Schedule 1 - National Policing Improvement Agency
Police and Justice Bill
Public Bill Committees, 16 March 2006, 1:00 pm
Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 51, line 30, leave out ‘objects,’.
Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)
These are probing amendments to find out the Government’s thinking. Why do the Government want powers to change by regulation the objects set out for the agency? The Minister said that the it would be police-owned and led, but that is hard to conceive. It will be staffed by regulation made by the Secretary of State, and the chief executive will be chosen by the Secretary of State. It all begins, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, to sound like doublespeak.
It seems that the Secretary of State will be able to change the whole purpose of the new agency at will. Theoretically, he could take out all the objects and put in, for example, “create a national police force”. Then where would we be? While this Home Secretary seems benign—benignish—future Home Secretaries might not be so cuddly. Trust has no place in legislation. I wish the Government would come back to Parliament. The Bill seems to continue the trend that began in what we have subtitled the abolition of Parliament Act to seek continually to alter legislation by regulation.
The tripartite balance to which the Minister referred is the pillar on which we depend to protect us against over-interventionist intentions and political intervention. Police operational freedom is paramount, and the police are pretty heavily scrutinised already. To be able to change entirely the objects of the agency by regulation seems out of kilter. Can she see why some of us on Opposition Benches regard the measure as unbalancing to the tripartite structure, weighting it toward Government intervention? I look forward to her explanation why the Government wish to reserve that swingeing power, and why they do not wish to come back to Parliament to get its approval.
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
The hon. Lady made a strong point. The objects in paragraph 1 are already anodyne and wide in scope. It is interesting to wonder in what circumstances they would need to be altered. Paragraph 46 reserves a wide-ranging power for the Secretary of State effectively driving a coach and horses through all the structures and protections put in place by the other parts of schedule 1. The issue must be addressed.
I am sure we shall hear some warm, cuddly, encouraging noises from the Minister about the use of the powers reserved by paragraph 46, but the provision is wide in scope. It is strange to think that the objects would need to be changed. Surely this is our opportunity—here, at the moment—to examine the objects and ensure that the scope, breadth of operation and function of the agency are as they should be. To reserve powers to restrict them or expand them even further makes our debate difficult, as we are seeking to frame the powers, the structure, the organisation and the operation of the agency. Paragraph 46 says that the whole thing can effectively be changed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with certain agencies, which affords some protection, but the paragraph also appears, on one reading, to perpetuate the view that it reserves power back to the Secretary of State. The centralisation approach is the theme that comes through from the reservation of that power.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that is not the intention and that protections will be afforded before that strong and stringent power is operated. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone); I am concerned about the continued introduction of such order-making powers by way of primary rather than secondary legislation, without Parliament being able to review the situation properly. There is a need therefore for reassurance about the use of that power and the safeguards that might be put in place to ensure that it is not used aggressively. Will the Minister provide that reassurance?
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
I join hon. Members in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Pope. I was going to apologise for getting the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mixed up this morning, but he is unfortunately not in his place. My officials have since provided me with some lovely colour photographs of all members of the Committee—it is one of the best-looking Committees on which I have had the pleasure to serve, particularly on the Government side. Hopefully there will be no more mistaken identities.
On amendment No. 47, I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green and for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). We want to ensure that, as far as possible, we have the opportunity to debate the objects. [Interruption.] That was quite warm and cuddly enough. The objects in paragraph (1) are fairly wide ranging, but they will not necessarily cover every eventuality for the next three, four or five years. The agency will be able to look to the future to find threats that we might face, of which we have no knowledge today. There may be circumstances in which it is necessary to make amendments.
That would not be without precedent; I understand that there is a similar provision in relation to the Police Information Technology Organisation under which the Home Secretary can confer additional functions on, and modify PITO’s constitution as well as confer extra powers on himself. That was introduced under section 99 of the Police Reform Act 2002, but was not debated at the Committee stage. I am not sure whether we have more incisive Members on this Committee determined to hold us to account. However, at that previous stage, all members of the Committee were perfectly content with such a provision. The national policing improvement agency must be nimble, flexible, quick on its feet and able to adapt to changing circumstances.
On the point raised by hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green about Parliament having an opportunity to discuss the matter, I say that regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure and so will be fully debated in both Houses before changes can be made. The safeguards are sufficient to ensure that the objects of the national policing improvement agency will not be changed on a whim. It is important that our legislation is flexible enough to allow us to consider all eventualities, and I ask the Committee therefore to resist the amendment.
Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)
Having listened carefully to the Minister, I am a tiny bit reassured—I am being as generous as possible—and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment made: No. 2, in schedule 1, page 55, line 4, at end insert—
‘62AIn section 59 (Police Federations), after subsection (7) there is inserted—
“(7A)For the purposes of subsection (1), a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is—
(a)a constable, and
(b)an employee of the Agency,
shall be treated as a member of a police force in England and Wales, and references in this section to police service shall be construed accordingly.”
62BIn section 61(1) (Police Negotiating Board), before paragraph (c) there is inserted—
“(bb)the members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who are constables,”.
62C(1)Section 62 (functions of the Police Negotiating Board) is amended as follows.
(2)In subsection (1) (duty to consult Board before making regulations about certain matters), after paragraph (c) there is inserted “or
(d)regulations under paragraph 17B of Schedule 1 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 (regulations as to constables who are members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency),”.
(3)Before subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(1D)Before issuing a document under paragraph 17A of Schedule 1 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 (rules and principles for contents of contracts of employment of constables employed as members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency), the Secretary of State shall—
(a)consult the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom about any provision in the document which relates to any of the matters mentioned in section 61(1) (other than pensions), and
(b)take into consideration any recommendation made by the Board.
(1E)Before determining the terms and conditions on which a constable is to be appointed to the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency as an employee of the Agency, the Secretary of State (where the constable is to be appointed as the chief executive of the Agency) or the Agency (in any other case) shall—
(a)consult the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom about any term or condition which relates to any of the matters mentioned in section 61(1) (other than pensions), and
(b)take into consideration any recommendation made by the Board.”
(4)In subsection (2) (arrangements under section 61(3) apply in relation to recommendations under section 62), for “subsection (1) or (1A)” there is substituted “subsection (1), (1A), (1D) or (1E)”.
62D(1)Section 63 (Police Advisory Boards) is amended as follows.
(2)Before subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(1C)The Police Advisory Board for England and Wales shall also advise the Secretary of State on general questions affecting members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who are constables.”
(3)In subsection (3) (Board to be consulted on certain regulations), after paragraph (b) there is inserted “or
(c)regulations under paragraph 17B of Schedule 1 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 (regulations as to constables who are members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency), other than regulations with respect to any of the matters mentioned in section 61(1),”.
62EIn section 64 (membership of trade unions), before subsection (5) there is inserted—
“(4C)This section applies to a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is—
(a)a constable, and
(b)an employee of the Agency,
as it applies to a member of a police force, and references to a police force or to service in a police force shall be construed accordingly.
(4D)In its application by virtue of subsection (4C), subsection (2) shall have effect as if the reference to the chief officer of police were a reference to the chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency.”.’.—[Hazel Blears.]