moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 76, line 30, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes from the Bill the provision which would place basic command units on a statutory footing. In explaining why we are withdrawing this provision, it is perhaps worth reminding the House why we included it in the first instance. There is widespread agreement that agencies involved in tackling crime and disorder can work best together if their boundaries are aligned. This is particularly true in the case of basic command units and local authorities, which are the two key pillars of crime and disorder reduction partnerships and strategies. Most, if not all, chief constables already recognise this, but it is open to any new chief constable to alter BCU boundaries.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 2, therefore, simply sought to enshrine in statute the requirement for BCU and local authority boundaries to be aligned and coterminous, and to place a duty on chief constables to consult key partners before altering BCU boundaries. It is undoubtedly the case that other motives have been read into this provision. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, talked of preparing BCUs for ““future developments””, including direct funding from central government. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, expressed similar concerns, as has the Association of Chief Police Officers and the APA, as they are entitled to do.
I repeat that, in bringing forward this provision, we are concerned solely with ensuring that BCUs are coterminous with local authority boundaries to aid partnership working on community safety issues. Happily, it is the case that the police service shares that objective. A number of chief constables have moved during the past year or so to review their BCU boundaries. I am now aware of only six BCUs out of some 225 which are not coterminous with local authorities, and in four of these cases, the discrepancy is very minor.
As the situation on the ground now largely reflects the outcome we were seeking, the Government are ready to withdraw this provision from the Bill. My ministerial colleague, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, has, however, written to the Association of Chief Police Officers to reinforce our expectation that the principle of coterminosity will be observed, save where there are compelling reasons for departing from this general rule.
We have a happy situation here where a policy objective is shared; there is commitment to it; and, in large measure, it is in place without the more rigorous hand of statute imposing its print on the way in which policing operates. That happy outcome enables me to move the amendment. I beg to move.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 9 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c17-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:45:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350302
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350302
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350302