HL Deb 25 October 1999 vol 606 cc26-33

(". In the absence of agreement between—

  1. (a) the Police Authorities for Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey and the Metropolitan Police Authority about the transfer of land, buildings, capital and other assets from the Metropolitan Police to the other Authorities, or
  2. (b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the chief officer of a police force about the secondment of staff under section 283,
Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary shall act as an arbitrator, and the Secretary of State shall, if necessary, provide for the implementation of the arbitrator's decision by order".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was some discussion as to what should happen if there was no agreement between the Metropolitan Police and its authority and the three county forces to which it is ceding areas in the reduction of the area for which the Metropolitan Police is to be responsible. That ceding of areas involves the transfer of a considerable amount of assets. Buildings, cars and so on are likely to have to be transferred. Police officers are likely in some cases to be transferred. but in most cases seconded.

There may not be absolute agreement between the four authorities about which buildings, assets and police should be transferred or seconded. In that case the legislation should provide some way of resolving any disagreement. The proposed new clause provides that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary should act as an arbitrator in any dispute. That is one way; there are other potential ways.

At this stage of the process, the Minister may be able to tell us that all is sweetness and agreement between the four authorities; that they have all signed up without difficulty to every proposal as regards the new arrangements. If that is so, no clause such as is proposed is necessary. If the Minister cannot assure us that that is the position, some such clause is necessary.

The Secretary of State may find himself having to arbitrate, and that would be one provision that we might have to put in the Bill. At the same time, the Secretary of State, as the current police authority for the metropolis, is one of the parties involved in the discussion and very close to one of the four parties involved. It seemed to me that someone a little more independent might be called for; clearly he or she must be an expert. I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that there is complete agreement; that would solve the difficulty.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I hope that I can offer the noble Lord some comfort. We are happy with the progress in discussions and negotiations. We believe that the amendment is wrong in seeking to give Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary a role as an arbitrator which, in general terms given the work of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, would be inappropriate. It is unnecessary, as provisions already exist in the Bill for the Secretary of State to decide, in the event of disagreement between forces involved in the boundary change, about what should transfer or about what payment should be made to the Metropolitan Police for officers on secondment; and the amendment is flawed, since it refers to the MPA reaching agreement on a transfer which will take place before it comes into existence. I think that the noble Lord needs to look at the drafting of the amendment.

In speaking to the amendment, I should emphasise at the outset that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring a smooth handover of responsibilities between the Metropolitan Police and the three county forces—Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey—affected by the boundary change.

The transfer of property, rights and liabilities is part of this exercise, as is the secondment of officers from the Metropolitan Police Authority to the county forces. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it is important for these matters to be addressed. But I part company from him in his suggestion that the amendment that he has tabled is the right approach.

This amendment would give a role to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary as an arbitrator. It is not clear why the noble Lord believes that the inspectorate should take on this role. It is the inspectorate's role to help individual forces, and the service as a whole, improve their effectiveness. Adjudicating between forces is not its primary role and I do not think that issues of property transfer or police officer secondments are obvious candidates for its involvement. This amendment would risk bad feeling towards the inspectorate in the future from any force which felt it had lost out in any arbitration.

During a debate on a similar amendment in Committee the noble Lord made the reasonable point that in the event that arbitration became necessary the Secretary of State was best placed to act as referee. I agree with what the noble Lord said then, and I am not sure why he should be taking a somewhat different view now.

The Bill already includes provisions for suitable arbitration in the event of disagreements between the forces involved in the boundary changes. Transfers of land, buildings etc. will be effected by orders or schemes. Either way the contents of the orders or schemes, whether or not there is disagreement between the forces, will have to be approved by the Secretary of State. The relevant provisions, contained in Clauses 351 and 352 of the Bill, remain unaffected by this proposed new clause. Schedule 26 to the Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to modify transfer schemes should he wish to do so.

Before moving on to the other part of the new clause, I should like to add that I do not envisage the Secretary of State's arbitration role arising often. The four forces involved in the boundary change have been working closely with each other and with the Home Office for over a year on these matters, and I am confident that in the vast majority of cases they will be able to reach agreement between themselves.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment refers to disagreement about the secondment of officers. Clause 283(4) already provides for the Secretary of State to arbitrate in the event of disagreement about the level of payment to the commissioner for officers on secondment.

It might be that the noble Lord is concerned about the Met being unable or unwilling to provide sufficient seconded officers to help the county forces, so leading to the transferred areas being poorly policed. That is an understandable concern, but I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on that point.

The close working relationship between the four forces to which I have already referred extends to the secondment of police officers from the Met to the county forces. They are all fully behind the idea of secondments and I simply do not envisage serious disputes arising over the number of secondments.

When the number of secondees is added to those officers who will be transferring on a voluntary basis as well as to new officers that the three county forces are recruiting, I am confident that there will not be a shortfall in the number of officers. In the light of the assurances that have given, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the Minister said that he is happy with the progress of the discussions between the four authorities. I make clear that I am not wedded to the details of the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

Clause 284 [Abolition of office of Receiver]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536NB: Leave out Clause 284.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 536NB, 536NC, 536ND, 570YA, 570ZA and 573C in relation to the Probation Service in London are largely of a technical nature.

It is the Government's policy that the criminal justice agencies should share the same boundaries; namely, those of the police force areas in England and Wales. In the case of probation, this means that the present 54 probation services must become 42. In all, 20 probation services will be involved in amalgamations, which we intend shall take effect on 1st April 2001.

In London, the five existing services—Inner London, South-East London, South-West London, Middlesex and North-East London—need to merge to form a new coherent service for Greater London. The Probation Service Act 1993 contains an order-making power to amalgamate probation services. (It is to be found in Section 2 of that Act). However, there is a problem in relation to the creation of a single London Probation Service in that the 1993 Act clearly envisages that there shall be more than one probation service in London.

We have concluded that to make an order amalgamating the London services under the existing provision would go beyond the vires of that provision.

Our amendments to the GLA Bill will allow us to proceed with the London amalgamation; the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 536NC provides an order-making power to that effect. Our amendments also deal with the abolition of the receiver, an issue which arises because of the Inner London Probation Service's links to the receiver.I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I would like to ask a couple of questions on this group of amendments. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 536NB reinstates the office of the receiver, and his eventual demise is provided for under Amendment No. 536ND.

The group beginning with Amendment No. 536P contains a whole raft of amendments concerning the deletion of references to the receiver of the Metropolitan Police in other legislation. What assurance may we have from the Government that these rather hasty, last minute amendments amount to a coherent whole? If the office of the receiver is to be retained, why are we none the less proceeding with a large number of deletions of references to that office in other Acts? Are we not likely to find ourselves in a state of some confusion as to whether or not those references should be retained until the office of receiver is eventually abolished when Amendment No. 536ND comes into force?

In addition, should not the powers under that clause have included a limited Henry VIII power, as m the immediately preceding amendment, to polish up other bits and pieces of Acts and remove references to the receiver when the office of receiver is actually abolished? Are we not in danger of running into difficulty in that respect?

These amendments have arisen at the very last minute and refer to several pieces of legislation. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to know whether those are in fact in place. Should not the Government give themselves time and opportunity to find out if that is the case?

With regard to the powers under subsections (6) and (7) of Amendment No. 536NC, will the Government say that these are limited to what is obvious? Under subsection (6) of Amendment No. 536NC there are extensive powers to amend the Probation Service Act 1993. I believe I understood the Minister to say that that would be limited to amendments necessary to ensure that there could be one single Probation Service authority for London. Is that true, or will other use be made of those powers? I would also very much like to know what use is to be made of the powers under subsection (7) of Amendment No. 536NC.

Turning to the last three amendments in this group, we appear to have a mixture of affirmative and negative resolutions. Some of the resolutions under these new amendments will clearly be affirmative. However, an exception is made to that and they appear to be caught by the negative procedure under Amendment No. 573C. Because I have not been able to establish it from my study of the amendments, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could clarify which resolutions will be affirmative and which will be negative.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I had difficulty working out the parliamentary procedure to be followed in the laying of orders under this group of amendments. As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 570YA seems to mean that an affirmative procedure has to be followed. However, that is immediately qualified by Amendment No. 570ZA, which refers to the possibility of an instrument making … amendments or repeals in an enactment contained in a local and personal or private Act". It seems to me that it is extremely unlikely, though I do not speak with authority, that the organisation of probation in London would be involved in any local, personal or private Act.

Paragraph (b) suggests that it relates to, amendments or revocations in subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure". That is rather difficult. We know what these orders will achieve. They are going to achieve the amalgamation of the Probation Service. That is a considerable matter and a matter which should be dealt with by affirmative order. However, it may be that there are some aspects of the amalgamation which deal with subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure", and the whole matter might slip out of the affirmative procedure under that guise.

The difficulty in this respect is that these amendments have been laid relatively late in the passage of the Bill, and much too late to receive the attention of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which usually looks into these matters, unravels them and sets them out clearly in reports, so that we do not need to trouble ourselves too much in the House with them. However, where these powers are introduced in such a complex way in a late stage amendment, I believe that we require to look into them a little more closely, as my noble friend has suggested.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I shall try to be as helpful as I can, although I am not able to be as helpful as I would like.

The overall purpose of these amendments is to create a coherent Probation Service for London. I believe that that point is well understood by all your Lordships. It is our intention to do this in a way which ensures that there is a coherent working relationship between the Probation Service in London and the Metropolitan Police Service. These amendments give effect to that desirable policy objective, which is shared across the Dispatch Boxes.

With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about powers under subsection (6) of Amendment No. 536BNC, these are strictly limited to the purpose of amalgamating the London probation services. I trust that that takes care of that particular point.

He made a further point in relation to the Metropolitan Police receiver. It is not proposed that we should commence the revocations in relation to the receiver until all his functions have been transferred elsewhere. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord's question.

With regard to some of the other detailed points about negative and affirmative processes and order-making, if your Lordships would be gracious enough to accept the suggestion, we would like to write to noble Lords and describe further the interrelationship of these various processes and procedures so that they will be clear. As a consequence, they may also become clearer to me. On that basis I trust that noble Lords will be happy to accept the amendments that we have moved this afternoon.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said at the beginning that this was a group of technical amendments. It seems to me that a complete reorganisation of the service by order, not by primary legislation, is very far from technical. It is an enormous move and a slightly odd way to treat Parliament. Will he retract the statement that they are technical amendments? I believe that my noble friends accept that the Government are of necessity proceeding in this way because of late consideration of the matter. It seems to me, after a great number of years in this House, a most extraordinary way in which to deal with the matter and even more extraordinary to call it a technical matter. Is the Minister prepared to tell us why he said that it was technical?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, there is technical and there is technical. When I described these amendments as being of a technical nature it was not meant to belittle the import of the policy thinking behind them. While the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has a point, it is not an entirely formed point. The policy was clear. We decided that it would be better to achieve the amalgamation by way of legislation rather than seek to do it otherwise, so that we could achieve a proper amalgamation of the London probation services. We feel that this is more consistent with the powers contained in the 1993 Act. I hope that that satisfies the point. I am quite happy to take further questions on the matters that have been raised. If it is required, we will happily reply in writing at greater length in an attempt to satisfy your Lordships entirely. However, I trust that the question is satisfied.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not answer my question about the intention of subsection (7) of Amendment No. 536NC.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I can now answer the noble Lord's point. It is the Government's policy in the 42 areas to amalgamate. We do not envisage a need to amalgamate London probation any further but consider it wise to have the power which enables us to achieve that. I hope that that answers the point.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, no, I do not believe that it does. If the Government have no intention of using the power, why are they giving themselves the power? This is a reorganisation taking place in short order. If the Government do not know what they want the power for, why is it in the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I offered to write and I shall happily do so. We believe that this power is necessary to achieve the objective of our stated policy. I shall be happy the elucidate further in writing to the noble Lord.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, will the Minister look at the provision again? This is not the first occasion in recent weeks when the House has felt that it would have been better to send amendments, prior to their being laid, to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. On an occasion last week, a Minister was able to report to the House that that committee had seen the amendments and had approved them.

The Minister's final point moves on to dangerous ground. I was a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and it took great exception to Ministers taking powers that they might "wish". There is no end to where such powers might lead. Will the Minister look further at the issue? Although it might be immaterial with regard to this Bill, it could be seen as a dangerous step in terms of other legislation.

I do not want to delay the Bill and I am sure that that is the view of noble Lords opposite. However, I ask the Minister to inquire whether the matter can be referred to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—per ha.ps it can be brought to the attention of the chairman or the committee—to consider whether the Government should be taking powers which they might need but they might not.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, my understanding is that this matter has been the subject of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, confirming that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee concluded that no matters needed bringing to the attention of the House.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, was that in connection with the original Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, the correspondence, of which I have a copy, was transacted last week. I should be happy to furnish the noble Lord with a copy should he so wish.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536NC and 536ND: After Clause 285, insert the following new clause