Policing and Crime Bill

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and welcome what he said about statutory guidance. I look forward to seeing whether it makes any difference. However, the provision still gives powers to chief officers to veto authority collaboration agreements and confuses ultimate accountability for ensuring that collaboration. The police authority is the governing body of the police force. It is absurd to suggest in legislation that it should have to get permission from the people whom it governs to exercise its functions effectively. Police authorities respect the operational responsibilities of their chief officers, they respect that position in expertise and leadership in policing, and they would think very hard before going against a chief officer’s advice. We really must dispense with this power of veto. I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I predict that there will be problems ahead with this part of the Bill. Amendment 8 withdrawn. House resumed. Moved by Moved by Baroness Harris of Richmond "10: Clause 5, page 6, line 35, at end insert—"""(1) A collaboration agreement may be entered into jointly by a police authority and the police force for its area with another party or parties, but any such joint agreement shall—" (a) set out the matters relating to the discharge of functions by members of the police force under section 23 in a form which distinguishes them from the matters relating to the discharge of police authorities functions under section 23A; (b) contain the information required under section 23D. "(1A) Any police force collaboration agreement which imposes any legal liability on the police authority must take the form of a joint agreement referred to in subsection (1)."" Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I supported the original version of the amendment, but I am moving this version after listening to the Minister in Committee because I remain concerned. I agree entirely with him about bringing greater clarity to which sorts of agreement are appropriate for forces to enter into and which are appropriate for authorities to make. Although a number of rough edges remain to be ironed out in this clause, I support its overall aim and acknowledge that this is a very important area to tackle, to strengthen resilience at strategic level. The original amendment was not in any way intended to merge or confuse the functions that could respectively be carried out by forces and authorities under collaboration agreements. The amendment was simply to make it clear that forces and authorities could enter into agreements together. However, the revised amendment tries to clarify the points made by the Minister, whereby the functions can be kept separate. Joint agreements are in practice how most collaborations actually work. For instance, the main focus of an agreement might be to work with another force to improve the way that human trafficking is handled, but the agreement will also need to include collaboration on a number of support services, such as the provision of specialist IT. However, I am concerned that if an enabling provision is not put into the Bill specifying that it is possible for an authority and force to enter jointly into agreement with another authority and force, then sooner or later someone will challenge this common practice on the grounds that it is ultra vires because it is not set out in legislation. It might be argued that if the intention had been to provide for joint agreements, the legislation would not have been so specific about separating out force agreements and authority agreements. I am sure that a court would have some regard at a judicial review to the debate that we are having about this issue. However, that will not have the same force as something that is in the Bill. We need to put this matter beyond doubt and be absolutely clear that it is permissible to enter jointly into force and authority collaboration agreements while preserving the specific roles of forces and authorities in those agreements. The second part of the amendment tries to clarify what should happen when a force collaboration agreement imposes a legal liability on an authority. The Minister implied in Committee that this had already been dealt with because an authority would have to approve a force agreement in any event. I am uneasy about this. Approving a collaboration agreement in advance is very different from being a party to it and involved in operating it. I am concerned here about various statutory responsibilities of police authorities, particularly those that accrue to it as an employer, which cannot be wholly delegated to the chief officer. This includes things like health and safety. The intention is not to suggest that police authorities should become involved in delivering operational policing but that they should be capable of meeting and managing their legal liabilities in a way that might be difficult if their role is merely to approve and then monitor agreements. This might not give them the necessary traction to manage their risks and responsibilities effectively. This goes back to the earlier point about entering joint force and authority agreements that might cover some of these concerns. There are potential situations where no parallel support agreement is required from the authority, but the authority is nevertheless exposed to liabilities. It worries me that an authority might have limited routes to protect its position in this situation. I have removed the reference to exposure to financial liability because I accept that authorities should have other means of meeting their financial stewardship duties through financial delegation arrangements. I reiterate that the amendment seeks to improve, and remove barriers to, collaboration. I beg to move. 10: Clause 5, page 6, line 35, at end insert— ""(1) A collaboration agreement may be entered into jointly by a police authority and the police force for its area with another party or parties, but any such joint agreement shall—" (a) set out the matters relating to the discharge of functions by members of the police force under section 23 in a form which distinguishes them from the matters relating to the discharge of police authorities functions under section 23A; (b) contain the information required under section 23D. "(1A) Any police force collaboration agreement which imposes any legal liability on the police authority must take the form of a joint agreement referred to in subsection (1)."" Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I supported the original version of the amendment, but I am moving this version after listening to the Minister in Committee because I remain concerned. I agree entirely with him about bringing greater clarity to which sorts of agreement are appropriate for forces to enter into and which are appropriate for authorities to make. Although a number of rough edges remain to be ironed out in this clause, I support its overall aim and acknowledge that this is a very important area to tackle, to strengthen resilience at strategic level. The original amendment was not in any way intended to merge or confuse the functions that could respectively be carried out by forces and authorities under collaboration agreements. The amendment was simply to make it clear that forces and authorities could enter into agreements together. However, the revised amendment tries to clarify the points made by the Minister, whereby the functions can be kept separate. Joint agreements are in practice how most collaborations actually work. For instance, the main focus of an agreement might be to work with another force to improve the way that human trafficking is handled, but the agreement will also need to include collaboration on a number of support services, such as the provision of specialist IT. However, I am concerned that if an enabling provision is not put into the Bill specifying that it is possible for an authority and force to enter jointly into agreement with another authority and force, then sooner or later someone will challenge this common practice on the grounds that it is ultra vires because it is not set out in legislation. It might be argued that if the intention had been to provide for joint agreements, the legislation would not have been so specific about separating out force agreements and authority agreements. I am sure that a court would have some regard at a judicial review to the debate that we are having about this issue. However, that will not have the same force as something that is in the Bill. We need to put this matter beyond doubt and be absolutely clear that it is permissible to enter jointly into force and authority collaboration agreements while preserving the specific roles of forces and authorities in those agreements. The second part of the amendment tries to clarify what should happen when a force collaboration agreement imposes a legal liability on an authority. The Minister implied in Committee that this had already been dealt with because an authority would have to approve a force agreement in any event. I am uneasy about this. Approving a collaboration agreement in advance is very different from being a party to it and involved in operating it. I am concerned here about various statutory responsibilities of police authorities, particularly those that accrue to it as an employer, which cannot be wholly delegated to the chief officer. This includes things like health and safety. The intention is not to suggest that police authorities should become involved in delivering operational policing but that they should be capable of meeting and managing their legal liabilities in a way that might be difficult if their role is merely to approve and then monitor agreements. This might not give them the necessary traction to manage their risks and responsibilities effectively. This goes back to the earlier point about entering joint force and authority agreements that might cover some of these concerns. There are potential situations where no parallel support agreement is required from the authority, but the authority is nevertheless exposed to liabilities. It worries me that an authority might have limited routes to protect its position in this situation. I have removed the reference to exposure to financial liability because I accept that authorities should have other means of meeting their financial stewardship duties through financial delegation arrangements. I reiterate that the amendment seeks to improve, and remove barriers to, collaboration. I beg to move.