| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: If I may say so, the noble Lord has a most engaging quality of optimism and cheerfulness in his nature.
Lord Rooker: I am known for it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Never have I seen that optimism better illustrated than when the noble Lord said just now that he thought that including a
declaration or an indication of the Home Secretary's intentions—as opposed to proposals—in the plan would add to its clarity. I differ profoundly with that. Very few Home Secretaries—except, of course, for my noble friend Lord Hurd, who is sitting on my left—have ever been able to make their intentions all that clear. It would be a terrible mistake to mix their intentions and their proposals. It would be a ghastly mixture. The intentions would need to be put in italics, or something like that, which would make the document extremely complicated and very inelegant. I hope that the Minister will not just dismiss that argument, because it is a serious point. Nobody would be helped by having the Home Secretary's intentions included in the plan at this stage. If they were simply intentions, as opposed to proposals, they would just muddle everything up. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to give the matter further thought.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, got rather the better end of the Minister's reply, because I was given no solace as to what plans might be considered—plans for whom, by whom and about what? The same goes for advice. On the first group of amendments, when questions were raised about the setting of strategic policing priorities, the Minister pointed out forcefully and convincingly that anything outside strategic policing would be ultra vires. Yet here we have a little weasel clause at the end of it all—the sting in the tail, it might be—that says blandly that the great plan can include anything by way of plans or advice. There is no qualification of that. I, too, would be most grateful if the Minister might review that. We might even have a conversation about it before Report.
Lord Rooker: If I have not answered satisfactorily the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I shall take advice from my learned friends in that respect. However, I do not believe that that undermines the fact that we are talking about strategic policing priorities. Those words are not, if you like, the Trojan Horse to undermine the fact that we are discussing strategic plans.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who was most complimentary about my optimism. But I am a Home Office Minister so, as I acknowledged from a sedentary position, I am always optimistic. The noble Lord must be realistic. Events may be occurring at the time that the plan is formally published that are ongoing for the Home Secretary. Publication will be before Christmas, so there is progress there. However, there is a difference between giving a firm indication of what will happen as opposed to what the Home Secretary wants to happen. For example, at the time of publication, regulations and codes of practice may have been submitted for consultation with other bodies and they may not form part of the flow—the cliff-edge of decision-making—because, as noble Lords have observed, the planning will be ongoing. The annual plan may be published, but planning continues throughout the year.
We wish to take account of matters that are in the system but upon which no final decision has been taken at the time of publication of the annual plan. I believe that providing greater clarity is a good idea. It will enable noble Lords to hold Ministers to greater account.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to prolong the argument, but there is nothing to stop the Home Secretary including his intentions if he feels that that would be of assistance. However, to lay upon him a duty to specify his intentions at a time when they may not be all that well defined seems to me to be foolish from his point of view. I still believe that the Government would be wise in their own interests, and for the sake of simplicity and clarity, to delete this term. Nothing that the noble Lord has said thus far has convinced me to the contrary. Nevertheless, every now and again—even in my sort of gloomy make-up, which is much more gloomy than that of the Minister—I do allow shades of optimism to appear. The latter lead me to hope that the noble Lord will allow his good nature a fair rein. Perhaps he will give this a little further thought between now and Report stage, and conclude that a very unlikely event has come to pass; namely, that I am right. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: When the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, moved the first amendment today, he expressed the concern on this side of the Chamber about the proposal that would give the Home Secretary and Whitehall far greater control over policing than has ever been the case. There are various assurances, promises and protocols from the Government, and we have been told that no new powers are to be introduced as a last resort. However, assurances and protocols are not binding; indeed, as explained earlier, they can be ignored by a future Home Secretary.
I am delighted with the way that the Minister has conceded on some of the major worries that have been expressed on this clause, especially on consultation. On that basis, it is not my intention to pursue the matter further at this stage. Can the Minister say whether it will be possible for him between now and Report to give us some indication of how his mind is working in terms of the consultation process that was identified earlier? That would help to save a repetition of this sort of debate on Report. Obviously, if we are unhappy with the situation we shall certainly return to the matter at that stage.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the noble Lord for opposing the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. He has given me the opportunity to express my point of view. I regard this as just another example of thoroughly inelegant and
unsympathetic drafting. The business of simply superimposing one Bill on a previous Act is messy; it is very inconsiderate as regards those who have to read it at this stage, and even more so for those who have to apply it.The only excuse for this kind of clumsy legislation is that the Government have in mind an early consolidation Bill. As I always believe the best of everyone and credit people with the most noble intentions, I sought the advice of the Public Bill Office on the present situation regarding consolidation measures. I was told that there is but one consolidation Bill—the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—awaiting consideration by the Joint Committee. I understand that no further consolidation Bills are likely to be introduced in the near future, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that I am quite wrong in that respect.
I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Renton has just entered the Chamber. He has a long-term interest in the clarity—or rather the obscurity—of legislation. I should very much like the Minister to tell me whether he considers that the provisions in this police Bill are fit and proper measures for consolidation. I hope that he will at least agree that everyone would benefit from such consolidation. If the noble Lord accepts that that would be a most reasonable and intelligent course to pursue, perhaps he can tell the Committee whether there is any reason why it should not be pursued. It seems to me that the cause of consolidation has been allowed to go by default, with its merits and the need for it being almost forgotten. I trust that the Minister will not take this as a frivolous complaint.
In the interests of those who have to try to understand the contents of the statute book, it is important to limit as far as possible the number of different Acts that are placed upon it. If the noble Lord agrees with me, that will prevent me being tiresome and repeating my plea throughout the passage of the Bill. As I said, this kind of drafting is messy; it is inconvenient; it should be avoided whenever possible; and, in any event, it should be remedied by consolidation at a very early stage.
Lord Hylton: Clause 1 deals with a national policing plan which, by its very nature, raises issues of principle. We all know that organised crime these days often operates nationally. We also know that criminals do not restrict their activities to one police area; indeed, they may escape from one and move into another. Moreover, we are aware that terrorism may be considered a "national threat". Nevertheless, is it not inescapable that a national policing plan will have to be a very broad-brush matter?
When one considers the huge differences in the problems that occur as between rural areas and urban areas and even between inner-city areas and suburbs, it is hard to see how much positive content a national policing plan will be able to contain. How, for example, does one weigh up the relative importance of controlling the trading, supply and flow of drugs in relation to the deplorable and hateful trafficking in
women and children? These are imponderables and must vary very much from time to time. In his reply, will the Minister give us a bit more information on what will go into a national policing plan?5.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Peyton on the need for consolidation. I think that, if one accepts that there is need for further legislation, this method of drafting is perhaps not quite as inconvenient as my noble friend said, as practitioners and those who have recourse to the current law will find that the statutes are set out with the amendments incorporated. However, it would make for very considerable ease if the legislation were put together in a consolidated Bill. Although such Bills can take much of the draftsmen's time, they do not take much time in Parliament. I once carried a consolidation Bill of 726 clauses in, I think, seven minutes.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page