My Lords, I begin by declaring that I am a member of the police service parliamentary scheme committee and I have also taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme itself.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for giving us an opportunity to discuss these regulations. The three speeches that we have heard so far have been eloquent and forceful. I am afraid that is not something I will be able to match, given that much of my contribution will be in the form of questions to the Minister as I am not entirely sure what these regulations mean in practice. I am sure he will be able to provide me with the answers since, as I understand it, these regulations have now been in force for some three and a half months, unless they have somehow been delayed. I hope that the Minister will respond on the basis of his experience of how these regulations are working and the impact they are having.
First, I refer to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is a fairly old report, given that it was published on 26 March this year. The committee stated in paragraph 8 of the report on the regulations:
“The concept of not allowing a closed shop to operate is well established but no-one, including the Home Office, is aware of a precedent for the proposal that members can opt into a ‘union’ and use its services without also paying a subscription”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether he believes that is a fair statement—namely, that the Home Office is unaware of a precedent for the proposal. In fact, it is no longer a proposal but a reality in these regulations. Will he also say why the Home Office felt it was necessary to have this arrangement uniquely for the Police Federation?
As the Minister will also be aware, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee expressed surprise that no estimate of the predicted financial impact of this legislation on the federation had been provided. I am sure that will not be a surprise question for the Minister and that he expected it to be raised. Why was no estimate given of the predicted financial impact of this legislation on the federation, and why did the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee feel moved to comment on that fact? What is the Government’s estimate of the predicted financial impact of this legislation on the federation, since, presumably, they have not embarked on bringing these regulations into force without knowing the answer to that question? Therefore, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would answer the question, which was also raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
If officers previously paid no subscription but then opted to pay one, can they at any time opt back into paying no subscription—for example, in circumstances where they received advice or support that led them to change from paying no subscription to paying one? Can they yo-yo to and fro between paying no subscription and paying one simply to cover the period during which they feel they require advice or support from the federation? Then, once they have had that advice or support, can they immediately opt back into paying no subscription? I would be grateful if the Minister would answer that question.
Can the Police Federation alone decide whether it will provide any level of service at all to officers who join the federation but decline to pay any subscription,
or would it be stopped from doing this by these or any other regulations and be compelled to provide some level of service to officers who join but do not pay any subscription? At the moment that is not entirely clear to me from the information in front of me.
Paragraph 10 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report states:
“The Home Office also states that, apart from the provisions about specified matters outlined in these Regulations, legislation does not otherwise set out which members are eligible for what benefit. Further detail on the specific benefits that the Federation provides and the eligibility criteria for these benefits would be outlined in the Police Federation’s Fund Rules”.
That is a direct quote from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, telling us what the Home Office has stated. In the light of that, do the Police Federation’s fund rules have to be approved by the Secretary of State, or is it a matter solely for the federation to decide what these rules say, provided that they do not conflict with the provisions about,
“specified matters outlined in these Regulations”?
9.30 pm
Is there anything in these regulations that prevents the federation from deciding that someone who joins and declines to pay either the normal subscription or any subscription will receive no benefits at all? Once again, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point.
Paragraph 9 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report starts:
“In relation to the new requirements the Home Office has stated”,
and one thing that the Home Office has stated is that:
“Officers who currently withhold payment of their subscriptions have a limited entitlement to support”,
from the federation,
“compared to a member paying their subscription fees”.
What actually is the “limited entitlement to support” from the federation, mentioned as having been referred to by the Home Office in paragraph 9 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report? Can the federation decline to accept an officer into membership under these regulations, or is it compelled to accept into membership anybody who says they want to join? Can the federation lapse from membership any member who declines to pay a subscription? Is that a matter for the federation to decide?
Can the Minister also tell us the sources of funding of the Police Federation, apart from voluntary subscriptions? What percentage of its income comes from voluntary subscriptions and what percentage from other sources? I ask this in the context that, up to now, the Government do not appear to have provided any estimate of the predicted financial impact of this legislation on the federation, so clearly it is of interest to know what percentage of its income is made up of the voluntary subscription and what percentage of its income comes from other sources.
With reference to the regulations themselves, this is, on the face of it, a relatively minor point, but in Regulation 5, new Regulation 4A states that:
“Each branch board of the Federation must—
(a) notify each new member below the rank of superintendent, or police cadet, of that force that they may, but are not required to, opt to join the Federation”.
Can the Minister confirm that this means that “each new member” covers everybody and not just those expressing an interest in joining the federation—in other words, that “new member” is a reference to all people joining the police force? If that is correct, who will provide the federation with details of such new recruits? I ask that question in this context because new sub-paragraph (b) says that each branch board of the federation must,
“notify each new member below the rank of superintendent, or police cadet, of that force who wishes to join the Federation”.
To whom is that referring, since you cannot be a new member until you have joined? You cannot therefore come under the category set out in new Regulation 4A(b) of someone “who wishes to join”. If you wish to join, surely by definition you are not a new member. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of what that part of the regulations means.
I turn back to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. I am sorry if I am going about from one part of it to another but there is a quote at the end to which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, has already referred. In paragraph 12, the report says:
“The Federation particularly objects to the requirement that it must provide services to someone who has not previously subscribed at the same level as a long-term subscriber”.
Referring to the letter from the federation, the committee says that it,
“compares the proposal to ‘a driver using an uninsured motor vehicle, having an accident and then contacting the insurance company for cover after the event’”.
Can the Minister explain why that is not an accurate parallel of the situation in which the Government are placing the federation through these regulations? Finally, which part of the regulations says that the federation must provide some services to members who pay no subscriptions?