Examination of Witnesses (Questions 73
- 79)
TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2004
BARONESS HENIG
OF LANCASTER,
LORD HARRIS
OF HARINGEY,
FIONNUALA GILL,
SIR IAN
BLAIR AND
GARY PUGH
Q73 David Winnick (in the Chair): Good
afternoon. I am very pleased that you have been able to come and
give evidence to this session on police reform. You are all very
busy people and we shall listen with much interest to your responses
to the questions. I am just wondering if any wish to make an opening
statement. We have had your memos. I think we know very well your
views, your responses to the questions which will come, so shall
we work on the basis that whatever information you want to give
us, you have already given us?
Baroness Henig: I would be happy
to work on that basis.
Q74 David Winnick (in the Chair): Baroness
Henig, you have given evidence before. I think it would be appropriate
to congratulate on your being sent to the House of Lords. Someone
has mentioned there might be a division.
Lord Harris: My understanding
is that there could be a division and because of the bizarre Lords
Rules there will not be any indication of timing, but it is unlikely
to be before 3.45.
Q75 David Winnick (in the Chair): It
will be up to the two of you, I would not want to say anything
that would cause you difficulties with Whips. We will definitely
have a division at 4 o'clock. If we have not completed our agenda
then we will resume about 4.15. We have many questions. If I can
start by asking Sir Ian, first of all. What is your overall assessment
of the Government's police reform programme to date? Do you take
the view that the Government have a coherent vision—and
I am going to ask the Association of Police Authorities the same
question in a moment—your answer will be very diplomatic,
Sir Ian.
Sir Ian Blair: Of course, but
I also think true. I think that there is a significant coherence
between the two parts of police reform, although it is obviously
true the second one is sometimes an adjustment of the first. I
would say that the first was about three things. It was about
processes and enablers, so we had legislation around the relationship
between Home Office, police authorities and chief officers, the
development of the extended police family, pay reform, the introduction
of the independent Police Complaints Commission, and the performance
framework, together with a lot of law reform, which I think is
often missed as part of the overall police reform agenda. It is
certainly one in which the Met and other police forces have been
engaged. We have seen extensions of anti-social behaviour legislation,
finger printing and DNA now being taken at the point of charge,
which is very important to us, a practice directive about bail
so that offences on bail are dealt with at the time somebody is
brought back to court, minimum sentences for firearms, and of
course additional resources. So that is the three parts of the
first part. Now I think we are heading off into three other things.
First of all, a discussion about accountability—and I note
from the questions you will want further discussion around that.
Q76 David Winnick (in the Chair): There
will be questions later on obviously.
Sir Ian Blair: I am quite positive
that the discussions and detailed work around accountability is
important for a modernised service. Secondly, there is simplification
of some of the early parts, so a simplification of performance
regime, simplification of police powers, which I think is very
important, harmonisation in workforce terms, the workforce modernisation
agenda, capacity building around the improvement agency—again,
I am sure you will want to talk about that—and now citizen
focus. What would I say about the coherence? I would say that
it is definitely there. We, as a police service, particularly
the Met, have been very heavily involved in a lot of this work.
We see it as based on the four principles of public sector reform
as laid down for the rest of the public service with some very
great big challenges ahead. This is just focus material that the
Home Secretary mentioned this morning, and it is another extension
of that and a great big challenge.
Q77 David Winnick (in the Chair): Thank
you very much. Baroness Henig or Lord Harris, do you want to give
any views about what you consider to be the overall assessment
of the Government's police reform programme, whether it has a
coherence which you approve of?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: If
I could perhaps respond to that, briefly. I think if you look
at the overall vision, and it is a vision that we share, a vision
of a modern, high performing, more responsive police service,
and a service that is focused on the needs of all our diverse
citizens, then I think there is a coherent picture. I think that
the reform programme, as Sir Ian has said, is very comprehensive
and it is very far reaching. There is a whole number of different
strands. There are some 40 to 50 individual projects. I think,
therefore, rather than looking at those in isolation one has to
fit the pieces into a bigger picture so we share the vision. We
may have differences at times on the best way to get there, but
we certainly feel that given that we all have different roles
in the policing structure we support the fundamental principles
and we support the direction of travel.
Q78 David Winnick (in the Chair): Does
the APA take the view that there should be some caution about
the second phase of reform, that there should be more bedding
down in the first phase, Lady Henig, before proceeding to the
second?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: I
do understand where the question is coming from. We do recognise
the need to maintain the momentum. Our concern is not so much
about the speed of change, but ensuring that the significant changes,
which have implications for the nature of policing, are properly
thought through and tested to make sure they are workable.
Q79 David Winnick (in the Chair): It
would be odd if you said the opposite.
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: Provided,
therefore, that that is a central issue then I think we are not
so much concerned about phase 1 going through to phase 2 because,
as Sir Ian said, there are some very important principles now
which are involved in phase 2—citizen engagement, workforce
modernisation—which we have supported and called for change
for a number of years. Provided that the changes are looked at
thoroughly and are tested then our concerns I think are allayed.
|
