| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dholakia: We also support the amendment. Our Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 11. There is no fundamental difference between them in terms of the consultation process, and I fully endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I also fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said about the bodies that are essential to the consultation process if we are to have positive policing in this country.
As was mentioned on Second Reading, the tripod that consists of the local police authority, central government and the local community is essential. If we disturb the process by suggesting that much control will be exercised centrally, we create a dangerous
situation. We shall highlight that later through a number of amendments that we intend to the issue in Committee and on Report.We do not intend by our amendment to question the powers of the Home Secretary. Nor do we question the need to set out strategic priorities for the police. That is right and important. Our amendment sets out how such plans should be produced. It is common sense that the people who must implement the plans and those whom they may need to consult—essentially, we are talking about local consultation—are involved. We go slightly further in our proposals than does the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, by identifying some relevant bodies, but the list is not exclusive.
In essence, the formula suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of,
- "consultation with relevant persons",
The other essential element in producing plans is the involvement of the local community. We seem to underestimate the importance of local consultative councils. To a great extent, their interests are represented by the police authority. Their participation is important. Although we may have a national strategic plan, we should never forget what is required in local situations. What may be required in Cumbria may be quite different from what is required in metropolitan London. Those groups must take part in consultation.
Finally, in the Police Act 1996 there was an obligation on the Home Office to consult the tripartite state partners. What made the Government reject that proposition in this Bill? It is an essential element. I hope that the Minister will take into account the views of those of us on these Benches and on the Official Opposition Benches and accept the amendment, so that the partnership can become a reality.
Lord Elton: The structure of Part 1 of the Bill is interesting. It is open to the Minister to reply that there are requirements to consult in one form or another scattered among subsequent clauses and to say that the national policing plan is merely an announcement of what the Secretary of State intends to do with the powers granted him by those clauses. However, he will be committed to the national policing plan, and its feasibility and advisability should be considered by the Secretary of State in consultation with those most closely affected by it.
It is leaving it too late to rely on subsequent provisions for consultation; for instance, Clause 7(3) and (4), forming part of the proposed new section of the 1996 Act. By the time the Secretary of State—or his
surrogate, as it is in subsection (4)—arrives at the consultation, he will be committed to the policy set out in the national policing plan. My noble friend is right to say that the consultation should be brought forward. I would not dissent from what has been said by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches about specifying some of the bodies to be consulted.My noble friend raised a concern that is not just a bogey; it is a real danger. The structure of this part of the Bill could be used by an ambitious and irresponsible political party in five or 10 years' time to issue directions to the police in a way that would make them subject to political control. We saw that in Germany in the 1930s, and it is as well for those of us who remember that time—even if we were fairly young—to make sure that others do not forget. That purpose lies behind many amendments to come, including several of mine, but at the moment we are simply talking about prudent, good government. The matter should be taken forward in consultation and not by the Secretary of State on his own.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree warmly with what my noble friend Lord Fowler said; I need not repeat it. The reason why the Bill is viewed with a degree of suspicion that verges on hostility is that it seems to be just one more acceptance of the idea that all wisdom resides in the centre. It is unlikely that anybody agrees with that, but the view has been constantly pushed and promoted by successive governments. And it flourishes in no Whitehall department more strongly perhaps than in the Home Office.
If such a modest amendment, ably proposed by my noble friend, is rejected, it will be taken as a shutting of the door to consultation. It will be seen as saying, in effect, that consultation, even in as complex a field as policing, forms no part of our thinking. I am certain that that is not the approach of the Minister who will reply to the debate. I hope that he will make it clear, by accepting the amendment, that it is not the Government's approach either.
The statute book is full of requirements for consultation. It would seem distinctly odd to leave it out on this occasion. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. It is such a modest amendment, of a kind that government after government—even the unreasonable ones—have had little difficulty in accepting. It would show an extreme degree of pig-headedness and obstinacy if such a reasonable amendment were to be rejected.
The Minister has displayed the great virtue, when confronted with a briefing with which he does not feel comfortable, of being able to forget that it is there or of saying, "Here is something that I don't agree with" and accepting a wider view. To reject an amendment asking for a degree of consultation about such a huge, sensitive matter would be the height of unwisdom. I hope that the Minister will think carefully before doing so at the behest of a department that is not by any means unable, from time to time, to make major errors.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I also support the amendments in this grouping. The Minister will by
now have gathered that there is a certain amount of surprise that the requirement for consultation was not part of the Bill at the outset. I suspect that many are worried by comparable omissions, given that, in relation to the citizen and the state, there can be no more sensitive area than policing.I want to make a point arising from the letter that the Minister sent out on St Valentine's day in response to the APA briefing. In connection with this group of amendments about required consultation, he said:
- "As to the first of these, the White Paper made clear that we propose to establish a non-statutory National Policing Forum to provide a formal structure for consultation on the plan with the tripartite partners".
In the St Valentine's day letter, the Minister went on to say that the Government wished to keep the forum on a non-statutory basis in order to provide flexibility. None of the amendments requires the forum to be on a statutory basis. If the consultation requirement is written into the Bill, it will not affect the flexibility relating to the forum. With others, I am somewhat perplexed as to why the amendments have not already been made.
Lord Condon: I support Amendment No. 1 and the spirit of Amendments Nos. 6 and 11. I agree with the comments that noble Lords have made about the amendments. Putting a duty to consult into the Bill will be seen as an act of good faith and will assuage fears that, taken as a whole, Part 1 significantly moves the balance of power away from local police authorities and chief constables to central government.
Lord Renton: If the national policing plan is to succeed, it will require the co-operation of the Police Federation. Neither Clause 1 as it stands nor, alas, any of the amendments so admirably put forward by noble Lords, refer at all to the Police Federation. I do hope that, in further considering Clause 1 and the importance of the national policing plan, the Government will decide that the Police Federation must be consulted.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful for the contributions made to the first group of amendments, although I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was about to hold a debate on whether Part 1 should stand part of the Bill. I then thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, had jumped the gun because the date in October arises in the next grouping of amendments.
I know that this may disappoint some Members of the Committee, but I am happy to say that I am pleased to accept the spirit of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has just remarked in making a point about one amendment and commenting on the spirit of the others, consultation is important and we want to get it right. I do not intend to pooh-pooh that and I am certainly keen to take this away for further consideration.
In his brief remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was the only noble Lord who has spoken to this grouping to mention the proposed national policing forum. One might have thought that it simply did not exist, whereas as I pointed out in my letter and as was made abundantly clear in the White Paper, in particular in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Executive Summary on page 9, we have set out how we propose to involve the national policing forum in the plan. So we have no difficulty in accepting the spirit of the amendments. I shall certainly reflect on the points that have been made in advance of the Report stage because this is such an important part of the Bill.
It is true to say that the Bill is littered with aspects of consultation. I do not seek to hide behind that by saying that I want to reflect on the way that Clause 1 has been drafted. I remind noble Lords that in the White Paper we made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the national policing plan, as set out in the new clause introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill, is to consider strategic policing priorities. That hits it on the head; this does not concern micro-managing the police force. That is not its function. If a matter moves away from the area of strategy, then it will be thrown out. We are not interested and it would not form part of the action. Let us do away with any red herrings before we start, otherwise we shall hold debates on things that are not being proposed and are not going to happen. It would be far better to debate the Bill in order to make it a decent piece of legislation before we send it down the corridor to the other place to see what a mess they can make of it using their sometimes different procedures from those used in this House.
Again, I should like to make this absolutely clear: this is not about micro-managing the police. It concerns only general strategic policing priorities for the police forces. It is crucial that Members of the Committee keep that in mind.
Certain elements of the plan will in any case be the subject of consultation in their own right. Section 37 of the 1996 Act has already been mentioned. It requires the Home Secretary to consult on the national objectives for police authorities. The national policing forum will be a non-statutory body to advise. It will be appointed and up and running at some point in March, before we reach the Report stage. It will advise the Home Secretary on policing matters in general and the national policing plan in particular. Its membership will include representatives of the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police staff associations, as well as victims' and ethnic minority groups.
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out in relation to my letter, it is true that we want to keep the body non-statutory in order that it can remain flexible, but the core membership of the forum will be the tripartite partners. I want to make that point absolutely clear to the Committee. As I have said, the focus will be on strategic priorities for the police forces of England and Wales. To the extent that the plan will impact on the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, consultation would naturally extend to the directors general and the service authorities.
I want to say to noble Lords that we will look at the drafting of this clause. We genuinely want consultation and there is no attempt to do anything underhand here. I realise that today it would appear that I am alone in speaking for the Home Office, which does not seem to have many supporters. But in a mature democracy everyone should be suspicious and should ask searching questions. That is the function of this House and the other place.
Having said that we shall take away the amendments and consider them further, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page