightly artificial argument that somehow or other there is great respect for local authorities which is not extended to the national institutions of government, the Home Office and the Home Secretary. I doubt that that is so. To some extent, in what we are saying and doing we may be feeding the current frenzy which says that nobody in national politics can conceivably be honest, decent or competent in any way whatever; that to be a Member of the House of Commons or a Member of the Government is somehow to carry the mark of Cain. We would be wise to reflect a little longer and to think that the Government are not so far wrong in what they are saying.
Finally, I must say that neither in my public nor private life did I meet anybody who said to me that their attitude towards their local police force had been in any way influenced by the fact that the members of the police authority were or were not democratically elected. That is an absolute fantasy. It is going too far in our denigration of members of local authorities to think that their attitude towards their police force would be in any way changed were some of the members to be appointed from a list which had been drawn up by the Home Secretary. If I may say so, we are becoming slightly over-excited.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Lord sits down, he was saying how splendidly the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy appointed magistrates. I entirely agree. But they appoint them not from a list they construct themselves; they appoint them because the Keepers of the Rolls of the respective counties propose names to them which have been carefully selected by a special and complicated process of examination of
130
people whose names come forward. In my case I find that I ultimately propose only one-third of the people whom I interview for that purpose in my committee. That is quite different from Amendment No.27.
Lord Tebbit: I take my noble friend's point. Nonetheless, there is a degree of understanding of how the process works rather more informally than the manner in which my noble friend put it.
Viscount Tenby: I support Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As a magistrate, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that most crime is indeed locally based despite the prevalence of bicycles in this upwardly mobile society of ours. As a member of a police authority I welcome the fact that the Government have withdrawn their earlier ill-judged proposal that authority chairmen should be appointed by the Home Secretary and that the size of such authorities should be standardised. But the other main thrust of the Government's proposal remains; namely, the balance and composition of authorities. Those points are of the gravest constitutional importance.
How can it be right that in future authorities should be evenly balanced between elected and non-elected members? As my noble friend Lord Allen pointed out, let us suppose that two elected members are ill, or on holiday, a natural enough assumption taken over the years. Are important decisions to be taken by that authority in such a situation? It seems hard to reconcile that with any concept of local democracy. And what exactly is wrong with the present composition of authorities? I sit on an authority. It is very tiresome at times. It makes mistakes at times— rather like governments. But, at the end of the day, that surely is what democracy is all about, is it not?
I am not against the concept of co-opted members. I believe that they could add a useful dimension to any authority's work. I accept the powerful reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to "a broad approach" and "new ideas" in the fight against crime. But, apart from the obligatory brace of businessmen, they should surely come from representative sections of those communities which the authorities serve. For example, I can see a good case for a local headmaster being a member of the authority to represent educational concerns, or for some representation from, say, significant ethnic groups within the area. Such people can be identified and appointed by the authorities themselves. Their local knowledge will lead to far more suitable selections than those of Whitehall or Whitehall-inspired sources.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Government remain coy about, first, who really is going to pick the appointees for consideration by the Home Secretary. Is it to be the Lord Lieutenant of the county? Is it to be the chairman of the local chamber of commerce? Is it to be a local representative of the CBI? Secondly, and very much wrapped up with the same point, the Government are also coy about the sort of people they are looking for. It really will not do to talk airily about "businessmen and businesswomen" as if emergency pools of super

131
executives exist all over the country ready to plug the numerous gaps left by the incompetence of Noddy, know-nothing councillors and magistrates.
I must confess to doubting whether such a pool of talent exists. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who, in a powerful and commonsense speech, made that point and a number of other ones. I have to say that what I do think exists is the temptation to create posts for friends of the Government, a process which has been going on for far too long. Like my noble friend Lord Allen, I wonder whether Members on the other side would defend the position quite so fiercely if, say, another party were in power. If or when such a time arrives, it will be of little avail for them to run around complaining. They will have sown the seeds of their own dissatisfaction.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is no doubt that throughout the past hour and 40 minutes all of your Lordships have felt a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend Lord Ferrers. My noble friend came to the House with some very welcome concessions and has had to sit ever since listening, with one exception, to speeches deeply and seriously critical of the Bill's proposals from Members of your Lordships' House, mostly with vast experience of the subject matter— former Home Secretaries, a former chief constable and many others.
I rise only to put one point. If my noble friend desires to resist these amendments it seems to me overwhelmingly clear — I may be wrong— that they will be carried against him and will be put into the Bill. The Bill will be very considerably altered and amended— some of your Lordships may think improved. Certainly, it will be drastically altered. I wonder whether my noble friend thinks that that would be helpful from the point of view either of the future progress of the Bill or of the position of the Government. I hope very much therefore that my noble friend will recognise what seems to be the prevailing view in all parts of the House, in all parties and in none, and will indicate that on most of the points of controversy— not necessarily all of them but most of them— the Government are prepared to think again. He may even feel it prudent to defer further consideration of the Committee stage after today's sitting to allow time for discussions between those who hold differing views when his own very considerable powers of conciliation might be used.
My noble friend has a definite choice. He can seek to resist most of the amendments. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be put into the Bill, that the Bill will be drastically altered thereby and that when it goes back to another place no one quite knows what will happen to it. Or he can use his very considerable powers of conciliation by taking a little time for further consideration at any rate of some of the points. I speak as one who, as your Lordships know, is on the whole a fairly loyal supporter of the Government—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged. I see that I carry your Lordships with me. For that very reason I do not like to see the Government going in for
132
a whole series of embarrassing defeats and getting into very grave difficulties with an important Bill. I therefore ask my noble friend, at the last minute if one likes, to consider seriously a conciliatory reply in which he would either accept the amendments, or some of them, with a view to their reconsideration, or ask those who propose them to defer them until another sitting— there are still further sittings ahead— and give him a chance to reflect, without incurring serious Government defeats, on whether further amendments should be made. My own humble advice to him— I tender it with due humility because he is a very experienced Minister — is that he would be very wise, and, I think, serve the interests of the Government of which he is a member, if he adopted the latter course.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: It may be helpful if I make an intervention at this moment. It does not stop my noble friends intervening later. I am deeply appreciative of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in so far as he said that he felt sympathy for me. I think he is the first person who has said that, and I was not aware that anyone else actually felt it. The fact that my noble friend was kind enough to express it was nectar to my soul.
This is a very controversial matter and it is right that it should be. At Second Reading your Lordships explained in no uncertain terms the various matters about which there was anxiety. My right honourable friend took account of them. He agreed that hereafter the appointment of the chairman should not be made by the Home Secretary but by the full authority. I am glad to say that that has met with approval.
There was also great anxiety as regards the appointment of independent members. Apparently that was seen as a way in which my right honourable friend, or of anyone who held the office of Home Secretary, would put in his own placemen. That was a very real anxiety. My right honourable friend has tried to allay that anxiety by saying "All right, we shall have an independent body of people who will undertake the selection. They will offer a short list of candidates to the Home Secretary to appoint".
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, said that this was increasing enormously the powers of the Home Secretary. If someone is to be appointed as an independent member, someone has to do the appointing. It does not matter whether it is the person who prepares the short list, whether it is the Home Secretary himself or the other members of the authority as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would prefer in the light of his amendment. Someone has to do the appointing if there are to be independent members. It is not unreasonable for my right honourable friend to say that the Home Secretary should do that provided he is not seen to be taking an overtly political view. Quite frankly, if there are 41 constabularies throughout the country, excluding the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police, and if, for instance,50 people applied in each case — they may well apply because plenty of people have already done so— one would be talking about a list of about 2,000 people. It would be quite impossible to think that my right honourable friend would know all of

133
them and would carefully select party hacks who might themselves not have applied in any event. He has tried to meet the anxieties expressed at Second Reading.
I admire the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, enormously not only for his views— the extent of my admiration depends on what those views are— but also for the way in which he puts them. He did use some pretty hot language. He said that this measure would destroy the tripartite system. He quoted me as saying that the system was the envy of the world. That is perfectly true. My only complaint about the noble Lord's views is that I do not believe my right honourable friend's proposals will result in the destruction of that system. The noble Lord said that the measure would politicise police forces and that the vote would provide a momentous decision; that the Bill would do grievous damage to policing in this country; and that we should remove the repugnant decisions from the Bill. I thought that that was fairly extravagant language.
What are we actually talking about? We are talking about the tripartite system— the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable. That is a milkmaid's stool, as it were, with three legs, each of which has a certain amount of power. It is a question of adjustment of that power. It is not the usurping of power to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Yet, when things go wrong (and they do) in police forces and in local police authorities, people turn to the Home Secretary and say, "What are you going to do about it?" That occurred to me recently when I had to go on television. The reporter asked, "What is the Home Secretary going to do about it?"
This is a matter for the police authorities. Despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that this was a centralising measure, and the fact that a number of other Members of the Committee have said similar things, my right honourable friend is trying to give to local authorities more power and responsibility and not to keep that responsibility to himself. I realise that some Members of the Committee say that that will not happen.
I now come to another point where I believe there is fairly universal agreement; namely, that, on the whole, smaller organisations work better. A police authority of, for instance,30 or 40 people is not a very handy body of people to work with. If it is smaller it is better. Quite obviously, in curtailing such a body some members would find that they are no longer on the police authority. That causes understandable anxiety and therefore rumpus. On top of that, if it is suggested that there should be some independent people, too, then other elected councillors will find that they are not on the police authority. That also causes problems.
The idea that independent members is a new provision is nonsense. For the past 30 years or so we have had independent people on police authorities by virtue of the magistrates. There is nothing new in that. My right honourable friend and I believe that there is a place for people to contribute to the problems of policing in their locality who, for one reason or another, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, said, have decided
134
not to be on the police authority. It may be that they did not have time or it may not have been their particular bent. Nevertheless, they know and care about their locality and they have a contribution to make. That would improve the police authorities provided that they are not in an overwhelming position, which is the reason why we have suggested that of a police authority of 16 members, eight should be councillors and in the majority; five should be independent and three should be magistrates.
The complaint was made that some people may not be properly represented and that the number should be larger. My right honourable friend has taken that point and said that he agrees that there will be circumstances when the police authority ought to be larger. He said that he would agree to that. If the Committee accepts the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he would set an upper and a lower limit on the size of the police authority. The chances are then that the number will gradually inflate so that it is always the highest number which is obtained.
The point about this is a fairly simple one. I believe that we are agreed in general that police authorities are better if they are smaller. The real point concerning the Committee is whether my right honourable friend is taking too much power— to use an unpleasant word and I believe a wrong one— in the appointment of those who have been selected by a different and independent system. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, slightly mischievously, that, after all, the Home Secretary is going to appoint the appointers and they will make the shortlists for my right honourable friend to make the appointments. Somebody has to appoint the appointers. That will be done by my right honourable friend. However, that does not mean to say that they are in his pocket.
I am in a difficulty over this— Members of the Committee need not really laugh or smile too much. I wish to be helpful. My right honourable friend has made a number of concessions. We have tabled in my name a number of amendments to the Bill in order to try to make those concessions and meet the anxieties which have been expressed. Equally, I do not want to sail into something which is undesirable. I may be completely wrong, but I have enormous faith in my right honourable friend and in my noble friend the Chief Whip. I have even more faith in all my noble friends behind me, whom I know will go in the right direction because they believe that the argument is superb. I would like to see whether there is any way in which we can bridge this divide. I do not know whether that is possible and it may well be that it is not.
My right honourable friend has certain views. As my noble friend Lord Rippon said, it is very difficult to make radical alterations without causing some anxiety somewhere. My right honourable friend is keen to see the alterations which he has proposed take effect because he thinks that they are right and because a great deal of effort has gone into getting them right. Equally, it is important that we should try to see whether there are ways in which we can meet the anxieties of noble Lords. It seems to me that in some respects the gulf is pretty wide. One can meet those anxieties only if noble Lords

135
are good enough to try to meet the divide. I am happy to see whether we can do that. However, I cannot give a guarantee because my right honourable friend may take a different view.
Nevertheless, I am content to see what we can do on Report if your Lordships think that that is suitable. However, if we were to do that, it would mean that the amendments that are now grouped together could not be put to the vote. That provision would have to apply to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in these groups because it would not be fair if I said that I would not move my amendment only for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, then to move his next amendment, mine having gone down the drainpipe. That would not be fair, but I am sure that the noble Lord would not do such a dastardly thing as that— I hope.
I am prepared to see whether we can try to meet at least some of the anxieties. I cannot give any guarantee that we can, but at least we can try. If that were to meet with your Lordships' approval, I would be content to withdraw my amendments on that basis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is clearly a serious contribution to the debate and must be taken seriously. Before responding directly to the invitation from the Minister, I should like to summarise briefly what I think has been the outcome of this debate. Apart from the Minister, we have heard 14 speakers, of whom only the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who was present for only half of the debate, supported the idea that there should not be a local authority majority on the police authority. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was silent on that issue. On the question of whether there should be co-option or appointment of additional members, again only the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton (tacitly because of his amendment) supported appointment rather than co-option.
There were then three noble Lords— the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Elton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter— who urged discretion on the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, specifically preferred appointment to co-option, but he also preferred a local authority majority on the police authority.
Perhaps I may expand briefly. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was silent on the question of the local authority majority but was in favour of appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was in favour of a local authority majority but moved amendments in favour of appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was in favour of co-option and a local authority majority. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. My noble friend Lord Callaghan was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was in favour of a local
136
authority majority and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option.
In those circumstances, it is clear that the thinking that the Minister has offered us must cover those issues. It must be explicit that the questions of the local authority majority and of co-option rather than appointment must be on the agenda for discussion between now and Report stage. I invite the Minister to confirm that that is the position and that the Government will not enter any discussions on those issues with a closed mind.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is being slightly unfair and slightly hard. I said that I would consider what your Lordships have said to see whether there is any way in which we can meet the problem. If the noble Lord is going to say, "You have got to do this, that or the other", I must advise him that we cannot start like that. I am prepared to consider the matters which have been suggested by your Lordships this afternoon to see whether there is a way in which we can meet those points.
I have heard all the arguments about co-opting but I must ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, this: Who is going to do the co-opting? It will be those who are already on the police authorities, so they will do the appointing. The noble Lord objects to my right honourable friend doing the appointing, but under this system members of the local authority can do the appointing and can choose their friends if they like.
I have heard what your Lordships have said and I am prepared to consider it, but I do not want to be put into a corner— nor is it fair of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to try to do that and to say, "In this case, we have to think of this, that or the other point". I have said that I will consider everything.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps may say a few words at this stage. I hope that we shall be able to resolve this matter. On the previous occasion on which we debated this issue, some very wise words were directed to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, about the overwhelming desirability of forming a political consensus on the question of reorganising the police service. That seems to me to be overwhelmingly desirable. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has rightly drawn the attention of the Committee to the clear preponderance of feeling on the issues that we have been debating this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he will consider the matter carefully, taking account of what his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said; namely, that he very much hoped that the Government would take this course of action because he thought that otherwise there was a high likelihood that they would be defeated.
All that I am saying to the noble Earl and, through him, to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is that if this issue is not going to be proceeded with, on the basis of what the noble Earl is now saying, and as, I am sure that they will both realise, many of the other clauses and

137
amendments which follow relate directly to this issue, we shall have to discuss how we proceed. I suggest that there might be discussions between the usual channels because it will be very difficult to debate some of the other amendments until this matter has been cleared out of the way.
Earl Ferrers: I know the noble Lord's views about consensus. When one says that one shall try to take account of the views that have been expressed, that does not mean that any Government will necessarily go down the track of consensus or, in other words, of asking where, between everyone, is the lowest common denominator. I do not think that that would be the right thing to do. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not intend that.
I can only repeat what I have said: we shall consider this matter and how best to take advice, whether from your Lordships or anyone else. Ultimately, the Government may find that it is necessary to come back to Parliament and to say: "These are our views", and to test the water then. If your Lordships say "no", that is a matter that we shall have to take into account. I simply want to see whether there is some way in which we can avoid that.
It has been drawn to my attention that Amendments Nos.23 to 25 and 28 to 30 are not affected by my offer because they relate to making the appointments procedures work for authorities which have more than 16 members. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that what I have suggested is at least an effort to meet the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister accused me of being unfair. I do not think that I was. I was not in any way setting preconditions for the discussions or for what should come out of those discussions. I could not do that. It would be quite wrong to expect the Government to agree to anything of that sort. What I did was to ask the Minister two questions. The first was whether he accepted that the possibility of a local authority majority on the police authority was on the agenda for discussion and whether he accepted that the replacement of appointment by co-option on the police authority was on the agenda for discussion. If he agrees to those two items being on the agenda for discussion, I think that we can make progress.
My other question to him was about the beginning of any process. I asked whether he could confirm that the Government are not inflexibly against change on either of those issues— in other words, is there any point in having discussions? Have the Government made up their minds inflexibly on either of those issues? If the Minister can confirm both of those points, there will be no difficulty in us (or noble Lords from all parties in the Committee) joining the discussions that have been offered.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: In a difficult position the Minister is trying to make an offer that should be seriously considered. However, I wonder how the discussions will be conducted. It is not enough for the Opposition in this Chamber and the Government to have
138
discussions, because other important Members of the Committee have a genuine contribution to make. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whose contributions on Second Reading and today have been notable.
We need a little time to discuss the matter and to see how the body can be composed. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has unique experience in this field, as does the noble Lord, Lord Knights. We must not rush into a decision until we know exactly how the Government intend to continue the discussion. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to comment further tonight, which places us all in a difficulty.
Today's discussions and those which took place on Second Reading have revealed that the people who know most about this subject— and I exclude myself because my experience was 30 years ago— ought to be included in any discussions. I have in mind one overwhelming principle: that it will be bad indeed if the Bill goes through this Chamber with a distinct division on these important matters. They should not be the subject of party divisions. Indeed, today they have not been the subject of party divisions but there has been all-party agreement on many issues. Will the Minister say how he believes that matters can be carried further?
Earl Ferrers: That shows the trouble that one gets into when one tries to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that I had put him in a difficulty. For goodness sake, I was trying to be helpful ! He then said that he does not want to be rushed into taking great decisions. Within four minutes of my saying that I will think about the matter the noble Lord asked, "What are you going to do? Are you going to speak to members of the Labour Party or the Opposition? Are you going to talk to people outside the House? Who are you going to talk to?"—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: All we want is not to buy a pig in a poke.
Earl Ferrers: If Members of the Committee are worried about buying a pig in a poke, I suppose that they will have to vote. Then they will know whether they have got a pig in a poke. I am prepared to see whether we can meet any of the objections. That does not mean to say— and I mean this most seriously — that we are going to try to find the common denominator and achieve a consensus. That is not the intention. Governments cannot always do that; they have to make up their minds, bring issues to Parliament, then Parliament must decide. This Chamber may decide one way but the other place may decide another way.
There is, however, an issue with which Members of the Committee are concerned and I wish to see whether we can find a way of dealing with it. If the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will be kind enough to give me a little longer than four minutes in which to work out how it is to be done I shall greatly appreciate that. He said that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has some important points to make, as has my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Yes, and so have all Members of the Committee— that is why we have a Committee stage.

139
One cannot have everyone who participates in a Committee stage, plus a lot of people from outside, coming to discuss the matter.
I offer to see whether I can try to help some Members of the Committee. However, if they think that I am offering a pig in a poke that is up to them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand what was said by my noble friend Lord Callaghan and he was right to pursue the matter. I was asking for something quite different and for something which I believe the Government can agree to without difficulty. I was asking for confirmation that the possibility of a local authority majority on a police authority will be part of the discussions that are to take place. I was asking for confirmation that the choice between co-option and appointment to the police authority will be on the agenda for discussion. I seek that confirmation because without it the discussions will have no point. That is what the debate has been about.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am trying to be helpful to the Minister because I recognise the difficult position in which he finds himself. I hope that he is able to give an affirmative answer to the questions fairly put to him by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It will be difficult to make progress without discussing the issues and trying to resolve them.
We are asking the Minister merely to confirm that issues identified by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can be put on the agenda and, it is hoped, be resolved before the Bill proceeds further.
Earl Ferrers: I am not sure who will receive the great agenda on to which issues will be put. In so far as these matters have been discussed today, I am prepared to consider them. That does not mean to say that at the end of the discussion there will be agreement. I do not want the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord McIntosh, to say, "You said that you would consider it but now you have not budged an inch". The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has confirmed that he is not saying that. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has not yet confirmed that but I am sure he means to do so.
I am prepared to consider the matters. If at the end I say, "I am sorry but the Government remain of this view", that is fine. I do not want anyone to come to me and say that I have been disloyal, disingenuous or anything like that. I am saying, let us discuss these issues and at the end on Report the Government will have to come forward with their views.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. I take it that that is a confirmation that these two issues are the subjects for discussion between now and Report. On that basis, and on the basis that all the amendments in this group, including the government amendments, will not be moved, I am prepared not to move—
Earl Ferrers: Although I made a certain intervention, it would be simpler if all amendments were not moved and those necessary were brought back on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Government amendments introduce the flexible size, that also means that Amendments Nos.23 to 25 and 26 to 28 should not be moved.
Earl Ferrers: That is so. As the whole lot have been grouped together it would be clearer in everyone's mind if the whole lot were not moved.
Lord Peyton of Yeovill: Before a final decision is reached between the two Front Benches, wish to venture the following observations. First, although this massive group of amendments may have covered the same wide issue of how to make up the police authorities it has made it difficult to discuss important details. Secondly, my noble friend has had the unpleasant experience on Second Reading and today of learning something of the dislike of and deep hostility towards the Bill that exists behind him. I see his difficulty and believe that he has been exceedingly honourable in his remarks. He has made no attempt whatever to mislead the Committee. But I am asking myself where we shall get to. Let us suppose that we have the discussions and go straight back to square one. My noble friend will have no evidence to put to his right honourable friend showing the strength of feeling.
I attach no particular magic to any of the amendments tabled in my name. However, I ask my noble friend to accept that I should not have tabled them unless I believed, first, that they were of importance and, secondly, that the whole issue was of fundamental importance to many of us. I do not know what I should do if an uneasy peace were patched up between the two Front Benches. I do not see my noble friend having given any commitment of value; I do not see that he can. I do not want to ask for the impossible but it would be of assistance to the Government to have a yardstick by which to judge the strength of opinion against them.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I find the idea of an uneasy peace growing between the two Front Benches fascinating and it stimulates my imagination. However, I do not see it becoming a reality. I understand my noble friend's complaints about the grouping of the amendments, but the purpose of grouping them is to make life easier for the Committee. However, it has disadvantages in that it makes it difficult to home in on one set of amendments I understand my noble friend's anxiety, but it has taken two-and-a-quarter hours to have one debate. I cannot: think how long it would have taken had we had six debates.
My noble friend asks how I shall communicate to my right honourable friend what he described as the degree of hostility. My right honourable friend is not deaf; he has a television. He is not blind; he has Hansard. Moreover, he has a Minister of State who is sometimes lost for words, but I believe that he will be able to explain some of the problems to the Secretary of State. I cannot go further than that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nobody expects the Minister to make a commitment to the outcome of any talks which are to take place between now and Report

141
stage. Indeed, that is obvious from the fact that the offer of those talks has not been made because the Minister is convinced by the argument but because he is convinced by the numbers. He has been convinced by the arguments of his noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Elton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who have advised him that he would lose if he persisted in opposing our amendments. That is the basis on which we shall enter the discussions. The Minister must enter them on the basis that, if he continues to oppose those who have expressed those almost universal views— and I make no apology for the way in which the debate has taken place because it has been entirely satisfactory— he will be defeated on Report, as he would have been defeated today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff: Before we move to the next amendment, it seems to me that we may wish to consider where that decision leaves the Committee.
[Amendments Nos.6 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No.9:
Page 2, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert: ("(2) A police authority established under this section for any area shall be a body corporate to be known—

(a) where the area is in England, by the name of the area with the addition of the words "Police Authority" after the name;

(b) where the area is in Wales, by the name of the area—

(i) with the addition of the words "Police Authority" after the name or (where there is a separate English name) after the English name; or

(ii) with the addition of the words "Awdurdod Heddlu" before the name or (where there is a separate Welsh name) before the Welsh name.").

The noble Lord said: Following the long and difficult debate on the issue of membership of police authorities, I move a very simple amendment which brings the Bill into line with the Welsh Language Act 1993. That was ably piloted through this Chamber by the Minister and, therefore, I am sure that the amendment will be entirely acceptable to the Government. If it is not, I expect to be invited to hold discussions with the Government about the content of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has in mind. However, I remind the noble Lord that it is consistent with the noble Lord's wish to promote the Welsh language that we should resist the amendment. Only last year Parliament passed the Welsh Language Act 1993. The noble Lord will remember that well. I should say as a non-Welshman that so do I. It provides that where a name is conferred by Act of Parliament on any body, office or place, the appropriate Minister may by order confer on the body, office or place an alternative name in Welsh. The noble Lord is chairman of the Welsh Language Board which is charged with promoting the implementation of the Act and I have no doubt that in that auspicious and magnificent capacity, the no ble Lord will chivy the appropriate Minister.
Lord Elis-Thomas: On the basis of that indication, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the next amendment is put, it may be helpful to consider our procedures. We have agreed formally between the two Front Benches that certain amendments, including government amendments will not be moved. There are a number of other amendments in Clauses 2 and 3 and Schedule 2 which are deeply affected by the decisions that have just been taken. The Minister may find it helpful to agree to adjourn our Committee stage for 30 minutes in order that we may consider which subsequent amendments should also be not moved so that we avoid moving other amendments in a spirit of unreality. I make that suggestion to be helpful; otherwise, we may find ourselves putting forward amendments which have no substance because the premise on which they are based— a firm agreement about the composition of a police authority— has not been agreed. I am not fixed on the idea of 30 minutes. It may be better to adjourn during pleasure so that our subsequent debates are on a more sensible footing.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that we could resolve the doubt of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that the noble Lord has been extremely helpful and co-operative in assisting us to get through the business.
The amendments that we have been discussing, and about which my noble friend Lord Ferrers is to have further consultation, are grouped together, starting with Amendment No.5. I should have thought that in any event those amendments should not be moved. Some of them are government amendments. When we reach other amendments, it will be quite easy to see, as we come to them, whether or not they are affected by the earlier undertaking. Some are and most are not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The problem is rather more complicated than that. The Bill as drafted does not express the Government's position. The Government have expressed a desire to move to police authorities of a more flexible size. Because the Government are going to withdraw their amendments, that will not be reflected on the face of the Bill. I am not as able in such matters as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but I am not certain that we shall be able to resolve each issue as it arises and properly debate the subsequent amendments. I respect the noble Lord's intervention but I disagree with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes an extremely sensible suggestion. We should have a short adjournment to sort out these matters and make sure we get them right.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The heading of Clause 3 is "Functions of police authorities". It will clearly be extremely difficult to resolve those issues without knowing the composition of those police authorities. I do not wish to waste time, but these issues are of such major importance that it seems to me that the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is correct. We should perhaps adjourn during pleasure so that we can resolve the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I too wish to be helpful but I wonder whether it is necessary to adjourn. We have decided not to move those amendments which are grouped together. There are amendments tabled to the remainder of the Bill. When we reach amendments which are affected by the fact that we have not moved certain amendments, we need not move them. I do not believe that it is necessary to adjourn our proceedings for half an hour or so. I should have thought that it would become fairly evident as we go along if there are any difficulties attaching to later amendments, although I do not believe that that will happen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, the centrepiece of the Bill is Clause 2. The simple issue which has been identified is the Government's desire to nominate a particular number of members to police authorities. Section 4(1) of Clause 3 states:
"It shall be the duty of every police authority … to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force",
and then follows a number of statutory requirements.
The point that I am trying to make is that we will not know the character of the police authority until the issue identified in the previous debate has been taken into account. A very moderate proposal has been put to the noble Earl. We are asking for a temporary adjournment. Surely he must agree to such a reasonable proposition?
Lord Elton: If my noble friend agrees to that request, I hope that he will take a very limited brief. Members of the Committee would not, I think, wish to remit the matter to unofficial sub-committee, thereby sweeping a whole slice of the Bill away for major consideration. My noble friend Lord Renton is right. In most cases, the proper place to say, "This is so uncertain, we should not be discussing it", is when we reach such a point on the Marshalled List with all Members of the Committee present to agree to and concur in such action.
If my noble friend decides to take a short time to decide the matter— as I expect he will— I hope that he will deal only with the most obvious points in order to save time, rather than getting himself drawn into a debate in which we would all like to take part.
Lord Tordoff: I sought to speak earlier but was firmly and properly put in my place by the noble Earl. I was simply seeking to suggest what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, eventually suggested; namely, that we should take a little time out to consider quietly the position that we have reached. Otherwise, we may continue discussing the matter on the Floor of the Committee for the next half hour. In my view, it would be better to take the matter off the Floor for half an hour and return with a more considered view. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is nodding his head in agreement. Either we spend the next half hour arguing backwards and forwards across the Floor with great misunderstandings creeping in, or we go away and try to resolve the matter through the usual channels.
Earl Ferrers: I must say that today's experience is giving me great apprehensions about ever trying to be helpful to anyone about anything. I thought that I was being helpful, but now Members of the Committee say,
144
"Let's adjourn the Committee to see where we are going". All I suggested was that we should not move certain amendments.
I do not actually share the apprehensions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It seems to me that Clause 4, to which he referred, imposes a duty on every police authority to undertake various functions. I cannot see that that has anything much to do with the amendments that we decided not to move. However, I see that I am not convincing other Members of the Committee.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. If we go on like this, we shall spend half an hour on the Floor of the Committee getting nowhere. Therefore, we might as well settle the matter outside the Chamber. I hope that we shall at least get somewhere. Incidentally, it might be a good self-denying ordinance to say that the amount of time used ought to be taken off our dinner hour. Then, perhaps, we would only take five minutes. However, as Members of the Committee seem to think that the proposed adjournment is the appropriate way to set about the matter, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 6.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.13 to 6.30 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I now call Amendment No.10 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Baroness Trumpington: It may he for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn again. I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure until 6.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.31 to 6.50 p.m.]
Earl Ferrers: It may be helpful to acquaint the Committee with the position following discussions with the usual channels about the progress of the Bill in view of what happened before we adjourned during pleasure. It has been agreed that we shall not take further amendments to Clauses 2 to 4 and Schedule 2 today but that, when those clauses are considered, the issue will be debated on the basis of whether the clauses should stand part of the Bill. We shall undertake to recommit those clauses and Schedule 2 at the end of the Committee stage proceedings. I hope that that meets with the approval of the Committee and that we shall be able to make progress, starting with Clause 5.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister. I confirm that that is our understanding. We are grateful to him for the flexibility that he has shown. We believe that it will improve the quality of our debate on those clauses.
[Amendments Nos.10 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: police authorities]:
[Amendments Nos.23 to 54 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Functions of police authorities]:
[Amendments Nos.55 to 71 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Chief constables]:
[Amendments Nos.72 to 74 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Deputy and assistant chief constables]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.75:
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the agreement of").
The noble Lord said: I would not be human if I were able to resist the temptation to comment on what has occurred over the past hour or so. It has surely afforded ample proof that our legislative procedures fall somewhat short of perfection. That is as mildly as I can put it
This is a brief amendment, with which I need not detain the Committee for any length of time. It deals with appointments and promotions to the rank of assistant chief constable. As it stands the Bill states that such appointments:
"shall be made, in accordance with regulations under Part II of this Act, by the police authority after consultation with the chief constable and subject to the approval of the Secretary of State". The amendment proposes that the words "after consultation with" be taken out and replaced by "with the agreement of".
It is very important that this Bill should not undermine the office of chief constable. It would be wrong to ask him to accept a nomination with which he does not agree and with which he is uncomfortable. I very much hope that in their wisdom the Government will accept this very modest amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I should very much like to support the amendment in principle. For the reasons given by my noble friend, it seems to be not only reasonable but essential in order to preserve the status, reputation and standing of chief constables.
Lord Renton: I too should like to support the amendment. I should like to add that the assistant chief constable— although he has been renamed— will remain a deputy, especially when there is only one. For a chief constable to have to put up with an assistant chief constable with whose appointment he does not agree would create an impossible position. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although my noble friend says that the amendment is simple and obvious, it would alter the arrangement which is contained in the Police Act 1964. Under that Act a police authority consults its chief constable before making an assistant chief constable appointment. The Act requires a police authority to obtain the agreement of a chief constable to such an appointment.
There are important issues here. The first is that the consultative arrangements which are contained in this Bill are taken straight from the Police Act 1964. They are the same. Those arrangements have worked well and in practice have not caused any difficulties. Secondly, the constitutional position places a duty on police authorities to secure the maintenance of an efficient and
146
effective police force in their areas. An essential aspect of discharging that particular duty is the responsibility for choosing the management team. That is the duty of the police authority. The management team consists of the chief and assistant chief constables of the force.
Thirdly, a change from a requirement for a police authority to consult with a chief constable to one requiring it to secure the agreement of the chief constable has the potential to produce a situation in which, if agreement were not reached, it would not be possible to fill the assistant chief constable post. The requirement for agreement runs contrary to what has applied to date, which has operated successfully for the past 30 years. Of course any chief constable will be consulted as to the appointment of an assistant chief constable, and almost certainly will be in agreement. However, the duty to make the appointment lies with the police authority.
Lord Renton: I must confess that I had forgotten the provision in the 1964 Act. My noble friend is right that it reads:
"after consultation with the chief constable",
in the case of the appointment of a deputy. Can my noble friend confirm whether, in practice, if the chief constable says, "No, I will not have that man as my deputy", the Secretary of State does not give his approval? Or have there been cases in which there has been a conflict and somebody with whose appointment he does not agree has been foisted on a chief constable as a deputy?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend asked whether anything of that nature had occurred over the course of the past 30 years. I cannot give him the answer to that question. However, clearly, if a chief constable says adamantly, "I will not have that man working for me", there is a direct conflict between the police authority and the chief constable. Either the police authority says that it will appoint the man, or perhaps it may find the chief constable too difficult. Alternatively, it may be said that, if the chief constable does not want a particular person, one obviously cannot appoint somebody with whom he cannot work.
The principle is that the appointment is the duty of the police authority. In practice, of course, there will be discussion with the chief constable. That is fundamental good management.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am mildly hesitant in expressing a view in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who I suspect knows the answer to this particular question. The impression I have as regards officers of ranks such as these is that normally the Secretary of State— or in reality the Home Office— is consulted about the short list: at least that was so in my day. The police authority then makes a decision and the Home Secretary, having had the composition of the short list agreed on his behalf, accepts the final appointment, the decision of the police authority. The police authority can undoubtedly appoint somebody whom the chief officer does not particularly want: that is its right. But the only guarantee in the situation we are

147
describing is that everybody on the panel of applicants would have had his or her name considered by the Home Office before the names were presented to the police authority. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, will perhaps correct me if I am wrong on that particular point.
Lord Knights: Perhaps I may add just one or two points. Prior to 1964 the position varied as between borough police forces and county police forces. In the boroughs the assistant chief constables were appointed by the watch committee and the chief constable was consulted but his approval was not always necessary. In the counties it was the chief constable's authority to promote up to and including the rank of assistant chief constable, and he then went to the police authority and said, "Will you please appoint this man as my deputy?" As in most cases there was often only one assistant chief constable, they had no alternative but to appoint him as the deputy.
However, from 1964 onwards the position has been the same in all police forces. It was recommended by the Royal Commission of 1962 that all police forces should be the same: that is, that the police authority should appoint a candidate after discussions with the chief constable. I have sat on many occasions listening to a police authority appointing one of my assistants, and the first question it would usually ask after everybody had been seen was, "Who do you want, chief?" You say whom you would find acceptable— it might be one, it might be two— and then it makes its choice as between those particular ones.
As your Lordships will perhaps know, I was in the police service for many years, and I can recall only one occasion when an assistant chief constable was appointed to a borough police force whom the chief constable did not particularly want. That occasion was many years ago.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I feel slightly unhappy about this amendment, but what I find the most compelling argument is that which has just been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, whose experience is so considerable. I was much impressed by what he said, and I accept his argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I rise rather earlier than I anticipated to oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Knights, about the need for the chief constable to be consulted about the appointment of his assistant chief constable. However, the particular point I am addressing in relation to this Question and to Amendment No.76 is the removal of ranks from the police service. Perhaps I may address Clause 5 in particular, which removes the rank of deputy chief constable.
Those of us 'who have had experience of operational policing — and I would pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Knights, as a witness to this— know that some of the
148
more serious things that happen within a police force area such as major disasters, aeroplanes crashing, riots and occasions of that kind, require somebody who can act as the point of the pinnacle of policing. These are very complex occasions to the police, requiring a large deployment of officers. Very often disparate parts of the organisation are involved so that one needs to combine detectives, uniformed police and mounted police, dog handlers and so on. This requires a single focusing and co-ordinating point. ACCs are very often ambitious men who like to run their own empires, and many of us will be familiar with the friction that sometimes occurs between detectives and uniformed officers.
It is very important that at all times a force has a clear head. Without a deputy to the chief constable we shall be left with there being no clear focus for command on serious occasions when the chief constable is absent. That would particularly be the position in the case of this circulating ACC, suggested by this clause, who, if he has to act as a deputy for more than three months at a time, requires the blessing of the Secretary of State.
believe that that is a serious defect in this amendment to the 1964 Act.
At present the deputy chief constable is also the disciplinary officer for the force. As the chief constable is the ultimate appeal authority, it is necessary that serious matters of discipline are dealt with below his level. Currently the deputy chief constable fulfils that function. It is also important in relationships with the police authority, whatever shape that will take, that there is a clear focus for relationships with the chairman of the police authority and for liaising with the authority over serious disciplinary matters regarding complaints, major disasters and major incidents which may occur within a force area. Unless we have a clear focus of that kind, it will be very difficult for the police authority to relate correctly to a police force.
It is also important that it is clear to the ACCs who the senior ACC or the deputy to the chief constable is: otherwise inevitably there will be uneasy relationships within what is frequently a hierarchical organisation. It is for those reasons that I oppose these amendments to the 1964 Act and the elimination of the rank of deputy chief constable.
I should also like to speak to Amendment No.76, which suggests the removal of the ranks of chief superintendent and chief inspector. There are arguments in favour of having fewer levels within the police service, but presently so many things are tied to particular ranks; for instance, public order occasions and operations on the ground. In fact police regulations actually nominate particular ranks, and so to abolish these ranks without considering the functions is really putting the cart before the horse.
At present within the current rank structure there are clear formal differentiations caused by distinctive badges of rank, which are recognised between one force and another. If one arbitrarily were to remove ranks from forces, on joint operations it would be very difficult to tell who was carrying out particular functions. That is one of the ways in which the police service in this country can lend mutual aid and work together on major occasions. If the chief superintendent

149
or chief inspector ranks were arbitrarily removed, it could lead to the creation of an informal rank structure, with the rise of "elder statesmen" within particular ranks and juniors, due perhaps to service within the rank which would not necessarily reflect ability. This loss of clarity could seriously compromise efficiency in situations of operational command.
It is not just a question of wishing to retain the status quo. If there were a proper examination of functions within ranks, and a clear differentiation was made within the police hierarchy, as has been suggested by many in the police service over a period of years, it is possible that ranks could be removed. Chief constables have already acknowledged the need to streamline their forces by reducing the numbers within ranks. Quite drastic cuts have been made in the number of chief superintendents within many forces; but actually to eliminate levels of ranks would, I believe, lead to confusion and difficulties on operational occasions.
Lord Renton: It would be very interesting to know why the Government are dropping the expressions "chief superintendent" and "chief inspector" for the police forces which are to be covered by this Bill. As I understand it, in Northern Ireland and in the Metropolitan Police, those ranks are to be retained. That is for a good reason. When you have a very large police force, whether it covers a large area or a large population, or both, there has to be decentralisation. There are even divisions of the metropolitan force. Chief superintendents are placed at the head of each division and are generally referred to as divisional chief superintendents.
Some of the forces that will be created under the Bill will be large, as we can tell by turning to Schedule 1 to the Bill. I take the counties that I know best: Kent, where I was born; and Cambridgeshire, where I have lived for many years. They are both large counties and a degree of decentralisation is necessary in them. I should have thought that it would be a great advantage to have some superintendents to whom responsibility for a particular part of the area of the police force had been delegated. I would therefore quite like to call him chief superintendent.
I do not feel so strongly about chief inspectors, but the rank of chief inspector has existed in the police force as part of the pyramid of promotion, which is quite important in attracting good men and women into the force. That has been well established for years and I think it would be helpful if my noble friend Lord Ferrers could give us reasons— if they are not purely financial — as to why it is proposed that the rank of chief superintendent and the rank of chief inspector should be dropped.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Knights: I wish to speak first on the Motion that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with the removal of the rank of deputy chief constable. Paragraph 3.52 of the Sheehy Report— the document which led to this move, I believe— states:
"In considering the question of whether two or three ranks are needed above that of superintendent we took particular account of
150
the disciplinary responsibilities of deputy chief constables. In most forces throughout the United Kingdom this rank plays a significant role in discipline matters. We understand that in England and Wales the rank was created, relatively recently, mainly to deal with disciplinary matters in the wake of [the Police and Criminal Evidence Act]. Prior to that, the practice had been to nominate a deputy from amongst the complement of [assistant chief constables] on either a permanent or ad hoc basis for the purposes of delegating particular functions".
I am sorry to have to say that I think that Sheehy was singularly ill-advised, if that is the opinion which the committee came to.
The appointment of deputy chief constable has existed since at least the County Police Act 1839, giving authority to the chief constable to appoint him with the agreement of the police authority. In those days, he was one of the superintendents rather than an assistant chief constable but he was to deputise for the chief constable in his absence. The three-months limit which is referred to in Clause 5 dates from 1839.
The Royal Commission of 1962 recommended that police authorities should appoint the deputy chief constable. But the rank did not come until the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was not necessarily another layer of management, which is what the Sheehy Committee was concerned about. In fact— and I say this again with a certain amount of sadness— the appointment was much more to satisfy the ego of deputy chief constables than ever it was to handle discipline. Discipline had been handled by the officer appointed as deputy chief constable since 1964, when the Royal Commission again recommended that the chief constable should play no part generally in the early stages of discipline matters in order to leave him unbiased when sitting as a disciplinary authority.
The Sheehy Committee went on to say that there was no reason why assistant chief constables could not handle the disciplinary responsibilities of the deputy chief constable. Indeed, they do so now in order to free the deputy to act as the disciplinary authority in lieu of the chief constable in minor matters. If there is to be no deputy chief constable but all assistant chief constables, some regard would have to be paid to that matter because in the large forces, the chief constable cannot handle all the discipline hearings. That is why the position was altered in 1984. In paragraph 3.53 the Sheehy Committee also commented that:
"the designation of … a deputy on an ad hoc basis is a matter to be decided by the chief constable … in the light of local circumstances".
It was on that basis that the committee recommended abolition of the rank of deputy chief constable.
I do not believe that that is a sensible way to proceed. The force needs to know, on a permanent basis, who is in charge when the chief constable is away. What does a chief constable do, if his appointed deputy retires and he has no ACC sufficiently qualified to be appointed by him in his place? The appointment of the replacement assistant chief constable will be a matter for the police authority and the appointee will probably not have the experience and service necessary to be appointed the deputy.
Finally, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is proposed to continue the present practice where an assistant chief constable cannot become a deputy in the

151
force in which he has grown up. That could mean that none is qualified to be appointed the deputy. Who would take over if, under the ad hoc arrangements, no one was in the post of deputy at the time and the chief constable collapsed and died? The police authority could not appoint a deputy, it is a matter for the chief constable and he is not there to do it.
I would not argue personally for the retention of the rank of deputy chief constable, but I believe that the office should Continue with the assistant chief constable holding it, appointed by the police authority, as was the position in 1984. I therefore support the motion that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill.
Turning to the rinks of chief superintendent and chief inspector, I share to a large extent the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. I believe that there is a need in large forces for a rank between superintendent and assistant chief constable. In the force which I know best, the West Midlands, there are some 80 superintendents in post. It may be that that number can be reduced. It may be that, if the chief superintendent's rink is abolished, the number of superintendents may have to be increased. But, whatever may be the case, I believe that 80 is too large a number of people to be accountable directly to six assistant chief constables, particularly as those assistant chief constables are not in line of command positions to the superintendents. Very often, as the name implies, they are assisting the chief constable and probably only one or two at most— one in operations and one in the CID— are in line of command positions.
If we take a big city like Coventry, there will be four groupings of officers commanded by superintendents. I am quite sure that the city authorities in Coventry will not wish to consult with four superintendents, they will wish to consult with one. That is the rank of chief superintendent. I believe that Sheehy recommended the abolition of the rank of chief superintendent because the duties, as he saw them, overlapped very much with the duties of superintendent. That may well be so, but it is more a question of ironing out the responsibilities than of abolishing a rank.
I feel less strongly about the rank of chief inspector. In most cases that could well be handled by using the top points of the inspector's rate of pay (if that is where we finish up) to recognise additional responsibilities that might be held by someone who does some duties which an inspector does not normally carry out. So, while I would certainly support an amendment to retain the rank of chief superintendent, I have some doubts about the rank of chief inspector.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: I too support Amendment No.76. The police being a uniformed, disciplined service, easily recognisable ranks are vitally important. That has been proved over and over again, especially in public order situations. Increasingly we face situations like that. The removal of ranks will have a disastrous effect on operational affairs. Surely it would make more sense if a slimming down operation in some of those ranks were concentrated upon. Indeed, such a process has been in operation for a number of years and has been quite successful. There
152
is perhaps more room for development in that direction than in eliminating the rank altogether. I therefore add my support to the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There are a number of issues involved here. Speaking for myself, I agree very largely with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Knights. These recommendations basically come from the report of the Sheehy Committee. One of the great disadvantages of the Sheehy Committee is that Mr. Clarke, the then Home Secretary, decided as a matter of policy to have nobody on the committee who had any experience of the police service. That is one of the reasons why so many of the recommendations have been dropped. If there had been people with experience of the police service I would have been rather surprised if some of those recommendations had been made.
Perhaps I may deal with one point of considerable importance which has already been put to the noble Earl. It has been long established Home Office policy that no officer could proceed through the ranks from assistant chief constable to deputy chief constable and to chief constable in the same force. The reason for that was a series of rather unfortunate episodes in the history of the police service. It was thought that one of the principal problems was that people had been spending too much time within a single force and a single community. It was therefore decided that as a matter of policy no officer would be allowed to proceed through those three ranks within the same force. Officers could go out of the force— for instance as an assistant chief constable— then to another force as deputy, and subsequently they might be appointed chief constable of that force. But they could not go through those three ranks. There was a very powerful case for initiating that policy.
The situation will now be different because the rank of deputy chief constable is to be abolished. As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, asked the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, what precisely will now happen? All those among us who have spent some time considering this matter in the past will be extremely anxious to find out what the Government would propose to do were they to get parliamentary authority to abolish the rank of deputy. Quite apart from anything else, it seems to me to be a profound mistake. Here is another case of unreasonable interventionism on the part of the Government.
The noble Earl, Mr. Howard and, before him, Mr. Clarke spent a great deal of time telling us— I am sure they did so with sincerity— that they wanted to give chief officers more authority to run their own organisations. That is a praiseworthy objective. But, having said that, the next thing that they do is to say that the chief constable cannot have a deputy clearly defined, be it the office or the rank. I do not have a strong feeling on the matter, but I believe that it is at least desirable to maintain the position of the 1964 Act, which said that there should be an office of deputy chief constable. As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, rightly said, in the majority of forces the deputy chief constable has been entrusted with responsibility for the discipline of that

153
force. It is a clearly defined responsibility. The great advantage is that the chief constable knows who his deputy is, as do the assistant chief constables. But the idea of not being quite clear who the deputy is in the absence of a chief constable seems to me to be wholly unsatisfactory in a disciplined force. I very much hope that the Government will consider this matter again. Once again, unhappily, they have not accepted the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers on this point. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to look at it again.
It is particularly important to look at this issue again because of the other decisions on rank structure. There is, for instance, to be only one rank between inspector and assistant chief constable. That is an extraordinary jump. I have no passionate feeling about whether the rank of chief inspector should be maintained or the rank of chief superintendent. My own inclination is to believe that the rank of chief superintendent should be maintained.
I shall put to the Committee the sort of problem that will arise if there is a major public order situation in an area where mutual aid between forces is in operation. As the Committee will be aware, there is an arrangement whereby, if there is likely to be a major public disorder, forces from other areas can be brought in to support the force in whose area the demonstration is likely to take place. That is the current situation. Sometimes many hundreds of police officers may be involved. There may be substantial public disorder. With the rank of chief superintendent abolished, as is the purpose of the Government, one may have a very confused situation in which three or four officers of superintendent rank are all there. Who is supposed to be in charge? Who is in command? These are important issues when one is discussing the position of a disciplined force. I find it very unsatisfactory that we are being asked to abolish the rank of chief superintendent without those issues being adequately addressed.
I have expressed my concerns as clearly as I can. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to indicate that the Government are prepared to look at the matter again. As I have said, the critical appointment is without doubt that of deputy chief constable. Secondly, if one of the other two ranks is to be maintained, I believe that the rank of chief superintendent should be maintained. But as I have indicated, I believe that the retention of only one rank between inspector and assistant chief constable, with a proviso that that assistant chief constable might find himself the acting chief constable of a force, is profoundly unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will agree to look at this issue again.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 5, which is the matter upon which the noble Baroness began this debate on clause stand part, replaces Section 6 of the 1964 Act. It does away with the rank of deputy chief constable. But it requires a chief constable to designate one of the assistant chief constables to exercise all the powers and duties of the chief constable in his absence or incapacity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quite rightly said, one wants to know where one is in a
154
disciplined force. In fact, the officers will do so. A person will have been designated to act as chief constable in the absence of the chief.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to Northern Ireland and said that there the rank of deputy will be maintained, as it will in the Metropolitan Police, where there will be a deputy commissioner. I think the noble Lord will agree that those are both extraneous cases and different ones. The position of the Metropolitan Police is totally different from the rest of the country.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I am afraid that he has misunderstood me. It was in relation to the abolition of the rank of chief constable that I referred to Northern Ireland and to the Metropolitan district. It is in relation to that— because of the need for decentralisation when there is a large authority— that it would be helpful to know from my noble friend why the appointment of chief constable — I mean chief superintendent— is being abolished.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for having corrected himself. I was not certain what he meant about the position of chief constable of Northern Ireland being abolished. Perhaps I can come shortly to the matter of chief superintendent.
The purpose of abolishing the rank of deputy chief constable is to streamline the top management ranks of the service. Clause 5 enables that objective to be achieved while retaining the essential function of any deputy, which after all is to act as the next person in the management chain in place of the person who is not available to discharge his or her responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, said that it was very important that people should know who was the deputy chief constable. In fact, they will. Clause 5 makes it perfectly clear that provision has to be made for one of the assistant chief constables to act for the chief constable in his absence. That safeguards the essential function of a deputy. But there is no requirement for deputising when the chief constable is present. Therefore, in our view, there is not a requirement for a separate rank of deputy chief constable.
Perhaps I can give the probably totally inappropriate analogy of the fact that I happen to be Minister of State at the Home Office, which is an office, and that I also happen to be deputy Leader of the House. I do not operate as Leader of the House unless the Leader is not present. In that respect it is a not dissimilar situation. There will be assistant chief constables, and the chief constable will say, "You are to be the deputy when I am not here."
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not feel that the analogy is a very happy one. When the noble Earl is deputy Leader of the House, he operates in the absence of the Leader of the House. Of course he does. His rank is not about to be abolished. But that is what is proposed with regard to the rank of deputy chief constable.
The noble Earl said that there was no particular anxiety because the chief constable would be able to say, "I want you, Mr. X, during my absence to act for me. " But presumably Mr. Y or Mr. Z may be acting for

155
him on subsequent occasions. In a disciplined force a clearly defined chain of command is needed. Unhappily, one of the problems is that that chain of command is being cut down— I think, unreasonably.
Earl Ferrets: That is a point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that my analogy is not a happy one because I am not being abolished and some deputy chief constables are. It is the rank that is being abolished: the people will remain. So will their responsibilities in acting for the chief constable. If it is said that some people who at the moment are deputy chief constables will no longer be so and that this is bad luck on them and therefore the situation cannot possibly be altered, one is arguing that one can never make an amendment to the Position as it is. I accept that some Members may think differently, but we believe that there is a perfectly reasonable argument for streamlining the force and saying that there is a position for a person to act as a deputy chief constable in the full knowledge that he will act in the capacity of the chief constable when the chief constable is not there, but when he is there he will have the responsibility of an assistant chief constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights and Lord Harris, drew attention to the fact that, quite rightly, at present there cannot be an assistant chief constable, a deputy chief constable and a chief constable all in the same force. If you do away with one of them, it is asked, does that mean that an assistant chief constable cannot be a chief constable? That is a situation that we shall have to examine. Obviously, the removal of one of those ranks makes the position different. I was also asked what would happen if a chief constable died. As I explained, under Clause 5 the amended Section 6(4) of the Police Act states that when he is not there,
"a chief constable shall designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to exercise all the powers and duties of the chief constable".
So, in the unhappy event of a chief constable dying while in post, his deputy should be known.
Amendment No.76 allows police forces to retain the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector. We felt that the ranks of chief superintendent and chief inspector should be abolished. The purpose of removing those is to enable further streamlining of the management hierarchy by simplifying the structure. That will provide clearer and more direct communications. It will enable those police officers with the greatest ability — which is important— to move more quickly through the ranks. It will also provide chief constables with the opportunity to exchange middle management posts for more police officers on the beat.
The need for streamlining the force's management structures has been accepted for a long time. Indeed, many forces have gone a long way towards reducing the number of middle management posts. But the existing rank structure, which has six separate ranks, from sergeant to assistant chief constable, hinders forces achieving the optimum management restructuring.
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned. He asked why the proposal was necessary and what were he reasons for it Traditionally, although I accept that it
156
is not so in every case, a person may be a sergeant and become an inspector, then a chief inspector and move up to superintendent. Then he becomes a chief superintendent and moves up through that grade. Under the new proposal there will be only two hurdles to overcome. Once a person has finished being a sergeant he becomes an inspector. Thereafter he will be able to move right up the chain. The most able people will move up to the top the most quickly. There will then be a hurdle to jump to reach the office of superintendent. The most efficient will be able to move quickly up the structure until they come to the position of assistant chief constable.
There have been occasions when forces have identified a chief superintendent's post, a superintendent's post or a chief inspector's post. We feel that if the two middle ranking structures are done away with, it will enable the movement of people through those ranks to be quicker and that the best people will get to the top earlier than they would otherwise have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to public order situations. The police have a separate mechanism for designating authority to people in those circumstances. They have gold, silver and bronze insignia. As the noble Lord will know only too well, those are imposed on the rank structure specifically for the purpose of providing for clarity of command in public order situations. Changing the rank structure does not affect that.
I accept that it is difficult for people who are in those posts. When one has risen in a disciplined service to the rank of, say, chief superintendent, one feels an understandable pride at having done so. If that rank does not exist in the future, that person will inevitably feel a degree of regret. However, if one is trying to look at the structure for the future, it is better to have the command simpler and quicker so that there will he a more streamlined structure in the future than there has been in the past. For those reasons we consider the change important.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: First, perhaps I can ask the Minister a question on a point about which I am not clear. Assuming the Bill goes on the statute hook in its present form and the appropriate regulations are made, will the existing chief superintendent have to remove the symbol of rank from his uniform? Will the post of chief superintendent be abolished after he leaves it? It will be helpful if the Minister can tell us that.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and myself, asked a specific question about the current Home Office prohibition — for prohibition it is— which means that nobody can move from the rank of assistant, to deputy, to chief constable. I was concerned to hear the noble Earl reply that the reason for that (let me be quite blunt) related to the integrity of the police service. In answer to the points we made the noble Earl said that the Government were considering the matter; but that is not a very persuasive answer. The Government brought forward the legislation. Given the importance of the issue we are entitled to ask when the Government believe they will be in a position to answer that specific question. Will it be before Report stage, before Third Reading or will this Chamber have to pass the Bill

157
without knowing the answer to that critical question relating to progression through those three ranks? I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will tell me the answer.
Lord Renton: I wish to raise a point following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. On the question of chief superintendents— indeed, it will apply to chief inspectors as well— are they at present paid more because they are chief superintendents and chief inspectors? I understand that they are. It is unthinkable that the Bill can be made retrospective in relation to that. I hope that we shall be given an assurance that that will not happen.
Lord Knights: Perhaps I can pose another question for the Minister. First, I accept that the new Section 6(4) states:
"A chief constable shall after consulting his police authority designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to exercise all the powers and duties of the chief constable … during any absence, incapacity or suspension".
That is quite clear and it would cover the case I mentioned provided that that is regarded as being a permanent full-length appointment and not an ad hoc appointment as the Sheehy committee recommended. But does that mean that a person will be appointed to deputy on a long continuing basis?
Secondly, can the Minister deal with the question of a force such as Warwickshire, which has two assistant chief constables or, using today's parlance, one deputy chief constable and one assistant chief constable? It used to be two, one of them holding the office of deputy. One can easily foresee a situation where the one who is appointed as deputy retires and the one who is the assistant is himself coming up to the point of retirement. They would be in the position of having to appoint two quite new, inexperienced assistant chief constables and the chief constable would be expected to make one of them his deputy straight away, before he had had time to move into his rank or obtain the necessary experience. Today that situation is dealt with by advertising for and appointing to the office of deputy chief constable at a slightly higher rate of pay than the assistant chief constable. That is a much simpler way of dealing with the matter. I welcome the Minister's views on that problem.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I shall deal with the problems outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, first. He asked whether there would be a requirement for a chief constable to appoint an assistant chief constable as his deputy for a long period. The position will be open to the chief constable. He may say, "I am going to be away next week or next month and I want you to be the deputy chief constable". On the other hand, he may wish a person to be a deputy chief constable for a year. It will be up to the chief constable. The important point is that he will have to designate a person at any one time to be the deputy chief constable to act in his position when he, as the chief constable, is not there.
The noble Lord said in regard to Warwickshire that if two assistant chief constables were nearing retirement
158
under the present circumstances they would be able to advertise for a deputy chief constable; whereas under the Bill there would have to be an assistant and someone relatively new appointed as deputy. If two assistant chief constables are approaching retirement it will be up to the chief constable to make provision for that— perhaps by appointing an additional assistant chief constable, or whatever, in order to make allowance for the fact that when the chief constable has to appoint a deputy there is somebody of authority who can take that over. That is the position which will apply now.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that the chief superintendents or chief inspectors were paid more than superintendents or inspectors. That is quite right. It is also right to say that it would be unthinkable for them to be paid less. They will not be paid less. It will merely be their rank which will no longer be a "chief", but will be a "super"; or will no longer be a "chief inspector", but an "inspector".
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what would be the position with regard to rank insignia and whether those concerned would retain that of the present chief superintendent or superintendent. That will be a matter for the chief constable to decide. The noble Lord said also that the position of an officer not being able to hold the rank of an assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable was extremely important because it referred to the propriety of forces. That is true. If one removes one of those linchpins that alters the picture. We are addressing our minds to that. I hope to know the answer by Report stage, but at the moment I can only say that it is being addressed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: The noble Earl said it was up to the chief constable to appoint his deputy and he could appoint him for 12 months or whatever. But on the face of the Bill it says that if the period is for more than three months the appointment can only be made with the consent of the Secretary of State. That is one of the most objectionable points about that section. It implies that we shall have rotating deputy chief constables. To use his analogy that he is Deputy Leader, it is as though the noble Earl was Deputy Leader for three months and then the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was Deputy Leader for three months, and so forth. That is the objectionable part of that section of the Act; that is, it does not provide continuity or a clear position for a deputy of which the other ACCs and members of the force are aware. That is why we object to that section.
In relation to the abolition of the ranks of chief superintendents and chief inspectors, the noble Earl said that that would enable people to rise more quickly to the top. That applies anyhow to the gilded youths who rise rapidly to the top through the special corps and so forth. For most of the force it will mean much greater stagnation. The vast majority of officers will have no prospects and will not have the spear of ambition to lead them to look for further promotion. Therefore, though it may benefit the minority of the brilliant who will eventually become assistant chief constables or chief

159
constables, for the majority of the force it will be demoralising or disheartening, because there will not be those positions open to them further up the tree.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I can intervene to say that the noble Baroness will recognise that they will be able to progress up the pay scales of what are at present the two different ranks. They will be able to progress up those pay scales right to the top and that is quite an incentive.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: But that is a further disagreeable aspect of the suggested amendments because it provides the confusion of people who are paid better than others not in fact having a formal position. One therefore gets a seniority by pay as opposed to a seniority by position.
We are not entirely satisfied by the answers we have had on this occasion and we shall be returning to both these issues at the Report stage of the Bill.
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No.76 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
7.51 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Limit on increase in non-domestic rates for 1994 financial year]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert ("dependent upon the annual employer's contributions payments (as defined by section 158(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992) paid by the non-domestic ratepayer in the previous financial year, so that-—

(a) where the annual contributions payments are £ 30,000 or below, X shall be calculated on a sliding scale such that—

(i) where the annual contributions payments are £ 1,000 or less, X=100–5, and

(ii) where the annual contributions payments are £ 30,000, X=115;

(b)where the annual contributions payments are over £ 30,000, X is—

(i) 120 if tilt hereditament falls within sub-paragraph (3) below, and

(ii) 115 if the hereditament falls within sub-paragraph (4) below. " ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with small businesses. I am delighted to be able to return to the amendment on Report as I have every hope that it will enjoy government support. We argued in Committee that the combination of the move to a uniform business rate with the impact of revaluation had had a major impact on business rates, with more than two-fifths of all companies seeing increases, or if necessary decreases, of 50 per cent. in their bills.
The Government decided— we do not object to it— to phase in those increases in steps of 20 per cent. Of
160
the increase together with inflation for each of five years. But so that it would be cost neutral it also meant that the gainers too saw their business rates fall not overnight but in incremental stages. After they understandably protested at being asked to subsidise firms in more prosperous parts of the country, the Government agreed that the gainers should gain in full but the losers should still enjoy the protection of transitional relief.
So far, so good. But it meant that over three years transitional relief was no longer a self-balancing account, for a reason which I think we all understand and sympathise with but one which has needed heavy public subsidy— almost £ 2 billion of revenue foregone to the Exchequer. By any standards that is a considerable sum, especially when one bears in mind the figures of the Red Book.
Our objections in Committee were not to transitional relief or even to the gainers gaining immediately but the losers being protected. We had two objections. First, the subsidy to protect the losers was offered indiscriminately to all businesses whether they needed it or not. Secondly, the willingness to pick up the need for central funding was not guaranteed on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will move an amendment on that point.
To return to our first point, we objected to a subsidy protecting the losers being offered indiscriminately to all businesses whether or not they needed it. Whatever their profitability they were having money thrown at them by courtesy of the taxpayer. For some, it was clearly necessary; for others, it was useful; for others, it simply added to their profitability. I include here the major utilities, which means in other words that taxpayers are passing on subsidy to well-to-do shareholders.
We have only to remind ourselves of the pre-tax profits of the privatised utilities. British Telecom made profits of nearly £ 2 billion last year; British Gas made profits of more than £ 1 billion; the water companies made profits of £ 150 million to £ 200 million; the electricity companies made profits of £ 100 million to £ 200 million; National Power made profits of £ 580 million; PowerGen made profits of £ 425 million. It is hard to believe that such companies should enjoy the privilege of subsidy— that is, not moving on to their proper rate base, as they would otherwise have done given that level of profitability. Such subsidy is simply adding to the very large profits of already extremely profitable organisations.
In Committee we moved a probing amendment to the effect that transitional relief should be targeted at small businesses — those with under 10 staff— on the grounds that they suffered the worst effects of recession and they had the least margin of profitability with which to face increases in uniform business rates. It was a probing amendment to see whether Ministers accepted that public subsidy should be targeted and that its recipients should be carefully selected according to the circumstances, to quote a phrase. To my pleasure, the Minister was kind enough to agree. He said:
"Yes … depending on the circumstances we are, of course, sympathetic to the principle that public money should be targeted,

161
but we would have to decide the correct procedure, what the targets are and at whom they are aimed".— [Official Report, 8/2/94; col.1520.]
We all agree that public money should be targeted. We have established that principle in relation to this Bill. The question today therefore is a second order question. As the noble Earl quite rightly said in Committee, it is the question of at whom it should be targeted and what are the proper procedures for so doing.
This amendment is a second version of the amendment we moved in Committee. We are still seeking to ensure that transitional relief goes proportionately and preponderantly to small businesses but is calculated now not by the number of employees but by their national insurance bill, which is a useful proxy for the wages of the staff. And because it inevitably focuses on companies with low-paid staff rather than the small but perhaps highly profitable professional businesses, it will make sure that subsidy goes to those who most need it.
In addition, the amendment not only targets subsidy more carefully, as the Minister would wish us to do, but it does a second thing. It suggests that the subsidy of transitional relief should be tapered; that employers paying a national insurance bill of under £ 5,000 a year would face increases of just 2.5 per cent.; that employers paying a bill of under £ 10,000 a year would pay 5 per cent.; that employers paying a bill of under £ 15,000 a year would 7.5 per cent.; and so on; until firms with a national insurance bill of some £ 30,000 or above would pay the full transitional increase and would not enjoy any protection from that increase.
In the forthcoming year business will receive £ 150 million in transitional relief. But instead of all business finding the increment they would have paid cut in half, this amendment would taper it so that the smallest business with the poorest paid employees would get virtually full remission. The large companies with national insurance bills of more than £ 30,000 would get little or no remission but would pay the full increase. It is financially neutral. It is simple to administer, as national insurance figures are already well known to government. The formula is graded and tapered and need present no additional administrative burden to government or to businesses. Above all, it would do what the Minister agreed in Committee was desirable and appropriate. It would target relief on the needy. Because — and this is the most telling point— of the £ 150 million proposed in additional transitional relief, £ 100 million will otherwise be going to plcs, public corporations and privatised utilities— firms which on no scale can be said to need public subsidy, particularly when one takes into account the pressure on public finances in the current year. Two-thirds of the subsidy is going to major businesses whose profits are rising and whose shareholders will enjoy even larger dividends courtesy of the taxpayer. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in this amendment. I see its attraction not only in logical terms, but in terms of making the provision
162
more intelligible to the taxpayer. That is important in every form of taxation. A taxpayer paying tax on a business— in this case business rates— will far better understand and will be far better prepared to accept the fairness of the tax if it is related to the scale of his business. One can think of many businesses which may use relatively small premises— that is the basis for the relief in referring to the particular hereditaments — which are nevertheless large businesses in terms of the number of employees and, one hopes, the profits which are generated.
The noble Baroness has gone through the arguments very clearly and I shall not take up your Lordships' time by repeating them. Perhaps I may ask her a question in summing up as regards paragraph (a) (ii) of the amendment which refers to annual contributions where the payments are £ 30,000. Is that intended to be more than £ 1,000 and less than £ 30,000? I was trying to follow the scale set out in the amendment. If it is not easy to answer that tonight, so be it, but the principle is a very good one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, picks up an extremely important point concerning this particular amendment which seems to me to be an attempt yet again to effect change for the sake of change. It is another amendment which seeks to target transitional relief in a different way from the present arrangements, but for no apparent good reason.
Rates are a tax on property rather than on individual businesses. Our current transitional arrangements target relief on smaller businesses by reference to the value of their property. This value is shown in the local rating list so is readily available to billing authorities.
Before I say a few words specifically about the defects of the amendment, may I remind your Lordships exactly what the transitional arrangements do. First, they target relief only on those businesses which faced the largest increases in their bills after 1990. Secondly, they were deliberately targeted to give small businesses more protection than larger ones. They target small businesses by reference to the value of property. Businesses occupying property with a rateable value of less than £ 15,000 in London or £ 10,000 elsewhere have lower increases in bills than larger properties. Without the provisions of the Bill, those increases would have been 15 per cent. in real terms as opposed to 20 per cent. in real terms for larger property. The bills for businesses occupying small mixed domestic and non-domestic property— that is, composite property— would have increased by only 10 per cent. in real terms.
The Bill will reduce the increases for a third consecutive year. Larger properties will face 10 per cent. increases in real terms and smaller ones 71/2 per cent. increases. Small composite properties will have their increases held in line with inflation. But transitional relief is still being targeted mainly at small businesses, using the simple, readily understood and accessible criterion of rateable values as a determinant of size.

163
With this amendment, it seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, wants to keep the existing rateable value threshold but apply it only to businesses with employers' national insurance contributions of over £ 30,000. Any business paying national insurance contributions of £ 30,000 or less will face increases of between 0.5 per cent. and 15 per cent. determined by reference to some sliding scale. Who sets the sliding scale is left to our imagination for it is certainly not set out in this amendment. Nor is there any provision to make rules which set the scale to apply equally across the country.
But in any case, employers' national insurance contributions are not a good indication of the size of firm. Large mail order firms or hotels, for instance, may employ many part-lime workers for whom, depending on their earnings, no contributions may be made. Such firms would, therefore, have a relatively low contributions bill. Equally, a small firm which may employ very few highly skilled and relatively highly paid workers may have a high contributions bill.
The amendment therefore would link relief for 1994– 95 to national. employers' contributions paid by the ratepayer in 1993– 94. But the contributions totals would not be available from the Inland Revenue's contributions agency until late 1994. To send out the right bills, local authorities would need to be able to gain access to this data. And even so, businesses would not know until towards the end of that year whether or not they were to benefit from the relief. That uncertainty would most certainly not be welcomed. It is not simple to administer.
This amendment is incomplete and it is unnecessary. It would add yet another layer of complexity to what noble Lords opposite have already complained is a complex scheme. For those reasons, I urge your Lordships not to accept it.
Baroness Hollis A Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the question posed to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards the shape of the amendment. Basically, the proposal is that for each £ 1,000 extra of national insurance there should be a reduction in protection of 0.5 per cent. For example, with the employees' national insurance bill coming to £ 1,000, that would mean that only 0.5 per cent. would be paid towards the increase which might otherwise occur. At £ 5,003 it would be 2.5 per cent. and upwards in steps. Therefore the relationship between paragraphs (a) (i) and (ii), and (b) is that at £ 1,000 or so it will be 100.5 and go up in incremental stages until one reaches a ceiling of 115 al £ 30,000. If the wording of the amendment does not indicate that adequately, I apologise. It seemed inappropriate to put down an array of figures. That is the presumption— that is to say, a simple, sliding scale taper.
As to the noble Earl's point, I do not recall complaining that this matter was complex. We did say that we were "phasing in the phasing in", which is another matter. We did not say that the matter was complex, but that it was unfair and an indiscriminate use of the taxpayers' money. Nothing that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has said challenges that at all.
164
He said that this provision would be difficult to administer. The Federation of Small Businesses disagrees with the noble Earl and says that it is very simple to administer. Some of the difficulties may have been underestimated, but it is not a complex issue because national insurance statistics are well known. After all, they are the basis of two other Bills in relation to social insurance and statutory sick pay, with which some of us have been involved recently. This is information which is well established in the public domain.
The noble Earl was right in saying that national insurance bills are not a complete proxy for small firms with low-paid staff, possibly facing hardship. I accept that there is not a complete proxy. The noble Earl used the example of hotels. I am sure he knows the level of wage at which national insurance starts to be paid. If he does not, perhaps I may help to remind him. It is at £ 56 going up to £ 57. Therefore, something like 500,000 people in this country are too poor to pay income tax, but are witnessing their social insurance contributions going up from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. this year. In other words, unlike income tax, the implementation of national insurance comes very low down indeed. A hotel worker would probably have to be working under family credit hours (under 16 hours a week) and if he is taking tips, to be getting less than £ 56 a week. While I take the noble Earl's point, nonetheless it is not a valid one, given the level at which national insurance begins to bite.
That is not the real substantive issue, which is that this is a form of relief which is untargeted. Perhaps we may remind ourselves of the argument. Rates are a property tax. At the last revaluation it was determined that businesses, firms, shops and office premises were due to pay a new figure. That new figure should have been paid from day one. Quite rightly— and we understand the reasons why— because those increases were swingeing in many cases, as well as some of the decreases, the provision was phased in. That meant that firms had been paying less to the Exchequer for a number of years than they would otherwise have done as part of their contribution to aggregate external finance. Therefore it is Exchequer revenue foregone— a subsidy to them and a requirement for the Exchequer to raise that money foregone from other payers; namely, the taxpayer. That is irrefutable. As £ 2 billion is not being levied by the Exchequer on companies, that money has to be made good by the taxpayer in a difficult financial situation in which we are facing cuts in services in other areas of public policy.
That would be acceptable if we believed that those receiving that £ 2 billion subsidy were among the needy. On the contrary, they are among the most profitable, affluent and asset-rich businesses in this country because the Government have helped to make them so. I am talking about companies such as BT and British Gas. When BT's profits are so high that even Oftel is requiring it to reduce its high prices, how can the Minister justify throwing a rate subsidy at such a company? The same applies to the water companies.
The Minister knows that this case is right. The real problem is finding the most effective and economical

165
way of targeting the money. I invite the Minister to comment. Surely he cannot justify major companies such as BT, British Gas and PowerGen, which have huge profits that are spent in giving high and generous dividends to their shareholders, paying less in what is effectively a tax to the Government — the business rate — than they would otherwise, with that money having to be made up by people who are often very poor and at the bottom level of taxation. I invite the noble Earl to respond.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that she never said that the provisions would make the matter more complex, but this particular amendment would certainly make the Bill exceptionally complex. I believe that the Opposition are seeking that a test of hardship should apply to each ratepayer in order to decide the level of transitional relief to which that ratepayer is entitled. But that relief is not set against particular economic or market circumstances. The relief is intended to move ratepayers from their old liabilities to their new ones as painlessly as possible. If one took the argument of the noble Baroness to its ultimate conclusion, one would have to say that the only sure way of targeting relief on the cases of true need would be to invite the billing authorities to scrutinise the accounts of each ratepayer. I think that the noble Baroness would agree that that would require an army of accountants for each local authority area and would certainly be likely to cost more than the relief that would be distributed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, but I realise that as this is not a Committee stage this is not the time or place to pursue the matter. I simply remind the Minister that under the old system of local domestic rates, local authorities could not only introduce transitional arrangements but had the power to offer hardship schemes whereby they could decide to make a judgment on the value of supporting that local company as against the losses forgone. Local authorities still have a power to offer hardship relief, but only at the expense of their own budgets and standard spending assessments and, therefore, of the revenue coming under their external aggregate finance.
In other words, until the UBR, it was a well-established principle that local authorities could offer hardship relief where the circumstances warranted it. In most cases there were only a few bidders for it, but it allowed the authorities to target help where it was most needed. However, as it is clear that we shall not be able to move the Minister tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No.2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
166
("Consultation by Secretary of State
Before making any regulations under section 58 of the 1988 Act in relation to the financial year beginning in 1995 and to subsequent financial years, the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates about the effects of the compilation of new non-domestic rating lists. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment asks the Secretary of State to put a requirement for consultation on the face of the Bill. This Bill is before us precisely because of the need to protect businesses from the consequences of the combination of the last revaluation together with the move from local to national business rates. All the evidence shows that revaluation contributed to perhaps three-quarters of the change in people's bills. As we explored in Committee, the revaluation had significant regional effects, benefiting the North and manufacturing industry as against the South, the City of London, offices and shops. The increases were so severe that the Government had to phase them in and then to phase in that adjustment. In order that those who were due to have their rate bills reduced should have their demand for relief met immediately, the provisions could not be self-financing, but cost us £ 2 billion over three years.
We accepted that that was a difficult situation for the Government and the series of Bills that have been presented to this House and the other place have been intended to mitigate the effect of what could and should have been anticipated, given a revaluation following a 20-year delay.
This time around, with the revaluation due in 1995, I understand that considerable research from the R&D side of chartered surveyors indicates the likely new pattern of that revaluation. It looks as though it will reverse some of the shifts of the previous revaluation, aiding inner London, the South East, offices and shops, but that it will relatively disadvantage the North, the Midlands and manufacturing. As I understand it, it looks as though retailers in central London will see their valuations fall by 15 per cent, but that there will be increases of, say,20 per cent. in the East Midlands and of between 15 and 50 per cent. in the North and North West. It looks as though the figures for office developments will be reduced in the South, but go up by 15 to 30 per cent. in the North and North West and by 50 per cent. in the Midlands. It looks as though the figures for industrial premises will be up 5 to 10 per cent. in London and the South East, but by perhaps 30 per cent. in the East Midlands, North and North West. Even within a region there may well be marked differences which will affect the competitiveness of individual firms and businesses.
The Government may again be minded to phase in any new revaluation because in many ways these increases are almost as substantial as the revaluation increases and decreases that were introduced in 1990. If they are minded to phase them in, that can only be at substantial public cost if the Exchequer is going to pick up the bill and if the provisions are not meant to be self-balancing. We have spent £ 2 billion on phasing in the last revaluation effectively. We must be talking about substantial sums (if not fully of that order) in the next round if the Government are to pick up the bill.
However, as far as we can tell that pubic money will again be thrown at businesses without any prior consultation about the impact of revaluation, the need for businesses to receive transitional relief or, following the previous amendment, the need to target what scarce public money there is. Again, we are confident that the Government cannot want to throw money indiscriminately at all corners. They should therefore consult about the impact not only of revaluation but also of any transitional relief and on the possible need for any elaborated hardship scheme.
This amendment would begin that process of consultation and make it a right. We are suggesting that the Secretary of State should consult the representative bodies of business and local authorities which could give him relevant guidance and avoid the need not only to have subsequent Bills of this order, but also the subsequent effort that is involved in trying to target relief on where it is most needed.
The amendment would have a second advantage. I hope that it would a low us to spend public money more wisely than currently. It is clearly a nonsense to throw transitional relief and Exchequer subsidy at major companies which ate so profitable that their profits are having to be curtailed by bodies such as Oftel.
There would be a further advantage. Under the old local rating system, local authorities were rightly required to consult local businesses about the level of rates both to establish that they offered value for money and that, where there were areas of business need that remained unmet in that community, the local authority should work with the local chamber of commerce and the like to further those needs. Such a need might be for local starter units, better distributor roads or the need to have a fast track for certain planning consents. It might relate to the scale of parking for key workers in those companies. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have been a local authority member and I am sure that we would both feet that we had failed if, after our meetings with local businesses in the local chambers of commerce, we did not all agree on a handshake that we had offered a splendid budget, exactly targeted on the needs of the local economy. In return, as a local authority, we expected to carry loss leaders such as airports and the like to further that local economy.
That local consultation has now effectively gone because national business rates, in the UBR, have made it redundant. Precisely because it is no longer relevant at local level (even though it was valuable) it is even more important that the Secretary of State undertakes to maintain it. Revaluation will have not only national but regional implications and any proposals for transitional relief will have significant effects on us all
We believe that this is a modest amendment. It would be inexpensive but useful. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake towards business that which the local authority was rightly required to undertake when it, rather than the Secretary of State, determined the level of the business rate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment for the reason anticipated by the noble
168
Baroness, Lady Hollis. I have experience of consultation at local level, as does the noble Baroness. I hope the Minister does not believe that an adequate response will be, "Of course, the Government always consult". I hope that that is the case. Let us say so and provide for it.
The noble Baroness says that consultation with business rate payers has effectively disappeared because the rate is now nationally set. The position is more bizarre, because although consultation continues there is very little on which the local authority can consult. It is certainly useful to have an annual meeting involving the local authority and local businesses. But those discussions continue throughout the year in any event. The statutory consultation remains. The local authority meets the business rate payers but they are not its ratepayers— if your Lordships take my meaning.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government fully understand the need to consult widely on any proposals they may have for introducing transitional arrangements following the 1995 and subsequent revaluations. But they see no need to add to the length of the Bill by accepting such consultation as a formal duty.
At Second Reading and in debate in another place the Government sketched out their intention to consult businesses on the effects of the 1995 revaluation by the early summer. We know that local authorities will need advance warning of any proposals, and we shall certainly take their views into account.
The record of the Department of the Environment in consulting on business rates is exemplary. There was extensive consultation on our proposals for transitional arrangements following the 1990 revaluation. Since then the department has listened carefully to the views of individual ratepayers and to business representatives. Officials have regular discussions with members of the valuation profession about the effects of revaluations and the detailed operation of the non-domestic rating system. They have regular meetings with local authority associations on all such matters. These are not just talking shops. Most of the dialogue is constructive and gives rise to positive action. The Bill and its predecessors are good examples of the Government's willingness to respond to the views of business and others about the operation of the system.
No purpose would be served by imposing a formal duty on the Secretary of State, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Therefore, I can see no reason for the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when one bears in mind what the Minister said in Committee it is perturbing to be told, on the one hand, to rely on Government intention and, on the other hand, to rely on Government regulation, but never to rely on Government legislation. I have heard nothing tonight which persuades me that although the Government are proposing this step it will hurt to have it in legislation so that it becomes an entitlement and not a courtesy or a favour. However, if the Government were proposing not to do so, the amendment would require them to have consultation that would ensure that public money was being better spent. Either way, I cannot see that

169
Government have anything to lose. If they are willing to give the undertaking, why not have it on the face of the Bill where it becomes enforceable?
I am sure that the Minister means what he says but he cannot bind his successors unless the provision appears on the face of the Bill. That is why so much of our pressure is to add to the Bill, often in the spirit of what the Minister intends and undertakes. However, as he resists putting the provision on the face of the Bill we have no way of ensuring that his intentions will be carried out by his successors with integrity. Except through the process of judicial review we cannot make them stick.
This may not be the time to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No.3 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No.4.
Clause 3 [Non-domestic rating: transitional pooling]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.3:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("Act)") to ("for") in line 42.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is drafted in the same terms as an amendment I tabled in Committee. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily by repeating arguments. However, the ground needs to be covered a little more effectively. I cannot find a new argument but I do not believe that it is incumbent on those of us who are anxious about the provisions of the Bill to find arguments. After all, we are not seeking to change what is currently enshrined in statute. That is an obligation on the Secretary of State. The words of the Bill will change that obligation from being mandatory to merely permissive.
On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister gave a commitment. I do not doubt his sincerity. He said that we should regard him as giving an assurance that the proper steps would be taken in the future. He continued, referring to the permissive aspect:
"I can add no more other than to say that we do not feel that it should be on the face of the Bill".
He added:
"The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has generously said that she trusts me; she must trust what the Government say in this instance". — [Official Report, 8/2/94; col.1523.]
We know that change happens and that Ministers change. Without for one moment impugning the integrity of the noble Earl's remarks tonight, given that the Government are already under an obligation it is incumbent upon them to explain more fully why the current position should be altered. We are seeking to defend the current position. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will address a profound worry. As I said in Committee, we have no doubts about the integrity of the Minister's intentions. It would be quite improper for us to express such doubts if we had them. However, the Minister cannot bind his successors. As a result of my experience in local government as chair of finance and the like, I
170
have seen positions announced by one Minister later amended and disavowed by others. They were statements in another place and therefore the local authority could not make those assertions and intentions stick.
I hope that in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Minister will answer a simple question. Let us suppose that the Minister's successor on his side will not feel able to fund such an account from central government moneys but instead removes it from the aggregate external finance of local authorities. How can local government make the Minister's intention stick if it is not on the face of the Bill? I understand that a local authority can seek a judicial review. At such a review the local authority will be told that the Minister cannot bind his successors merely by verbal statements. All that can bind his successors is primary legislation and the will of Parliament is required to change that. If the Minister has such an intention but if his successor will not honour his promises, what advice does he offer to local government to ensure that those intentions stick if they are not on the face of the Bill?
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, before considering these amendments in detail, it might help if I remind the House how the top-up provisions work. The Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992 introduced a duty to top up the pool to make good the shortfall arising from that particular Act, which froze rate increases in real terms and allowed remaining gains to come through in full in 1993– 94. Last year we extended its provisions to cover the shortfall arising from the 1993 Act, which froze rate increases for a further year. This Bill extends it further to cover the changes made by the November Budget. But, as we have explained, this Bill also looks ahead to the provisions we will require from 1995– 96 onwards. We sought flexibility in those arrangements because we did not know what transitional arrangements, if any, would continue to be needed. Had we not extended the 1992 Act provisions forward to cover future years as well, we would have left ourselves with neither a duty nor a power to top up the pool.
We are fully aware of the importance which local authorities attach to ensuring that the pool is not depleted. That is why the Bill addressed this issue by providing us with a power to make good any shortfall if one arose in the future. There was nothing sinister in this; we could have given ourselves a duty but chose not to on the basis that a duty would not always be appropriate and that a power would therefore allow us greater flexibility.
Given our good faith in bringing forward this power, we have been surprised and rather dismayed by the strength of feeling on this matter, which, I must say, we feel has been somewhat exaggerated. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Planning listened carefully to the views expressed by the Opposition in another place and was able to give the unequivocal assurance, which I have also given in this House, that we would always top up the pool if the circumstances warranted it. In our view, the

171
Government would be hard-put not to honour this commitment even if the complexion of the Government were to change.
We have been anxious all along to try to minimise delay on this Bill so that local authorities know where they stand before they send out their rates bills in early March. The department has received a number of telephone calls from local authorities of all political persuasions, up and down the country, concerned about the risk of delay Many will want to send final instructions to their printers before the end of February. Any delay in sending out rates bills could give rise to cash-flow difficulties for local authorities. Given the commitments we have made, we see no reason to delay this Bill any further.
I should perhaps add that we would see particular difficulties with. Amendment No.4 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. That tries to turn the power into a duty in a rather indirect way, by making the Secretary of State account for any decision not to exercise his power to top up the pool. Given the commitments we have made, we would always do so where necessary. But even if it was clearly not necessary, this amendment would nevertheless require the Secretary of State to lay an order for debate in both Houses to explain why. Furthermore, the Secretary of State would have to return to both Houses each year and go through the whole process over and over again. That would seem a roundabout way of proceeding.
As I have said repeatedly, the Government have given their word that they will always top up the pool whenever transitional arrangements leave it short. Anything else is un necessary and would only serve to delay the Bill. That is why we believe that we have gone as far as we car' to meet the Opposition's concerns and why we believe that both these amendments are unacceptable.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, there is perhaps a trite comment with which I could reply to the Minister when he accuses us of seeking to delay the implementation of the Bill; that is, if the Government accept the amendment, there would be no question of delay.
He identifies very neatly the intention behind Amendment No.4. I thought that that was an imaginative crabwise rather than direct approach to the issue. The noble Lord says that a duty would not be appropriate; that a power would enable the Government to approach the matter flexibly. I wrote down the noble Earl's words— and I shall be corrected by the Official Report if I am wrong. He gave unequivocal assurances that if circumstances warrant, steps would be taken to top up the pool. He then said that where necessary, the pool would be topped up. Towards the end of his speech — and this was the clearest commitment— he said that the Government would always top it up when transitional arrangements leave it short.
It is the very fact that there can be so many different ways to describe that which leaves those of us who have a little cynicism about these matters still cynical as to what may happen in the future. It is a fair point to say that a different government may be stuck with a
172
commitment, but that does not appear to frighten any of us who may look to there being a different government in the future. I fear that we have not progressed further. I had hoped that the Government would take the opportunity to do so, but I shall not tax the patience of your Lordships any longer or allow the Minister to do so, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.4 not moved.]

Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
It is very nearly a year since I asked your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this legislation. Immediately that had been done, an Instruction was moved by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve and accepted by the House. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lady Macleod cannot be here this evening, but I have had a number of discussions with her outside the Chamber and I do not believe that she is still unduly concerned, although she certainly was at that time.
Since then, the matter has not gone to sleep. It was referred to a Select Committee, together with the Instruction. That Select Committee was chaired extremely thoroughly by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. Having read the transcript of the proceedings, it seems to me that her four colleagues— the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and Lord Crook, and my noble friends Lord Cadman and Lord Moyne— took an extremely full and intelligent part in the proceedings. I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to them for their contributions.
The committee had to consider the Instruction of the noble Baroness; it had a copy of the full debate which took place on Second Reading; it had a presentation of the Bill by counsel and witnesses; and petitions were put forward. In all, it took eight days to consider the matter and, in addition, at the beginning of July all members of the Select Committee took part in a view. They went to look at the area as a whole and had the opportunity to see for themselves what it was that was under discussion, in so far as they did not know already.
As a result, a document was produced which your Lordships may find extremely helpful. It is a special report from the Select Committee which was ordered to be printed on 18th October. I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Select Committee for doing that and in particular will be grateful for its reasoned decisions on all the points upon which it had to deliberate and the conclusions which were reached.
A substantial number of amendments are set out at the end of the special report. Many of them were introduced by the promoters of the legislation as a result of their continuing discussions and in order to meet petitioners' objections. But some amendments came from the Select Committee in order to meet points that had been made to it.

173
After that, the Bill went to an Unopposed Bill Committee and, by that time, the Parliamentary Session had ended and it was carried over so that it is now being dealt with in the new Session.
After all that consideration, I am asking your Lordships this evening to send the Bill on to another place in the certain knowledge that, if there are still matters which people in the area or anywhere else think are not right, then the whole process of petitions and the Private Bill procedure can be embarked upon yet again, as before. Therefore, all I am asking your Lordships to do is to send the Bill on its way as part of the parliamentary process.
The Malvern Hills are a term of art. They consist of the land which is controlled by some conservators. The conservators have been set up and empowered by a series of four Acts of Parliament which span a period from 1884, the last of them having been passed in 1930. Their powers are entirely granted by those private Acts, they cannot do anything without the legislative provisions in one or other of those Acts; and, indeed, some parts of the Bill now before the House are there in order to deal with certain matters which went slightly wrong in the earlier legislation.
As noble Lords who were here a year ago may imagine, it is not surprising that after about 64 years there are matters that need updating. That is what the Bill seeks to do. Of course, the Malvern Hills are very special. A great deal of care must be taken about powers that are given to the people who are looking after them. There must also be proper checks and balances. Moreover, should there be extra powers and duties that the conservators should now enjoy and perform? I hope that your Lordships will feel entirely confident that such issues have been very fully explored by the Select Committee process to which I referred.
I am very happy to answer questions about what happened. I do not propose to go into any great detail about the amendments that have been made. However, it looks to me as though the Select Committee did not readily accept that the Bill should proceed in the form that it took after the Second Reading, at the time when the Instruction was granted. The Select Committee looked very carefully at that construction. There are three paragraphs set out in paragraph 5 of the report. Those noble Lords who are interested in the subject will know that very well. However, in the special report there are repeated references to the Select Committee's intention and determination to fulfil the points set out in the various paragraphs of that instruction. One only has to look at paragraphs 54,58,71 and 75 to see that members of the Select Committee had picked out the various points in the Instruction and that they were quite certain that they would give effect to what your Lordships had instructed them to consider most carefully.
The special report contains one telling paragraph, paragraph 49, which states:
"The promoters' amendments to exclude the application of the bill's more controversial powers from the existing Malvern Hills"—
I shall return to that point—
174
"have in our opinion transformed the bill. Without these amendments the bill would be unacceptable. With them, the Hills remain inalienable but largely undisturbed; and the balance of argument inclines in favour of a suitably amended bill. With the further amendments tabled by the promoters to meet the petitioners' objections and with the amendments required by us and described in the following paragraphs, we believe that the House may properly give the bill a third reading".
I take that to be a fairly severe comment on the Bill. But, nevertheless, it gives a justification to your Lordships to pursue the matter now as the amendments are all incorporated.
There were, essentially, two main areas of opposition. There is great sensitivity about what may be built upon the Malvern Hills, however one may describe them. Originally in Clause 3 there was the power to rebuild one of the two café s on the Hills, the Beacon Café, which burnt down not very long ago. It was in a very prominent position. The original Bill gave the power to rebuild it either there or somewhere else. The Select Committee received representations on the matter which are by no means one sided. But the recommendation made by the Select Committee (which is now included in the Bill) is that there should be no rebuilding of the Beacon Café but that the other cafe, the St. Anne's Well Cafeteria, should be dealt with. That should be enough provision on the Hills. If people want refreshments, they will have to take them elsewhere. Of course, there are plenty of other facilities in the immediate area.
There was also the original Clause 10, which ran into a great deal of criticism. On the face of it, the clause allowed the conservators, as some people thought, to build and sell speculative buildings, especially office buildings, on what everyone thought were the Malvern Hills. Such buildings were for administrative purposes, and so on. However, it was also feared that such buildings could be sold on or, for all anyone knew, could be set half way up the Malvern Hills. Moreover, one has to concede that the drafting was not all that it might have been.
In the event, as regards those two points, there is to be no Beacon Café, but only the St. Anne's Well Café, which is still there. That can be rebuilt if and when it becomes necessary. No other building provision is allowed under the Bill. What is left to the conservators in respect of their intention to provide accommodation for themselves is the provision that they can buy existing accommodation or lease it; but they cannot construct it for themselves.
Theirs is becoming quite an elaborate organisation. At present, it functions from the offices of a firm of solicitors in Malvern. The moment may very well come — and should be provided for if we are not to have legislation more than once every 60 years— for the conservators to acquire the necessary accommodation for themselves. They need room for their staff and for their administration. They also need, though not necessarily there, somewhere to keep the equipment and the machinery that they require to look after the Hills. They may also need somewhere for their small workforce to live. It now transpires that, if the conservators are to have somewhere which is much nearer to the centre of the population and not anywhere

175
right up on the Malvern Hills, there might be a good case to have information offices; in other words, places where you can get maps and so on.
In Clause 2 of the Bill— and unless you are an expert on drafting Acts of Parliament you would not immediately spot it— a new phrase has been introduced: it is,
"the existing Malvern Hills".
That means the land under the jurisdiction of the conservators at the time of the passing of the Bill into law. There are certain things which they cannot do in that respect. Among them is the ability to obtain the new accommodation that they want. They will have to obtain it elsewhere. What is more, if the conservators buy or lease land and it turns out— as may very well be the case — that what is available on the market is more than they require and they need to dispose of any surplus, they will have to make up their minds within a matter of five years whether they will keep it or sell it. That applies not only to land and buildings on the Hills, but also to other land. That is the change, the differentiation, between the existing Malvern Hills and new land which may be bought in the future and which will become the Malvern Hills by definition but which is not yet the Malvern Hills. That is the change that appealed, as I understand it, to the Select Committee. I believe that any possible excesses that might have been feared as regards the way the conservators would use their powers have now been dispelled by the curb that has been put on them and the new device that hats been built in.
The other matters that were discussed— they are important — are the various restrictions upon what can be done. There have always been powers to make by-laws, and indeed there are by-laws. What has been dealt with in this Bill is the opportunity to take into the legislation the modern powers to make by-laws which carry with them modest penalties if anyone is prosecuted.
The modern power enables by-laws not only to be made but also gives a power to consult about them, as the Home Office directs, beforehand. This is a standard formula which applies to all local authorities and for these purposes the conservators are assimilated with other local authorities. Therefore we have now for the first time in the legislation a completely ordinary system of making by-laws which applies all over England and Wales and is familiar to everyone. I think it must be accepted by this tine that the system is working well.
There is also a. provision now— your Lordships would not guess it unless you were told— in the first schedule, and in Clause 25, which opens up the proceedings of the conservators to public access and also gives the public the opportunity of looking at the documents that the conservators produce.
I think there may be one or two other points that your Lordships wish to raise but I believe those are the main matters that were discussed which could be said to go to a principle. There were a lot of other details. There have been many other detailed amendments to the Bill which have been, as I said, either accepted by the conservators on their own account, or imposed by the committee. All of those are now in the legislation, which, if your Lordships read what came before the House on Second
176
Reading, may look quite substantially different from what was then before the House for consideration. I would therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading in its present form with the knowledge that there is the fallback provision, if necessary, for further petitions in another place. I ask your Lordships to let the Bill go on its way so that the conservators can get up to date with their powers and duties in the 1990s as opposed to what they have had heretofore. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. — (Viscount Colville of Culross.)
8.53 p.m.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, first I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his generous opening remarks and compliments to my colleagues and myself. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Select Committee and the Principal Clerk of Private Bills, Mr. Brendan Keith and his staff for their constant support and assistance throughout our proceedings.
I am sure my colleagues would also like me to take this opportunity of thanking the clerk for the conservators and his staff for the arrangements they made for our successful and pleasant visit to the hills on a glorious day last July. We all regret the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, from the House tonight due to the bad weather and the driving conditions that prevail between her home and London. However, I hope she will feel that the Select Committee has paid due regard to the wishes of the House as expressed in the threefold Instruction that she moved on Second Reading of the Bill last March. I was glad that the noble Viscount felt that we had followed that Instruction with proper regard and with due care.
I also hope that the special report to which the noble Viscount referred, and which has been before the House since October of last year together with the list of amendments which we appended to that report, meets the concerns which were expressed on all sides of the House during the debate on Second Reading last March. It is not my intention— certainly not at this late stage and when we are aware that other noble Lords are patiently waiting to resume their deliberations on the police Bill once we have completed our Third Reading— to refer in any detail to the subject matter that is carefully and, I hope, thoroughly stated in the sections of the report dealing with the case for the Bill, the case against the Bill, the committee's opinion and the annex which contains a long list of amendments which we have offered to the Bill.
I would only again refer to paragraph 49 which the noble Viscount read to your Lordships a few moments ago and which, to my mind, sums up the unanimous opinion of the Select Committee, which I hope will enable the House to endorse its findings and give the Bill a Third Reading. The noble Viscount seemed to find our remarks in that paragraph somewhat severe. I personally view them as rather direct. I can assure the House that that was the unanimous opinion of the committee and that we have as far as is humanly

177
possible dealt fairly and thoroughly with the special Instruction. I hope that on that basis the House will tonight give the Bill a Third Reading.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I, too, am extremely sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, cannot be with us tonight because on Second Reading she led the criticism of the original Bill in what I thought was an eloquent and impressive speech and moved that pertinent Instruction which has guided the work of the Select Committee.
On Second Reading I myself spoke critically about the Bill as then drafted. I was particularly concerned about the possible erection of buildings and other structures on the hills. However, the Select Committee's report fully meets the points I made. The Bill as originally drafted was, I believe, far too sweeping in its scope and was in my view rightly described by the Select Committee as unacceptable. It has been transformed by the Select Committee and I think we can all agree that the committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has done an admirable job. The report seems to me a model of what such reports should be. Incidentally, I am sure the report is right as regards the Beacon Café. My view of the report is not one that I hold solely myself. The Open Spaces Society has written to me as it wishes to thank the Select Committee for its excellent work on the Bill. The Countryside Commission has written to me stating:
"We think this Bill illustrates very well what an important role the Upper House fulfils on this kind of legislation. All of our key concerns about the Bill as it originally stood have now been dealt with and the result is a vast improvement".
There is one point which the Open Spaces Society has made to me and is referred to in paragraph 48 of the Select Committee's report; namely, that if the Bill is passed into law there would be five different Acts dealing specifically with the hills. The society asks that the legislation should be consolidated. That is a valid point. I note that the Open Spaces Society made the same point in the petition it has now submitted to another place. It seems to me that not only the conservators but also the general public cannot be expected to understand the complexities of five different Bills with constant cross-references between them. It would be in everyone's interest to have the legislation consolidated.
The Countryside Commission has also said that there are one or two small points it thinks should be clarified. I have mentioned these to my noble friend and expressed the hope that these points can be addressed when the Bill goes to another place. The commission considers that it should be made clear beyond any doubt that the Clause 9 power to acquire buildings by means of purchase, lease or otherwise, does not include the power to construct them, as it did formerly. It believes that it should be made clear whether the Secretary of State's consent is required under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for access roads authorized
178
apparently unilaterally under Clause 7A and for fences erected under the power at the end of Clause 15(3), which is exercisable
"notwithstanding anything in any enactment"
— a phrase which may cancel out the effect of Clause 21(1). It also believes that Section 194 should probably be made to bite in both cases.
Lastly, the commission considers that the powers to restrict riding in Clause 16 and what follows may be rather too sweeping given that they include no test of reasonableness. It is suggested that perhaps the formula in Clause 15(3), which provides a test of reasonableness in another context, may be the sort of provision which is required.
That said, I believe that this is a far better Bill than that which we considered in March last year. I hope very much that your Lordships will give it a Third Reading.
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to speak. As Bishop of Worcester and one who frequently walks on the Malvern Hills, and as one who is married to someone who until a month ago was a conservator, I should like to thank noble Lords for all that they have done. The committee has done what was required. I do not believe that the Beacon Café should be rebuilt. I believe that we are much better off without it.
I believe that the conservators are a body of people who exercise their responsibilities with impeccable care. Chiefly, I wanted to rise to express my thanks for the time which your Lordships have given to what we in Worcestershire consider an important Bill.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must make it clear that, although I speak from this Dispatch Box, the views that I express are my own, as this is a Private Bill, and are not necessarily shared by my colleagues.
We have heard that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has been unable to get here. She telephoned me earlier today and asked me to convey to the House her views on one or two matters. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to do that.
The noble Baroness wanted to say, first, that she feels that the Instruction has been fully implemented. She wishes to thank the committee for its work. It had 10 meetings and committee members went to the top of the hills to see for themselves. The noble Baroness was greatly impressed by their energy and thoroughness. She also wishes me to say that she is disappointed that none of the conservators took the opportunity to meet the committee, either in London or on the hills. That is a pity because it might have helped matters along a little.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, in applauding the work of the committee. It has helped to secure a precious piece of our natural heritage for future generations.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, explained very clearly that most of the objections raised in the Second Reading debate have now been met, and there is little left to say about them. In particular, I welcome the

179
decision of the conservators not to seek to make trespass a criminal offence. The proposals for powers to control public access now include much better safeguards, and I welcome both those measures. Perhaps I may mention in passing that I understand that in another Bill shortly to come before your Lordships' House we have again to face the problem of trespass being made a criminal offence, but that is an argument for another day.
I support the committee's views on the need to limit the potential for inappropriate commercial activity. At the same time the committee has allowed enough flexibility to raise income from enhanced facilities. That seems much more in keeping with the 1884 Act than the original proposals which were before us.
The only other point that I wish to make is that made by the noble Lord. Lord Moran, and raised by the Open Spaces Society; namely, that with the passing of this Bill the Malvern Hills will be governed by five different Acts. In the interests of good management and open government it is essential that there should be a consolidation exercise. I hope that the conservators will feel that they can take that on as soon as possible. I understand that it is an expensive exercise for them, but nevertheless 1 believe that it is necessary if the public are to understand fully how the hills are to be governed.
With those few comments. I wish the Bill well from now on and am glad to accede to the Third Reading.
9.4 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it may assist if I intervene briefly to indicate the Government's view on this Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Goschen said at Second Reading, the Government were broadly content with the Bill's proposals, subject to the clearance of some points of detail. Those have since been resolved to our satisfaction so that from our point of view there is no hindrance to the Bill being given its Third Reading.
9.5 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am very grateful for the reception that the Bill has received from your Lordships. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate is a wholly impartial witness to the excellence of the conservators, but as a month has passed I am sure that his impartiality has increased. What he said is very much appreciated. One or two sticks and stories were thrown at the conservators in the course of the Select Committee proceedings, and the right reverend Prelate's remarks, as one who knows that part of the world extremely well, will be much appreciated.
I entirely take the point made by my noble friend Lord Moran and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about consolidation. There is no difficulty about consolidation, it is simply a technical matter and, as the noble Baroness said, it is expensive. If the people who pay for the conservators out of the charge which is levied upon them feel that it is essential that there should be a consolidation of this legislation, it is they who will have to pay for it. I suppose that the choice is theirs. I do not believe that I can say more than that. It is all too clear that it is unsatisfactory to have the legislation partly in
180
the Victorian form and partly in the very up-to-date and extremely complex form of cross-referencing in the present Bill. As a former chairman of the Consolidation Bills Committee a long time ago I know the process. It is very complicated and expensive. It would have to be paid for by the people who support the conservators financially through the charges which are made upon them.
That is a matter for the locality. If it is considered essential, I do not believe that the conservators would be averse to it. I have discussed the matter with them. It would just have to be done by some competent lawyers whom I know they have at their command, if they wish to use them. That is as far as I can take it this evening.
As for the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, he very kindly gave me notice of them and I have considered them very carefully. Yes, it is perfectly true that it has been considered very important that conservators should not be allowed to build, particularly speculatively. What I can tell him is that— and I referred to it in my first speech — the conservators are absolutely bound by the powers contained in their private legislation. They are creatures of this legislation. They can do nothing that is not allowed in it. That is why, for instance, in Clause 10 of the Bill powers have had to be taken to borrow for the purposes of the 1930 Act, because that Act unfortunately did not provide powers to borrow for the carrying out of the functions contained in it. That is the sort of strictness with which the law looks upon powers granted by this type of legislation. If the law does not say "construct", it means that they shall not construct. I think that my noble friend had been absolutely reliant upon that.
I still think that Clause 21, as it stands, deals with the requirement to get the Secretary of State's consent for any encroachments under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act. It is very carefully spelt out in Clause 21 and it appears to me at least to be a satisfactory solution to that problem.
The last point the noble Lord raised was whether the provisions about restricting horse riding should be governed by some reasonable provisions. Looking at the clauses relating to horse riding, you see a number of uses of the word "reasonable". My noble friend does not want the conservators to impose unreasonable restrictions. Ultimately brought into this whole realm of law is the position of the conservators as being people who act in the public domain. If they act under the anti-horse riding or limitation of horse riding provisions in this Bill, they are not anti-horse riding; they are there to try to control it so that it is consistent with the amenities and facilities. If they act in ways that no reasonable conservators would act, they are subject to judicial review, for the very reason that they have acted as no good conservators would act. They know that, and so does everybody else.
I hope that my noble friend and those who have been in touch with him from the Countryside Commission will appreciate that the Bill now, in these horse riding clauses, goes as far as is necessary for the legislation, given that there is this overriding provision in the general law about judicial review for such activities. I

181
think that that deals with all the points. I am very grateful for the reception that the Bill has received, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
9.11 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 6 [Police Fund]:
Baroness Hylton of Eggardon Baroness Hylton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.77:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert:
("8AA. The Secretary of State shall within three months of the date of Royal Assent lay before Parliament a report setting out—
Report on costs of reorganisation.

(a) the anticipated expenditure in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1994 in connection with Police Authorities established in accordance with section 3A of the Police Act 1964;

(b) the likely level of borrowing of such authorities in the three financial years commencing on 1st April 1994,1995 and 1996 respectively; and

(c) his estimate of likely additional expenditure by Chief Constables on financial and personal management in the financial years commencing on 1st April 1994,1995 and 1996 respectively.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment, probing the financial costs of this reorganisation. The Government, in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, estimate that the cost of setting up these new police authorities will be £ 21 million. Divided among the police authorities and forces in England and Wales which are affected by the Bill, this amounts to roughly to £ 500,000 per police area. The cost will be incurred during the second half of the 1994/95 financial year, when both the old and the new authorities will be operating. The memorandum states that:
"The new authorities may incur some costs … for their own purposes and some costs for the purposes of the police forces for whose maintenance they will assume full responsibility from April 1995. The force may need to recruit and train staff in areas such as personnel and finance in order to be able to fulfil the management tasks which will be given them from April 1995. For the same reason, they may also need new equipment such as computer hardware. "
We should be grateful if we could have further information about the necessity for training staff in areas of personnel and finance which are not already provided for within the present administrative set-up of forces, and some indication of how the enormous sum of £ 21 million of extra costs will be made up. If the figure amounts to a best estimate based on a careful assessment of need to spend public money, then it should be possible to provide us with a reasonable breakdown of how the estimate is arrived at. That is particularly important at a time when, as we know, the imposition of heavy taxation on the public is imminent and where universally there are criticisms of the waste of public money on a grand scale.
The sum of £21 million would be enough to supply 1,000 extra police officers on the beat. Alternatively, one could make comparisons with the Safer Cities programme. The original programme of 20 projects,
182
which the Government counted a success, was supported by Home Office funding of around £ 17 million. Clearly one could more than double the scope of the programme with an extra £ 21 million and we would need to be satisfied that that is not money which is being wasted on needless reorganisation of police authorities. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could provide us with more information about how that large sum of £21 million is made up.
It is also claimed in the Financial Memorandum that the Bill will provide greater efficiency. Police authorities and forces have, of course, been increasing their efficiency over many years now and there has been considerable streamlining of ranks. For example, something like 360 officers in the ranks of chief inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent— which we have already heard about— have been eliminated. The police service has been very conscious over the past 10 years or so of the need for efficiency and for the careful use of public money.
It is our impression, gained from looking at the Bill, that it will be counter-productive from the point of view of efficiency because the degree of central involvement, if the police authorities as envisaged go forward, will be more bureaucratic than at present. The police authorities will need more in the way of clerical support, administrative support and financial advisers. That will also apply to the central directives that may be issued by the Home Secretary. Of course, because of what has happened today, we have not dealt with those, but, if they are to be implemented, then the police authorities will need more in the way of bureaucracy and clerical administration to monitor the key objectives and to assess whether forces are complying with them.
Generally our overall feeling is that the proposals are counter-productive to efficiency and we should be grateful if we could have some indication as to where this enormous extra sum of £ 21 million is to be employed. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may raise one further matter concerning the £ 21 million. As the noble Earl will recall from a Written Answer he gave me, the Lords-Lieutenant issue, if I may so describe it, only emerged as a practical proposition on, I think,4th January this year. It did not appear in the White Paper, nor on any other occasion. Suddenly, just before the debate on Second Reading, we were told that the Association of Lords-Lieutenant had been approached to find out whether they would become involved in the strange proceeding whereby they would sit with management selection personnel to choose the members of the Home Office team to be imposed upon police authorities. Obviously, we shall discuss Clause 2 and Schedule 2 on recommitment.
My question is financial. As that policy had not been decided upon at the time the Bill was published, it is quite obvious that it is not included in the figure of £ 21 million. Can we be told what the public expenditure implications are and whether Treasury approval has been given to the expenditure? We should all be

183
immensely grateful to the noble Earl were he able to assist us in the matter. Clearly, it is directly related to the Financial Memorandum to the Bill.
Lord Renton: Having expressed reservations about everything on the Bill this evening until now, I am happy to say that I think that the Government are to be congratulated on replacing Section 8 of the 1964 Act with this much simpler Clause 6. It reads very well and succinctly, it is admirably brief and it does not attempt to go too far.
As to the amendment, however, I cannot find myself in agreement with it. I say that principally because what it requires overlaps with what is in any event bound to happen before the start of every financial year: namely, the submission of the Estimates in another place. Bearing in mind the well-established system, I see no need for what is proposed in paragraph (a) of the amendment.
As for what is proposed with regard to 1995 and 1996 under paragraphs (b) and (c), I should have thought it would be hard to anticipate two years ahead what would be the likely level of borrowing of each of the authorities. Quite frankly, I doubt if that is realistic. However, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about it. I am not impressed by Amendment No.77.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for saying that he is not very impressed with the amendment. I was not impressed either. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, then quite fairly said that it was merely a probing amendment. I had not realised that. I was concerned because it obliges the Home Secretary to give in a separate form information that would be put before Parliament in the normal way, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, through the supply estimates, and by appropriation accounts and other means. We did not consider that a very necessary additional procedure.
The only additional expenditure resulting from the Bill will be that to cover the cost of setting up the new police authorities and to cover the period of parallel operation by the old and new authorities in the year 1994– 95. The new authorities can also incur some costs in 1994– 95, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said, in relation to training, recruitment and equipment needs in the forces for whose maintenance they will assume responsibility from April 1995. That expenditure will be confined to the financial year 1994– 95. My noble friend Lord Renton is right. Parliament will be informed about it through the supply estimates. It is therefore unnecessary to provide a special report.
Provision has already been made to allow the new police authorities to borrow up to an amount agreed by the Secretary of State in 1994– 95, the amount being paid back the following year. Thereafter, most borrowing will be for capital purposes and will be dependent on the provision which the Home Office has made for credit approvals. Credit approvals for protective services, which comprise largely those for the police, are published in the public expenditure statistical supplement to the Financial Statement and the Budget Report.
No provision has been made for additional expenditure by chief constables from April 1995
184
onwards, as the changes which are instituted by the Bill will be broadly cost neutral. Any additional expenditure on financial and personnel management will be a matter for the chief constable and his police authority and will be accomplished by reallocating existing funds.
The noble Baroness asked why on earth we spend £ 21 million when we can get 1,000 extra police officers for that sum. Of course one can get all sorts of things for that figure. I quite agree. The point is that the Bill will make sure that all the resources available are used more effectively. That is the whole purpose behind the Bill. There are some small costs involved in setting up the new authorities and providing police forces with the proper management information that they need to run themselves more efficiently, as the Audit Commission recommended. That is why we are making available the sum of £ 21 million. About £ 4 million will be spent in setting up the new police authorities, and up to £ 17 million will be spent on recruiting the staff needed by forces to carry out new functions such as strengthening the force finance functions and personnel functions and ensuring adequate information systems.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the Lord Lieutenant system, saying that it had been produced only in January, that it had not been predicted, and so forth. Of course it was only produced in January. It was produced in order to try to find a solution to the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others, identified at Second Reading; namely, their concern that the independent members would be placemen of my right honourable friend. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, still keeps jogging along with that theme. He regards it as "this strange procedure to choose the Home Office team". That really is a total and gross exaggeration. It does not surprise me that the noble Lord says that. In his whims of fancy, he is sometimes given to exaggeration. He knows perfectly well that it is not a Home Office team; it is the appointment of independent people. Because he, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others complained that the body was not independent, my right honourable friend, in a gesture of magnanimity which I am bound to say is wearing pretty thin at the way we are going on, decided to have an arrangement which showed beyond peradventure that it was independent.
But the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, "Oh, no, this is a Home Office team. " He asks what it will cost. I do not know what are the charges for Lords Lieutenant at the moment. I cannot tell the noble Lord the cost. As the noble Lord will realise, that particular system has not been fined down. We have approached the Lords Lieutenant but I cannot give him their reply as yet. However, I do not believe that it will be a substantial proportion of £ 21 million.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not wish to cause the noble Earl any further grief on this particular issue tonight. However, perhaps he will bear in mind that when he used the term "independent members" those gentlemen will be many things— assuming that they are ever eventually contained in the language of the Bill — but independent they certainly are not. They will be party placemen, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well.

185
But the issue that I have raised is a different one. When the Bill was published there was no such provision within it in terms of taking account of the position not only of Lords Lieutenant but the personnel management consultants— presumably public advertising, perhaps for members of the authorities. The question is a simple one. Has Treasury approval been given for expenditure of this sort? Perhaps I may say with respect to the noble Earl that the answer is either yes or no. I ask him: which is it?
Earl Ferrers: So far as I know, the Treasury is aware of what is proposed and is happy with it.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I thank the noble Earl for a rather minuscule increase in my knowledge about where the £ 21 million is to be spent. I am still not at all clear that a detailed estimate has been provided to us and we are not clear how the sums have been arrived at. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Civilian employees]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.78:
Page 6, line 13, after ("employ") insert ("or appoint").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No.79. There are curious anomalies in the history of the appointment and employment of civilian staff within the police service. The present legislation in itself is somewhat anomalous. The chief constable is responsible in all aspects for uniformed staff and has day to day directional responsibility for civilian staff. The civilian staff themselves are not employees of the chief constable. They are employees of the police authority and the police authority retains responsibility for their employment.
The 1964 Police Act states in Section 10(1) that the job of the civilian staff is to assist the police force and to enable the authority to discharge its functions. So we have the curious situation that the staff are not part of the force but are part of the authority, which has wider responsibilities than simply maintenance of the force.
Clearly that is anomalous and clearly it is undesirable that the staff who are very largely used to assist the police force should not be under the control of the chief constable. However, it must be said that there has been very little conflict as a result. Very few chief police officers have reported practical difficulties about the implementation of the 1964 legislation.
But a distinction is and should be made between those civilians who, to use the words of the legislation "assist the force"— in other words are doing things which uniformed or detective police officers should not be doing or which they could do better than the officers — and those who are enabling the authority to discharge its functions.
We ought to be clear that there are functions of police authorities which are different from, if not wider than,
186
the functions of the chief constable and of the police force itself. For example, the police authority ought not to be entirely on its own; in other words, it ought not to be without the benefit of paid staff to advise it on such matters as the long-term costs of capital development, the ways in which the public are consulted about policing in the area, the accuracy of estimates of inflation costs, equal opportunities policies, and the propriety or advisability of any action proposed by the chief constable and recommended to the police authority. Those are proper functions with which the police authority is concerned which are not properly the responsibility of the chief constable. Yet the Bill as drafted says that all civilians shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable unless there is agreement between him and the police authority to the contrary.
The last thing I want to do is to set up any conflict between chief constables and police authorities. The whole thrust of our amendments has been to try to avoid that kind of potential for conflict. But it seems logical and reasonable to recognise that there are functions of police authorities which are not the functions of the police force, which may require a police authority to "appoint" and "employ". The addition of the word "appoint" is technical but in management terms it is what one must do. One cannot employ somebody unless that person is appointed first and it is as well to spell that out. I refer to people who assist the police authority to perform those functions which are not functions of the police force.
First, the amendment would correct the lack of recognition of appointment as well as the employment of persons— Clause 8 of the Bill, line 13 on page 6. Secondly, it would provide that subsection (2) of Clause 8 shall not apply to such persons as the authority consider it necessary to employ or appoint directly in pursuance of its functions. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is not a recipe for discord between chief constables and the police authorities; on the contrary, it is a recognition of the real difference between their functions and the necessity for staff to assist them to carry them out. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not find any question of principle arising in Amendment No.78. They are matters of phraseology but we should try to get them right. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is right in regard to the need for the words "or appoint" after the word "employ".
We employ employees but we appoint independent contractors and professional people. We appoint solicitors unless we are going to have them in our employment all the time. We may need both kinds of person to serve a police authority. I am thinking particularly of accountants. A police authority is likely to need at least one accountant as a permanent employee to supervise the expenditure and so forth, but from time to time it may need to engage another accountant to give advice on a specific problem or obtain a second opinion, or to engage a solicitor for that purpose. In that case it would not be employing them; it would be appointing them, engaging them ad hoc for their professional

187
services. The same would apply to an architect brought in to build a new police station, and so forth. Therefore, the words "or appoint" may well be appropriate on Amendment No.78.
Amendment NJ.79 is a purely technical matter. I do not wish to express an opinion upon it, but at first sight it looks as though it simplifies the drafting and makes the point that needs to be made.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Renton always comes out with some fairly good observations. He said that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right to draw our attention to this part of the Bill. I dare say he was right; but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was wrong in the conclusions which he drew. Perhaps I may explain why.
If these amendments were accepted, the nature of the new framework for policing for which the Bill provides would be altered for the worse. It is an important element of the new framework that chief constables should in future have direct responsibility for the management and control of all the civilians working with and in support of the police, without the detailed involvement of the police authority. If police authorities were to be able to appoint additional people, who would not come under the control of the chief constable, those people could become involved in detailed police civilian matters in a way which would undermine the chief constable's new powers. That would be undesirable. One of the most important features of the Bill is to give greater management freedom to chief constables.
Clause 8 allows chief constables and police authorities to agree that certain members of staff should remain under police authority control. On this point the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Renton ought to be satisfied. Clause 3 substitutes a new Section 10 for Section 10 of the 1964 Act. The new Section 10(1) states:
"A police authority established under section 3 of this Act may employ persons to assist the police force".
Subsection (2) states that,
"any person employed by the authority under this section is under the direction and control of the chief constable of the police force maintained by the authority".
That does not satisfy my noble friend's anxiety about the accountant, but then subsection (3) states:
"Subsection (2) 01 this section shall not apply to such of the persons employed by the authority as may be agreed between the chief constable and the authority".
In other words, there would be certain people who are there to service the police authority and not to be part of the civilians over whom the chief constable has authority. It would be up to the chief constable and the police authority to agree that those people, and those people alone, came under the authority of the police authority and not under the authority of the chief constable. For those reasons I would suggest to the Committee that the Bill should remain as it is.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that what I am about to say will not cause the noble Earl unease, but I find that I rather agree with him on this point. It is a difficult matter as to how this decision should be implemented and what the responsibility of the chief officer on one side should be and what the position of
188
the police authority on the other side should be. It is most desirable to ensure that there should not be arty confusion as to who in fact is in charge. Subsection (3) deals with the point that there can be agreement between the authority and the chief constable that certain persons can be employed by the authority itself and be answerable to the authority rather than to the chief constable. If there is any dispute about the matter there can be a determination by the Secretary of State. Apart from that it is highly desirable that the chief constable should have the powers set out in subsection (2). Therefore, on that point, I agree with the noble Earl.
Lord Monkswell: In following this debate I am rather disturbed. Earlier in the Committee's consideration of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke about the tripartite relationship of the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Secretary. The independence of those three legs to the milking stool, to which the noble Earl referred, is incredibly important. Yet there is written into Clause 8 effectively a limitation on the ability of the police authority, as one of the legs of that tripartite arrangement, to operate independently.
Perhaps I may give an example. If a police authority wants to have independent financial or legal advice which is independent of the chief constable and the Home Secretary, it is almost prevented from getting that independent advice by the clause. Subsection (3) means that the police authority in effect cannot employ people without the agreement of the chief constable and, failing that, of the Home Secretary. If the chief constable and the Home Secretary, as other parts of the tripartite arrangement, do not think that the police authority should have independent legal advice, it cannot get it. That is very disturbing. Can the Minister explain whether I have misunderstood the situation or whether there is genuine cause for anxiety?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is making a mountain out of a molehill and is getting it wrong in the process. The situation is perfectly clear. A police authority can employ civilians and that is what it will do. Once the civilians are employed they come under the authority of the chief constable. That is made perfectly clear in subsection (2) which states,
"any person employed by the authority … is under the direction and control of the chief constable".
That means that the civilians who may operate typewriters, word processors or telephones will come under the control of the chief constable. I have no idea whether it will come into effect, but the chairman of the police authority may need a personal secretary or an accountant. Those people will be employed by the police authority but, with the agreement of the chief constable, they will not come under his authority. That seems to me perfectly simple. Those who are working in the force, as it were, will come under the authority of the chief constable, but those who are serving the authority alone will, with the agreement of the chief constable, be part of the authority and not part of the chief constable's responsibility.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister thinks that it is very simple, but the Bill provides the possibility that it may not be. It provides that, in the absence of

189
agreement, the matter may be determined by the Secretary of State. In other words it is anticipated that there may be disputes. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, have misconstrued the amendments. They have ignored the fact that the addition of the word "appoint" is appropriate for those who are not to be employed in the normal sense but who are to be used on a sessional or ad hoc basis.
The Bill provides a quite unnecessary system of appeal to the Secretary of State in the case of a dispute. Is it really the function of a Secretary of State to adjudicate between a chief constable and a police authority about the employment of a secretary? That seems to me a gross misuse of central power and central responsibility, as bad as many of the things that the Bill proposes to remove in the detail of control by the Home Office of police authorities.
We have never said in connection with the amendment that the chief constable should not be able to direct the staff who assist the force. Of course not. That would be going back not just on the 1964 Act, but in particular on the way in which that Act has operated. What we are saying is that a police authority has different functions from those of the police force and it seems entirely proper that the authority should decide who to employ or appoint to advise it and to carry out those functions on its behalf. I do not think that the answers that have been given by the Minister or the comments that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have contributed in any way to the understanding of the issue.
This is not a matter of prime importance in the Bill. It is certainly not a matter on which I wish to seek the view of the Committee. However, it is another example of how the Government's mania for controlling organisations and functions around the country has gone too far. I am grateful for the supporting words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which encourage me to think that I may return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.79 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.80:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("(5) Each police authority shall appoint a person to be the clerk to the authority. ").
The noble Lord said: This is a related amendment, but it is so specific that I hope that it will be thought even less controversial than the previous two amendments. The Deputy Chairman seems to think that I am making a joke. I cannot think why.
There are two kinds of police authority. There are police authorities in counties which are special committees of the county council and there are joint police authorities in other areas and in metropolitan areas. Where the police authority is coterminous with the county council, it is possible to have the chief executive or clerk of the county council as clerk of the
190
police authority. Where there is a joint authority, it is possible for arrangements to be made to have a clerk, but a clerk may not be required.
However, it seems to us that a police authority should have a clerk because there are certain functions, such as calling meetings, publishing statutory notices, receiving resignations and co-ordinating the activities of the police authority, which should be performed by a clerk. This probing amendment seeks to discover in what way the Government propose that each police authority should have a clerk, as it should. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I support the amendment. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Knights: I shall add only one point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there needs to be a clerk, but we have to be careful that we do not regard that as a full-time appointment. The clerk to the West Midlands Police Authority at the moment is the clerk to Dudley Borough Council. His work for the police authority is regarded as a very part-time appointment. I hope that the Committee will not think that police authorities will need full-time clerks. We are talking about part-time appointments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knights, for that contribution. The amendment does not imply— and I do not intend— that such a clerkship should be full-time.
Earl Ferrers: When discussing the previous amendment I thought that we had got the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on our side. However, I see that he has slipped the painter, gone off again and hitched up with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That is a dangerous alliance and I recommend that the noble Lord should choose his friends more carefully.
I agree with the main thrust of the noble Lord's amendment. Of course it is important that each authority should appoint a person who is clearly responsible for the running of that authority and for the proper management of it, the organisation and the staff who work directly for it. The Bill provides for that. Paragraphs 34 and 37 of Schedule 4 ensure that Section 4 of the Local Government Housing Act 1989 will apply to the police authorities. The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord McIntosh, probably had not perceived that. In that, they would have had the sympathy of my noble friend Lord Peyton in his earlier interventions.
That section requires every authority to designate one of its officers as the head of its paid service. It gives that officer the duty to report to the authority when appropriate on the way in which the different functions of the authority are co-ordinated, the number and grades of staff required by the authority, the organisation of those staff and the appointment and proper management of those staff. It covers all the important matters. It does not require the authority to call the person its clerk but it can if it wishes. That hardly appears to be a matter on which we need to legislate.
Earlier the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accused the Government of wanting always to interfere. Now the noble Lord is trying to interfere. If the authority wants

191
to call the individual a clerk it can do so. If it wants to call him a chief executive it can do so and, so far as I know, it can call him a secretary.
There is no obligation for most of the existing police authorities to appoint a clerk. No such requirement exists for all I hose police authorities which are currently committees of county councils. There is a separate requirement in the Local Government Act 1985 for the police authority it a Metropolitan area to appoint a clerk but that section preceded the introduction of Section 4 of the 1989 Act. That section seems to do the job better and I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, arid, in temporary alliance with him, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Subject to any view which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have, I am prepared to accept that the amendment may not be necessary. I do not know whether the noble Earl made a slip of the tongue in using the term "chief executive". I do not like that term because it would create an undesirable suggestion of a degree of power on a police authority, which would raise questions about the operational independence of the chief officer. I hope that no encouragement will be given to the term "chief executive". In that way we should be proceeding down a dangerous path. Subject to that, if the Minister says that, given the statutory framework that he has outlined, there is no need for the provision, I am content to accept his view.
Earl Ferrers: I did not wish to imply that there would be any encouragement to call anyone a chief executive. I was merely trying to point out that there was no necessity to call him anything at all, provided that he does the job which is required.
Lord Monkswell: I wish to ask for more clarification. The noble Earl referred to a local government Act aid said that the person would be the head of the paid service. That person would be the chief constable because he is the head of the paid service. All the employees of the police authority answer to the chief constable, as we discussed on the previous amendment.
If that is the case, the person who will be the clerk to the authority will be the chief constable. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention and it would be nonsense if it were. Will the Minister clarify the position and explain the distinction between the chief constable as the person responsible for all the employees of the authority and the person who will take the position of clerk to the police authority?
Earl Ferrers: The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is extremely simple, although he may find that it is esoteric. It cannot be a chief constable because a chief constable is not a paid employee of the authority. He retains his stewardship as a Queen's Constable and he is not an employee. The section of the Local Government and Housing Act requires every authority to designate one of its officers as head of its paid service. The chief constable is not a paid employee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has given us an extremely interesting reply, because the implication of that is that as a Queen's Constable, all the provisions about performance related pay, short-term contracts and so on sit rather uneasily. However, we shall return to that matter when the Bill is recommitted in due course.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not in his seat because I am tempted to follow his earlier musical act by reading from Schedule 4, to which the Minister referred. He is quite right to say that it refers to the head of paid service, but paragraph 34 states:
"In section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of head of paid service), in subsection (6) (a) after the words 'paragraphs (a) to (e)' there shall be inserted the words 'or (g)".
Apart from anything else, what has happened to paragraph (f)? Where is paragraph (g)? I look all the way through that part of the schedule and I see no reference to paragraph (g) under Section 4 of the 1989 Act. Does that paragraph explain, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would have wished, to the plebs what the legislation is actually about? Where is paragraph (g), what does it mean and what does it say?
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether that question is directed at me, though I cannot imagine at whom else it may be directed. I do not have the slightest idea what paragraph (g) refers to because I do not have that legislation to hand.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that that is a good enough reason for me to seek to withdraw the amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me and explain what paragraph 34 of Schedule 4 means. It is not clear to me and I imagine it is not clear to anyone else who has the misfortune to read it in the course of duty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Questions by local councillors]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not propose to weary the Committee by going into the detailed provisions of the clause. It is obviously related directly to the discussions that we shall have on re-commitment as regards Clause 2 and Schedule 2 and the composition of police authorities. I merely give notice that we may return to the question once we have got through the problems of Clause 2 and Schedule 2.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to support the Motion. I wish to elaborate further about my anxieties. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, it was hoped that earlier this afternoon we might have had a resolution as regards the composition and size of police authorities. We shall now have to wait for that.
I did not intervene this afternoon. I must admit that we were all having such great fun that I did not think that it was up to me to interfere with that. However, there is a serious point which was not touched upon: that is, what accountability is there for the local authority members on the police authorities? It is very important

193
here to recognise that local authority members do not just exist in isolation. They are not people who exert some magic just because they are members of a local authority; they are accountable to the people whom they represent or to the council upon which they serve.
One of the difficulties with the Government's projected framework for the new police authorities is that, in some areas, there are sub-areas that would effectively be unrepresented. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee the example of Greater Manchester. I do not believe that there are any plans for the Government to change the boundaries of the Greater Manchester Police, but they do have plans to change the make-up of the police authority. If the Government's original plans were to go through, there would be eight members of the police authority from the local authority. But, in fact, there are 10 metropolitan districts in Greater Manchester. Therefore, two metropolitan districts would automatically be without representation on the police authority. The Government have recognised that fact and that is why Clause 9 is in the Bill.
However, Clause 9 is not adequate in the sense that legally the regulations enable questions to be put down for answer by members of the police authority. In my five years as a member of the Manchester City Council, I cannot recall one occasion when a formal question has been put down for answer by one of the members of the police authority on the council. However, that is not to say that police affairs are not discussed in the city council in Manchester. Indeed, there are occasions when the operations of the Greater Manchester Police are complimented and others when they are criticised. That information is taken back by the members on the police authority from the city council and forms part of the framework for their deliberations, discussions, debates and decision making.
If we think in terms of the only connection between the police authority and the local authority being a formal question, we lose the essential connection between the two. I must admit that I was concerned earlier this afternoon by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He said that police authorities were not criticised for the actions of the police but that it was always the Home Secretary who came in for criticism. Of course, the Home Secretary is criticised for the actions of the police in London because he represents the police authority in London, but I suspect that the noble Lord does not appreciate that in the provinces police authorities are criticised by local people. That criticism is taken on board and acted upon.
It is important that we should have a better mechanism to deal with that difficulty than that contained in Clause 9. I hope that that will finally come through when the Bill is amended and that it will be positively in line with the debate that we had this afternoon in a way that will enable each local authority area to have direct representation on the police authority that covers its area.
Lord Renton: I find the speech of the noble Lord very surprising because under Section 11 of the 1964 Act members of the Manchester City Council, of which he was himself a member, were told that,
"Arrangements shall be made … for enabling questions on the discharge of the functions of the police authority … to be put, in the course of the proceedings of the council",
and for an answer to be given by a member of the council who is a member of the police authority. It is strange that that great opportunity provided by Parliament was not made use of.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, introduced this matter in what I may call a low key. I think he was wise to do so because I think, quite frankly, the Government have got it right on this occasion. The arrangements under the Police Act 1964 for this matter have to be altered slightly because of the different composition of police areas and of local authorities, and therefore because of the different representation there will be. The Government in Clause 9, which we are discussing, has replaced Section 11 by arrangements which look as though they are just right in these fresh circumstances. I would have thought that this is a matter on which I am happy to say that my noble friend Lord Ferrers can relax.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I did not particularly wish to become involved in this matter but I was on the Manchester City Council during the period referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I always carefully consider the views that the noble Lord expresses on legal matters as I greatly respect those views. However, I believe he has forgotten some of the quirks of history that have occurred. In 1964 there was a Manchester City police force, but due to the actions of the then Conservative Government the metropolitan counties were formed, among which was the Greater Manchester metropolitan county. So the Manchester City police force became the Greater Manchester police force. Therefore the remarks of the noble Lord have been overtaken by events. The noble Lord shakes his head but I believe that I should make this point. I believe that when— I am not just referring to the present Government— governments pursue this kind of exercise, they do not often think through the consequences of their actions.
Clause 9(2) states:
"On being given reasonable notice by a relevant council of a meeting of that council at which questions on the discharge of the police authority's functions are to be put, the police authority shall nominate one or more of its members to attend the meeting to answer those questions".
There are now 10 authorities. Some borders may have been altered slightly, but I am not sure about that as I have not gone into that matter. There are at present 10 metropolitan districts, including the City of Manchester, that comprise the area that is controlled by the Greater Manchester police force. There is now no Greater Manchester civil authority; it was disbanded by the Government. Therefore I must ask which council we are talking about. Are we talking about Manchester City, Salford City, Oldham borough, Stockport borough, Rochdale borough or Trafford borough? I believe this whole matter needs to be explained better than has been the case so far. Clause 9(2) states that,

195
"the police authority shall nominate one or more of its members to attend the meeting to answer those questions".
I know that the discussions on the proportion of local authority representatives on the new police authority are still in the melting pot. However, if the final number is between 16 and 24, will the Government say to the Greater Manchester area, "You will have these delegates on a pro rata basis"? Manchester has one-fifth of the population of that area and therefore, presumably, it will obtain one-fifth of the delegates on the relevant police authority. The other local areas will be allocated delegates on a pro rata basis. By what vehicle will the members of the police authority raise the question of the police at a council meeting?
I am not trying to be funny. These are matters which will have to be looked at. We have to know which council we are talking about. There must be a substantial number of local authority representatives on any police authority. From my experience many of them are far too big and unwieldy, but if I was still leader of Manchester City Council when the Bill became an Act and wanted to oversee the matter in the best possible manner I would have to be advised diligently as to how I was to carry out the function. At present I do not know how that could be done.
Will there be an ad hoc group of councillors serving on the police authorities, with magistrates and other appointees nominated by the Secretary of State who will all get together? It could be that at the end of the sausage machine the member of the police authority reporting to the council is also a member of that particular city council or borough council. The position is extremely complex. It requires a great deal more thought than it has been given so far.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has explained the matter adequately, but we are talking about a joint authority in which some relevant member councils covered by that joint authority may not have a voice. In that case, it is necessary to appoint somebody from the joint authority to answer questions from the council which is not represented.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has put his finger on the issue precisely. The 1964 Act was perfectly clear because there would always be enough local authority members who were members of each constituent council to answer questions and take part in debates on police matters. The restrictions proposed both on the size of police authorities and in local authority membership mean, as my noble friend Lord Dean made clear, that in Manchester a number of constituent councils will not have a member of their council on the police authority. Therefore, this clause, which makes much less adequate provision for reporting back for consultation than the 1964 Act, is necessary because of the Government's proposals in Clause 2. When we deal with Clause 2 on recommitment I hope that we shall make Clause 9 unnecessary.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may stress that I am serious in saying that some of the points that I have made need to be addressed. I shall not oppose the clause now but a better
196
explanation is required. The Government may want to alter the clause. At present I see difficulties which may make it unworkable.
Earl Ferrers: I do not like to suggest that Members of the Committee are making another mountain out of a molehill. I shall do my best to try to explain the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who made the remarkable suggestion that he had served for five years on the Manchester City Council and had never asked one question of the police authority. That is remarkable. However, I shall let that pass.
The position is, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that the existing Section 11 of the Police Act 1964 enables each council within a police area to call before the council one of its own members, who is also a member of the police authority, to answer questions about the police authority's discharge of its functions. Now, with the proposed changes to the composition of the new police authorities, those arrangements need to be modified. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it cannot be certain that each council will have one of its own members on the police authority. As full members of the authority, there is no reason why the independent members or magistrate members should not be called upon to answer questions posed by one of the constituent councils. The council may have a meeting and want to know what is happening on the police authority. It will ask for a member of the police authority to account for what is happening.
The new version of Section 11 provided by Clause 9 enables each council to make arrangements for questions about the functions of the police authority to be posed by members of the council and to be answered by a person who is nominated by the police authority. The decision as to who is to respond to any questions posed by one of the relevant councils will in future rest with the police authority and will not rest with the local authority which is asking the question. Apart from that, the procedural change in other respects— the opportunity for councils by this means to scrutinise the work of the police authority— is essentially unchanged.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister cannot be allowed to go on calling them "independent members". They are not independent members: they are appointees of the Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: I really do think that is a childish intervention. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows perfectly well that they are independent. That is what they have been called. He can call them what names he likes, but that is the name by which they have been known.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl should not get too cross. We are getting a little late tonight. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was of course entirely right. These are Government appointed members: they are not independent. As the noble Earl will have recognised, there were very few Members on his side of the Committee this afternoon who took the view that these members were going to be independent in any way whatever. However, I do not propose to

197
proceed further with this matter. As I indicated earlier, we will come back to this question after we have dealt with Clause 2 and the second schedule.
As this brief debate has indicated, as a result of the character of Clause 2 as it stands at the moment, and also as a result of the second schedule, a situation will arise whereby a number of constituent local authorities are not going to be represented on the police authority. That is offensive in the extreme. It is wholly wrong that democratically elected local representatives on a local authority will find that their own authority does not have a member on the police authority. That is quite wrong, and it is one of the many reasons why we feel as strongly as we do about the provisions of the Bill which have been debated this afternoon. But, I beg the noble Earl, let us have no more of this nonsense about independent members. With that, I shall not press this particular matter further.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I should like to just question the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dean of Beswick: It arises from something that the Minister said, not what I said. The Minister should
198
be aware that there is still another peculiarity in the Manchester situation because the appointees who are placed on the police authority by the Government— am I right?— will be from the magistrates' Bench. I should say that most of them probably will be. From my experience, the magistrates' Bench in Manchester is overwhelmingly peopled by those who do not live in the city of Manchester but in Cheshire. What is the situation when someone who is not even an elector in Manchester is asked to go to Manchester City Council to talk about the Manchester police force, having been appointed by the Secretary of State because he or she happens to be a magistrate who has been appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but who may live miles away — nowhere near Manchester? These are some of the things that we shall have to look at on a later occasion. That is all I am saying.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.