Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Police and Justice Bill.


Police and Justice Bill

Clause 23 provides for the making of an order by the Secretary of State to enable local authorities to operate with flexibility in making local decisions to ensure that their functions are carried out as effectively as possible. The ability to contract out all or some of their parenting contract and order-seeking functions to other bodies may assist authorities in their management of strategic and operational functions. It is the Government’s view that the person to whom a local authority’s functions may be delegated in pursuance of such an order is to be treated as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the discharge of those functions. The new section is modelled closely on similar provisions in Section 1F of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was inserted by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Under it, the Secretary of State may make an order which enables a local authority to contract out its functions of applying for anti-social behaviour orders and similar types of orders. The Government have intervened in the case of Johnson v Havering. In this case, the Government have argued before the administrative court for their original intention as to the meaning of ““public authority”” in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The intervention is partly in response to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 2004 report on this subject. The judgment is expected shortly, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. As the committee recommended, and the Government agree, a successful intervention presents the best possibility of resolving the lack of clarity in the case law on this subject. If we put such provisions in this Bill, it would cast doubt on previous legislation in which we have intended the same but have not stated it explicitly. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is but one such example. I would therefore not wish to make amendments such as these in isolation, and I am sure the noble Viscount appreciates the reason why. The Government wish to consider the position carefully before making any such provision here, lest it leave unwelcome or unforeseen implications and run the risk of creating further uncertainty.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c440-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Databases Accountability Crime Bail Administration of justice Arrests Anti-social behaviour Community relations Equality Fixed penalties Fines HM Inspectorate of Prisons Local government Offenders Parents Police Powers Membership Prisons Publicity Police authorities Police cautions Race relations Victims Social rented housing Anti-social behaviour orders Parenting contracts Parenting orders Crime and disorder reduction partnerships Hate crime
Legislation
Police and Justice Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk