---

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again, I can understand the nervousness and expressions of concern over this. However, perhaps noble Lords opposite are making more of it than is necessary.

The proposition that we are seeking to put into legislative effect is simple enough. A whole force does not need to be ineffective or inefficient for it not to be providing the best possible service. Particular parts of the force may be under-performing. I believe that a basic command unit was mentioned earlier, which provides an adequate example. The whole force may be under-performing, but only in relation to one function such as perhaps, say, the gathering and handling of intelligence material.

We would argue that in those circumstances it would be a waste of the resources of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to invite it to carry out an inspection of the whole force, if we are aware of a problem only in one geographical area or one particular part of a force. We all know that the inspection of an entire force takes much longer and would be of less use as a means of analysing and taking apart a specific problem so that a solution in all of the best supportive terms can be found.

The Home Secretary already has a power to require Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to conduct an inspection of a whole force. The purpose of Clause 3 is to provide a far more flexible and responsive power to look at particular parts of a force. It is no more and no less than that.

While I can appreciate the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, surely all our collective experience of the work of the inspectorate is that it will operate in an entirely co-operative, helpful and supportive way with local police forces the length and breadth of the country. That is exactly what we are seeking to facilitate. The clause helps to further refine that process so that inspections can focus on a particular difficulty that may in some way be disabling to the whole of a force, undermining its effectiveness and efficient operation. As I have said, it is no more and no less than that.

Lord Condon: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, invited me to comment on this, which I hope

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1590

may be of some assistance to noble Lords. I believe that my former colleagues would probably perceive this clause as being unnecessary but they would not in any way feel threatened by it. In a sense, they would probably see it as unnecessary because there is sufficient collaborative endeavour between all those involved or mentioned in the provision so that most inspections will go ahead in a collaborative way. If there is a dispute and if therefore this is seen as a failsafe new provision which will give the Home Secretary of the day the final power of arbitration as to whether there should be an inspection, I still do not think that my former colleagues will feel severely threatened because the establishment of the facts and the truth would be in the interests of all concerned.

As I have said, they may perceive this provision as unnecessary, but I do not believe that they would feel threatened by it.

Lord Elton: I am partially reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, but I still feel like Alice in Wonderland. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which, if a Home Secretary were to ask for an inspection of a part of a force, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary would refuse to do it. It may be necessary for the inspectorate to be given statutory powers to carry out an inspection, but it already has those.

I think that this provision is a symptom of the sickness of the age—the legislative sickness that keeps us at work in this building month after month, year after year, until we all drop dead or are evicted by statutory instrument. I speak entirely for myself.

It is not necessary to have a law to do this any more than it is necessary to have a law to say that the headmaster of Loughborough Grammar School shall be obeyed when he states that the sixth form shall study history on Tuesday week. There are some things that can be done without the law. If something can be done without the law, then it can be done without the lawyers, thus making it quicker and cheaper.

Lord Bradshaw: The nature of inspection has changed considerably. A great deal can be achieved on one-day inspections or through very tightly drawn thematic inspections. Inspectors do not come in and spend a great deal of time going through the force. I believe that the inspectors have very much moved with the times.

Perhaps I may also say that a police force does not become inefficient overnight. It is a process and I am quite certain that the inspectors know which are the least efficient forces and which need the most inspections without any advice from the Home Secretary. I maintain that this is totally unnecessary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I should make one further point that is worth putting forward at this stage. Noble Lords have commented that this provision is unnecessary and that we are producing too much legislation—a point made most ably by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, the clause is not entirely new. We have been here before. I do not seek

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1591

to make a smart point, but I refer to Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which was not enacted under our watch. That section already allows for special inspections and was originally introduced under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

What we are seeking to achieve here is refinement and greater flexibility. I am sure that noble Lords should be able to accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, eloquently made the point that this is a helpful part of what we are trying to achieve in terms of raising standards within the service.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, does he accept that there is a one-way ratchet on all these things? Every single time it pushes more power to the centre and more power to the Home Secretary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not accept that we live in a ratchet world. There are swings and there are roundabouts; that is, things go one way and come back the other way. As with most of this legislation, the provision is a statement of our intention to do all we can to support local police forces in improving the quality of their service operationally so that they can do the things that we all want them to do: feel collars and put people behind bars when they have offended. We want to make sure that forces work well towards those ends and objectives. That is why we have the police service that we have in this country.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may briefly respond to the Minister. He said that this is a matter of swings and roundabouts. Can he cite one example in this huge Bill of powers flowing back to the police authorities?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord scores a good point. I shall not go through the Bill line by line here, nor go through the swings and roundabouts—we are not in that game—but the noble Lord makes a good point.

Lord Waddington: The noble Lord, Lord Condon, is more than able to speak for himself, but he never said that this clause was helpful. He said that it was unnecessary but that the police would not feel threatened by it. He never said that it was helpful.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am sure that the Minister will reflect on this issue. When he does so, will he remember the principle of human life that when people are given powers they tend to use them. In the case of government, it is not inconceivable that a particular chief constable or a particular director general will get up the nose of some diligent official, who may then put it to the Secretary of State that it might be a good thing to direct an investigation. The Secretary of State, who perhaps has five boxes to deal with that night, may very well decide to take that

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1592

advice and make use of it. That is something which occurs in ordinary life. I hope that the Minister will reflect upon it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We always reflect carefully on what is said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I would not want to see—I am sure that that would not be the intention of any government—the powers used in the arbitrary way suggested by the noble and learned Lord. We shall carefully listen and also watch how these powers are used in the future. We shall at all times reflect on the way they operate.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a useful discussion. I recall listing at Second Reading many of the existing powers that the Government have under the 1996 Act. The improvements—if that is what is claimed for the additional powers that the Government are taking in the Bill—are, in some ways, marginal. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is right to describe them as a one-way ratchet.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, made perhaps the most significant remark when he said that the powers are unnecessary. At the same time he said that they were unthreatening. We are in the business of passing good legislation, but here we may be in the business of passing unnecessary legislation. Whether it is good or bad legislation ceases to be relevant if it is unnecessary.

The Ministers, who are sitting together on this issue, have heard the debate. In a sense, the critical issues relate to the question of whether the clause should stand part. We have twice been round the field and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

---