The Employment Agencies Act 1973 (Hansard, 25 October 1999)

HL Deb 25 October 1999 vol 606 cc40-53 40

§ . In section 13(7) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (cases in which the Act is not to apply) after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted— (fa) the exercise by the Metropolitan Police Authority of any of its functions;"."). Page 314, line 6, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries"). Page 314, line 6, at end insert ("following offices—

(a) Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
(b) officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and
(c)")

§ Page 314, line 11, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").—

§ Page 314, line 11, at end insert ("following offices—

(a) Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
(b) officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and
(c)")

§ Page 315. line 6, leave out from beginning to ("(enforceability") in line 7 and insert (".—(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.

§ (21 In section 33").

§ Page 315, line 9, at end insert— ("(3) In section 41 (lost and uncollected property) in subsection (13) in the definition of "local authority", after paragraph (ca) there shall be inserted— (caa) the Metropolitan Police Authority; and".").

§ On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536XC: Page 315. line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert— ("(2) In section 26 (exercise of police functions at designated airports), subsection (4) (which makes provision for the application of the section in the case of the metropolitan police district) shall cease to have effect. (3) In section 29(2) (entitlement of traffic wardens to exercise functions at designated airports) in paragraph (a) the words from "(or," to "metropolis)" shall cease to have effect. (4) In section 30(3) (transfers of officers and staff) in paragraph (c) the words from "or, if that area is the metropolitan" onwards shall cease to have effect. (5) In section 31(1) (interpretation) the definition of "members of the metropolitan civil staffs" shall cease to have effect.").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for thinking that this Report stage exists just for me. However, I believe that the House needs to understand the amendments that it is passing. Many of the points are self-evident. Although one is prepared to take it on trust, the amendments do in fact do what they appear to do and what the Minister says they do.
Amendment No. 536XC becomes a little more complicated. It is not clear on the face of it that this is consequential on the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I should be grateful for a swift explanation from the Minister as to why the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority necessitates this and why the amendment does no more than reflect that.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, lest the House should believe that it is only my noble friend who is interested in this matter, I, too, should be grateful for an explanation.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I must confess that this matter is proving more taxing than I had imagined it might otherwise be. That is not to say that I am to be entirely defeated by these very important points as they arise.
42 Amendment No. 536XC amends the Aviation Security Act 1982. It reflects an amendment in relation to the Metropolitan Police district. I believe that should help the noble Lord.
Amendments Nos. 536XA and 536XB define the MPA as a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. We all know that that is important because it affects property in local authority premises. The provision brings the MPA into line with other public authorities. I trust that that satisfies the noble Lord's inquiries.

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536XD to 536XG: Page 315, line 22, leave out paragraph 45 and insert— ("45.—(1) Section 97 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (supplementary provisions as to traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) (application of regulations) the words "employed outside the metropolitan police district" shall cease to have effect. (3) Subsection (4) (wardens in the metropolitan police district) shall cease to have effect."). Page 317, line 14, at end insert—

§ (Monitoring officers

§ . In section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of monitoring officer) in subsection (1) (duty to designate officer as monitoring officer) after "Police Act 1996" there shall be inserted "or the Metropolitan Police Authority"."). Page 317, line 19, at end insert—

§ ("Financial provisions

§ . In section 157 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (commutation of payments to local authorities) in subsection (6) (meaning of "local authority") for paragraph (f) there shall he substituted— (f) the Metropolitan Police Authority;".").

§ Page 317, line 30, at end insert ("; and

(b) at the end there shall be inserted "or the Metropolitan Police Authority".").

§ On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 537: Page 324, line 41, leave out (""subsection") and insert (""subsections (4) to").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that piece of excitement perhaps we can turn to borough police community consultative groups.

§ In moving Amendment No. 537, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 538. The existing police community consultative arrangements are currently borough-based and therefore equate with local government boundaries in London. On these Benches, we wish to see that preserved. That is what Amendments Nos. 537 and 538 seek to achieve.

§ The police consultative groups in London, their coordinators and the voluntary organisations involved with them also feel strongly that they wish to see the existing structures continue. Our case is that the arrangements now enshrined in the Police Act 1996 43 which were formerly in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 have worked extremely well for 15 years. They should not simply be done away with as part of this Bill. That would be a retrograde step.

§ The present borough consultative arrangements were set up in the aftermath of the traumatic Brixton disorders in 1981. As a long-standing Lambeth resident, I saw the way in which those consultative arrangements came into being, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I have also seen the success which they have had, and I detailed that at greater length in Committee.

§ We believe that without that statutory structure there will be a temptation simply to move forward with a statutory structure of partnership under the Crime and Disorder Act with local authorities and with the Probation Service, but not taking account adequately of local borough interests. Indeed, in the Metropolitan Police Service's report of 1998–99 I can find no reference to police consultative groups. I believe that that is an unfortunate pointer. We do not believe that it is right to abolish the existing borough basis of consultation.

§ Ministers claimed in Committee that the Bill as currently drafted will do nothing to affect the statutory basis of the current arrangements. However, a former Home Office Minister, Kate Hoey, said in another place that the police community consultative groups will be secure if they work well. Does that mean that some will be allowed to fall by the wayside? Perhaps the Minister can explain.

§ The 1996 Act, as currently drafted, is very clear. It ensures that consultation takes place on a borough-byborough basis. However, paragraph 98 of Schedule 22 of the current Bill deletes this statutory duty. That simply leaves subsection (2), which is far less specific as to the borough basis of consultation.

§ In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the current PCCGs were creatures of guidance rather than statute. I hope the Minister will be able to elucidate that. Is the MPS currently not complying with the 1996 Police Act? That is the implication of what the Minister said. However, during that part of the Committee stage the hour was late. It may be that we can all benefit from a re-run at a rather earlier hour. Perhaps the Minister would then be able to give us more details.

§ The basis of the Minister's case seems to have been that London should be treated the same as any other part of the United Kingdom, and that therefore there should be no prescription about the geographical area of the consultative groups. However, the natural and logical area for such consultation in London is the borough. And "if it ain't broke, why fix it"? What is the underlying motive for these amendments? Some groups may need to be made more effective in London. Some of those borough consultative groups may indeed need to be made more effective. But surely that is a rather different issue. I beg to move.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend which 44 are grouped with the noble Lord's amendments achieve the same effect. We believe that our drafting is to be preferred. It is a little more elaborate than that of the noble Lord. However, I do not emphasise that point.
I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord. However, there is some confusion about what the borough's place is supposed to be. Very wisely, the Metropolitan Police have moved towards borough policing. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that every London borough, like other local authorities elsewhere, must formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder within that borough. Yet, as far as I can see, the Bill attempts to remove the obligation of the Metropolitan Police to talk to the boroughs at all.
That seems to be moving the policy in the opposite direction from the Crime and Disorder Act. I believe that some amendments, along the lines suggested by either the noble Lord or ourselves, are required.

§ 5 p.m.

Lord Lucas
My Lords, I support my noble friend. These committees have performed a great service, particularly in Notting Hill where I was a resident for a long time. It is important that such committees should be related to the borough and a democratic structure rather than to something ill-defined, such as the "Notting Hill Community", or whatever. That would allow the police or other interest groups to say what the community is and by whom it should be dictated. We need to have an anchorage into democracy and into the proper, ordinary representation of the people. We should not allow these matters to drift into becoming sectional interests and unrepresentative groups. I believe that the link with the boroughs matters. I hope that the Government will consider retaining it.

§ Lord Tope
My Lords, I rise to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Whether or not there is justification, there is still considerable concern among the borough police consultative groups as to their future. That concern was added to rather than alleviated by the discussion we had in Committee.
It would help greatly if, when replying, the Minister could state clearly and unequivocally that the Government have no intention of changing or seeing changed the present arrangements for borough-based police consultative groups; that they will remain as presently constituted unless and until at some unspecified time in the future the new Metropolitan Police Authority may deem it appropriate to review such arrangements.
No doubt if and when that authority takes that view, it will do so with full and proper consultation. However, that is some time in the indefinite future, if ever. For the present, we and, more particularly, the police consultative groups, seek clear and unequivocal reassurance from the Government that the groups will 45 continue in existence as presently constituted after the establishment of the Greater London Authority and, with it, the Metropolitan Police Authority.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stated that we might have a re-run of the debate we had in Committee because, I understood him to say, it was late at night. Every night we have here is late at night. If we had to have a re-run of everything because it was late at night, it would not do. I also have to say, with great respect, that it might be out of order, especially on Report. I appeal to my noble friend not to accede to that request.
I have sat through many of the debates on this Bill and others. As noble Lords opposite have commented, some of these matters are complicated. However, on the whole our Ministers have dealt with them with great clarity. In those circumstances, I hope we can make progress. We, on these Benches, are anxious for the Bill to pass as soon as possible.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I support my noble friend's approach. I understand entirely the term he used; namely, "re-run", even though it is a shorthand term. On a number of occasions we have, indeed, sat pretty late debating this Bill. We have criticisms of that practice. I shall speak for our Benches. I do not wish to be too pejorative as regards other Members of your Lordships' House but, frankly, I have felt my own performance deteriorating as the hour has gone on. If one reads Hansard, it is perfectly clear that the later the hour, the shorter the comments and responses from the Government and the more one needs to work hard to understand what is said. Very often, answers seem to be given to points which have not been made but which the Government thought might be made.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for that thoughtful contribution about the way in which business is transacted in this House at a late hour. I must confess that the other night, when doing exactly that, I was struggling to stay awake even as I read the words. However, it was 1.30 a.m., so I believe that I was justified.
I am intrigued by this debate. It seems to have been hatched and formulated by way of being more of a conspiracy theory than anything based on reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made plain in Committee, I can assure the House that the aim of paragraph 98 of Schedule 22 is to bring the statutory arrangements for consulting the public in London on policing matters into line with those which operate elsewhere. Those which operate elsewhere do so primarily to local government boundaries, as they quite properly should.
We oppose the amendments because they would create a situation inconsistent with police authorities outside London. The amendments, in effect, leave the responsibility for making consultative arrangements in the Metropolitan Police District with the commissioner. They also require separate arrangements to be made for each borough. Such 46 provisions are inconsistent with the creation of the MPA. Our view is not that borough-based consultation is wrong—far from it—but that decisions on such matters should rest with the MPA. After all, the MPA is to be entrusted with conducting affairs on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service. That, therefore, seems entirely logical. We do not believe that it should be determined simply by primary legislation.
Outside London, police authorities are trusted to take these decisions and it would be wrong to treat the MPA differently. I do not accept the argument that the size and diversity of the population of London justifies special provisions. Other police authorities are faced with populations which are also varied and spread over a much wider geographical area.
It might have made sense, in the absence of a locally and democratically accountable police authority, to require that the commissioner draw up separate arrangements for consultation. As pointed out by the Home Secretary at Second Reading in another place, the last Home Secretary with a constituency in the Metropolitan Police District was, oddly enough, the noble Lord, Lord Carr. But this argument can no longer apply from 3rd July 2000, with the advent and creation of the MPA.
I recognise the need for all sections of the community to have their voice and I have no doubt that it will be a top priority of the MPA to ensure that it has effective means of obtaining the views of local people. Indeed, our establishment of such a body demonstrates the importance we, in Government, place on consultation and can only increase the role it will play in the policing of London.
In practice, there are several reasons for believing that the MPA will adopt a borough-based approach to its consultation. First, it is a logical approach. Secondly, the Metropolitan Police is moving towards a borough-based system of policing, and in areas outside London, police authorities tend to establish consultation arrangements which fit in with the police force structure. Thirdly, each London borough has its own crime reduction strategy, in which the MPA will be a key partner. For that reason, if no other, it seems to us to make perfect sense for consultation to be based on borough boundaries.
At the same time, I have little doubt that certain common or strategic issues will arise where consultation needs to be carried out across several London boroughs, or even the whole police area, and other issues, again which are of concern to areas much smaller than a London borough, where consultation at a neighbourhood level would be the best solution.
In short, there will be many circumstances under which the need for consultation will arise and many ways of responding to them. But, as I have said, I would expect the MPA to view borough-based consultation as an important and critical part of this.
Concern has again been expressed about the future of police community consultative groups. This was a matter we discussed in Committee. As we have repeatedly stressed, the Bill does not adversely affect 47 the status of PCCGs. Neither the transfer of duty from the commissioner to the MPA nor the removal of the requirement that consultation be borough-based jeopardises the position of existing PCCGs. I trust that that reassures your Lordships.
The purpose of PCCGs is to assist police authorities—or, in the MPD, the commissioner—in discharging their duty to obtain the views of the community on policing matters. It will be for the MPA to decide how best to discharge that duty. Many PCCGs in London do good work, and we warmly applaud them for it. I would be surprised if the MPA chose to dismantle the existing system of PCCGs for so long as it considered that they had a part to play in capturing the views of Londoners. No single method of consultation is likely to provide the MPA with all the input it needs from the public, but PCCGs can be a key part of the consultative system and will continue to be so.
My officials are in contact with PCCG representatives. We will ensure that the views of PCCGs are put fully and fairly to the incoming MPA members as part of the training and induction programme we will be putting in place.
Police authorities outside London are responsible for consulting the public about policing matters and are not constrained by local government boundaries; they are advised by them. The Government see no reason why we should discriminate against the MPA in the way proposed in these amendments. The MPA will be a local, democratic and representative body and we should treat it as such. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be reassured by what I have said and feel able to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply. He gave us more than he did in Committee to provide reassurance to the community consultative groups. I recognise in the way the Minister used his words—talking about the valuable role that the PCCGs carry out—that it is probable that they will be borough based and that it is unlikely that, where those groups are effective, they will be discontinued; further, that the changes in the Bill do not in his view adversely affect the status of those PCCGs. However, at the end of the day the Bill seeks flexibility for the MPA in the way that those PCCGs are or are not treated. There is a discretion whether to treat them on a borough basis. In other words, the geography will be entirely in the hands of the MPA.
It is that lack of statutory underpinning which makes the PCCGs vulnerable. I recognise that the Minister does not believe that the Bill adversely affects the status of the PCCGs, but by its nature it must. They are borough-based PCCGs and could be disbanded and replaced with a PCCG based on two, three or four boroughs; their job could be changed. Therefore, though I accept that some reassurance has been given by the Minister, it is not the total reassurance that the PCCGs—which are based on a borough basis—are seeking. In the circumstances it is perhaps not 48 appropriate to press the amendment, but we will consider the Minister's words and may well come back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ [Amendments Nos. 537A to 538 not moved.]

§ 5.15 p.m.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538A: Page 325, line 10, after ("(1)") insert (", or

(b) if no agreement is in force under that subsection in relation to the function or functions in question, to a standard which the Secretary of State considers to be satisfactory.").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 538A and 538B seek to amend the Bill's provisions in relation to the Metropolitan Police's national and international functions. Amendment No. 538A enables the Secretary of State to direct the MPA to take specified measures when he is not satisfied with the Met's performance of its national or international functions, even where the functions in question are not covered by a service level agreement between the Secretary of State and the MPA. Amendment No. 538B ensures that the MPA's responsibilities extend to all the Met's national and international functions. It also makes clear that those particular functions are included within those of the force when the Secretary of State considers whether to set a minimum budget for the MPA under Clause 81 of the Bill.

§ Schedule 22, paragraph 99, which inserts a new Section 96A into the 1996 Police Act, provides at present that, (1) The Secretary of State and the Metropolitan Police Authority may enter into agreements with respect to the level of performance to be achieved by the metropolitan police force in respect of any of its national or international functions. (2) If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the metropolitan police force is not performing any or all of its national or international functions to the standard specified …he may direct the MPA to take [specified] measures". So the Secretary of State is able to make directions where he has a service level agreement with the MPA. But what happens if he is unable to reach agreement with the MPA on the performance of any or indeed all of those functions? As things stand, he would be unable to make a direction. That is a loophole in the legislation. Amendment No. 538A closes that loophole.

§ Amendment No. 538B closes a couple more loopholes. The functions of police authorities, which will apply to the MPA from next July, are generally framed in the 1996 Police Act in terms of the police force area. Some of the Metropolitan Police's national and international functions, by their very nature, take place or relate to matters outside the metropolitan police district. This amendment makes clear that the MPA's responsibilities apply to those particular functions as they do to the rest of the Met's work.

§ Those responsibilities include the principal police authority function to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force as well as the duty to produce local policing objectives, plans and annual reports by police authorities and chief constables. This amendment also ensures that the provision in Clause 81 for the Secretary of State to set a minimum budget for the MPA in order to maintain or restore an efficient and effective police force includes within its scope the MPS' national and international functions. That clause currently refers to maintaining a force for the police force area, so could otherwise have excluded from its scope same of the national or international activities. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify Amendment No. 538A. I understand the need to plug the loophole. I understand also that the provision needs to be read in the context of the minimum budget providing for national and international functions, to which the noble Lord referred. However, it seems to put the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State in a way which enables him to deal with them subjectively; there seems to be no objective test of what is satisfactory. The Secretary of State may require that the standard is what he considers to be satisfactory under Amendment No. 538A. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the term "reasonable" should be implied; in other words, that it should be to a reasonably satisfactory standard or something to that effect.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I simply want to add that the national and international functions of the Metropolitan Police are of the greatest importance. Some of us, including me, have had reason to appreciate some of the national work of the Metropolitan Police Federal Branch in particular, though that is only one example.
That makes me glad that the Home Office and the Secretary of State are still to be closely involved in these matters and to oversee them. It is inevitable that there will be duplication of responsibility between the police authority and the Secretary of State, and hence a potential area for disagreement, not only on money but also on other matters. That is to be regretted but it is unavoidable; it is inherent in the policy of abolishing the Secretary of State as the police authority for the metropolis and creating the Metropolitan Police Authority. That said, it is important that the Secretary of State should be involved in the national and international functions.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his supportive comments with regard to the amendments and for the valuable role of the Secretary of State in these matters. He is right that there will need to be a continued involvement, albeit of a different quality and nature.
Perhaps I may take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with regard to "subjectiveness" and the question of" 50 reasonableness". In applying the satisfactory test, we can read into the wording the term "reasonableness". That applies to other requirements placed on Ministers, whose actions are, of course, subject to judicial review. Therefore, we will have to have due regard to the test of reasonableness in all circumstances. That applies in particular to the provisions contained in Amendment No. 538A.

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538B: Page 325, line 21, at end insert—

§ ("National and international functions: application of requirements relating to reports etc.

§ 96B.—(1) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 6(1) shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (1) to securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the metropolitan police district included a reference to securing that that force discharges its national or international functions efficiently and effectively.

§ (2) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 7(1) shall have effect as if the reference to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.

§ (3) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 8 shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference in subsection (1) to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions, and
(b) the reference in subsection (2)(c) to any performance targets established by the Authority excluded any standards of performance established by it in pursuance of an agreement under subsection (1) of section 96A or a direction under subsection (2) of that section.

§ (4) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 9(1) shall have effect as if the reference to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.

§ (5) In their application to the metropolitan police force, sections 22 and 44 shall have effect as if references to policing the metropolitan police district included references to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.

§ (6) Section 81(1) and (3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (minimum budget for Metropolitan Police Authority) shall have effect as if the references to restoring or maintaining an efficient and effective police force for the metropolitan police district included references to securing that that force discharges its national or international functions efficiently and effectively.

§ (7) Subsection (4) of section 96A shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.").

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 538C: Page 326, line 3, leave out ("7,").

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538D: Page 326, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) In paragraph 3(1) (term of appointment of member of panel), after "panel" there shall be inserted "for a police area listed in Schedule I". ( ) After paragraph 3(1) there shall be inserted— (1A) A person shall be appointed to hold office as a member of a selection panel for the police area constituted by the metropolitan police district for a term of two years."").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised a question on this amendment. The grouping deals with age limits as regards Metropolitan Police Authority membership. The GLA Bill provides for a selection panel of three people to be established to start the selection process for six independent members of the MPA. The purpose of Amendment No. 538D is to remove the upper age limit of 70, which applies to being on a selection panel. We have drafted the amendment to specify that the age limit of 70 remains for selection panels for appointment to police authorities outside London. We propose to remove that age limit when removing the age limit for membership of such police authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that that is all the provision does. It is not obvious from the wording of the amendment that that is its purpose. I take it that the two-year term is common for other police authorities and that that is not being altered by this amendment, so that it remains a standard. All that this provision does is to make it possible for a person over the age of 70 to be a member. If I have understood it correctly, I shall support the amendment.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes.

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538E: Page 326, line 18, leave out ("7,").

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 538F to 538J: Page 326, line 29, at end insert ("shall cease to have effect"). Page 327, line 23, at end insert— (".—(1) Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1997 (appointment of members of the NCS and NCIS Service Authorities) shall be amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 4 (appointment of core members by local authority members of police authorities)—

(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted "(1)", and
(b) for "Three" there shall be substituted "Four".

(3) After the sub-paragraph formed by sub-paragraph (2)(a) above there shall be inserted— (2) Those local authority members shall exercise their powers under sub-paragraph (1) so as to ensure that one of the members appointed by them is a local authority member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. 52 (4) The following provisions—

(a) paragraph 5 (appointment by Secretary of State in his capacity as police authority for metropolitan police district),
(b) paragraph 8(4) (Secretary of State prohibited from appointing additional member of NCIS Service Authority to represent him in that capacity), and
(c) paragraph 10(4) (corresponding prohibition in respect of appointment of additional member of NCS Service Authority)

shall cease to have effect. (5) In paragraph 14(a) (meaning of "local authority members of police authorities") for "to the Police Act 1996 (local authority members)" there shall be substituted "or paragraph 2 of Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996 (local authority members and London Assembly members of the Metropolitan Police Authority)". (6) In paragraph 16 (which makes provision for the application of Schedule in the case of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the Commissioner of Police for the City of London) for the words from "the Commissioner and" onwards there shall be substituted "the Commissioner of Police for the City of London shall be treated as if he were a member of the City of London police force.""). Page 327, line 25, at end insert— ("( ) In paragraph 1(6) (meaning of "police authority members") paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it shall cease to have effect."). Page 327, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) In paragraph 1(6) (meaning of "police authority members") paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it shall cease to have effect.").

§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Lucas
My Lords, I suspect that the Minister will be able to satisfy me quite quickly as to what Amendment No. 538G does. Again, it is not obvious from the wording that this is merely confined to consequentials. It appears that the MPA is to be given a seat among the good and the great. Perhaps the Minister can explain whether that is purely consequential or whether it is a new additional decision. Indeed, there may be other aspects of the amendment that I have failed to understand. I should also like to point out that Amendment No. 538F is in no way consequential; it merely corrects a mistake made by draftsmen which I am delighted to see they have picked up. In fact, it has nothing to do with any of the other amendments.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, as before, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his dedication to detail. I can confirm that this is a consequential removal of the reference to the age limit. I trust that that provides the noble Lord with a satisfactory response.

Lord Lucas
My Lords, this cannot be anything to do with the age limit. Indeed, Amendment No. 538G has nothing to do with the age limit. I hope that the Minister will take a quick look at his Marshalled List and assure me that all this relates to the bringing into 53 existence of the MPA and its taking a seat at some unspecified table. which will now consist of four rather than three members.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, as I said, the grouping deals with age limits. As I understand it, this amendment deals with membership.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords can the Minister say what Amendment No. 538G seeks to achieve?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, it is consequential upon the Home Secretary's removal as the police authority for London. Therefore, it is consistent in that regard. The amendment ensures that one MPA assembly member can sit on the boards of the NCS and NC IS. I trust that that answers the noble Lord's point.

§ On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 538K: After Clause 286, insert the following new clause—