Police and Justice Bill

moved Amendment No. 57: Page 75, line 33, at end insert- ““A relevant council or joint committee shall exercise its powers to appoint members of a police authority under paragraph 2 so as to ensure that, so far as is practicable, in the case of the members for whose appointment it is responsible, the proportion that are members of any given political party- (a) where it is a council that is responsible for their appointment, is the same as the proportion of the members of the council who are members of that party; and (b) where it is a joint committee that is so responsible, is the same as the proportion of the members of the relevant councils taken as a whole who are members of that party.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 relate to putting into primary legislation the principle of ensuring political balance on police authorities. Notwithstanding the peace and enjoyment that we have had from the Minister this afternoon—a wonderful array of goodies—and unless she is able to assure me differently in her response, I believe that we may have reached the watermark on this. At Second Reading, the Minister agreed that this was an important principle, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, which highlighted why that was so and what might happen if this principle were not followed. However, the noble Baroness also made it clear that she thought that flexibility was more important and confirmed that this matter would be in secondary rather than primary legislation. The purpose of my amendment is to ask her to reconsider that position. There is general agreement that key principles need to go into primary legislation, while the detail can be left to secondary legislation. Many of the debates on other parts of the Bill have concerned where that line should be drawn and in some areas drawing a line is not very easy. I do not see how ensuring that councillor representation on police authorities is politically balanced can be considered a mere detail. Surely, it is an underlying principle that permeates the whole concept of accountability. It is the key to the way in which police authorities operate. It has kept them free from party politics as well as from narrow interest groups, as I learnt to my great advantage a number of years ago when I chaired my own police authority. That is not to say that there have not been political debates about policing, but it means that one particular view has not been able to dominate completely to the detriment of others. It means that decisions are, for the most part, reached by consensus, reflecting a full range of views in the area, both political and non-party political. It also means that there is no question of undue partisan influence being brought to bear on the chief officer. That is an important and valuable principle. I am gratified that the Government agree, but if they agree with that, surely it is important enough to be in primary legislation, as it currently is. I cannot believe that the Government are suggesting that they may need to change this key, underlying principle about the way the authorities are made up. If they do not intend to change this, why do they need the flexibility that will allow them to do so? I beg to move.