| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 19:
- Page 3, leave out lines 7 and 8.
The noble Lord said: I return, very briefly but without apology, to the horrid habit of squeezing two statutes together—that is, an Act of Parliament already on the statute book and a Bill which the Government hope will get there.
I intend to read out the two lines that my amendment seeks to leave out in order that avid and enthusiastic readers of Hansard should not miss these gems. I invite the Committee's particular attention to lines 7 and 8, where we find these words:
- "and in section 55(1) of that Act (publication of reports) for 'or (2A)' there shall be substituted ',(2A) or (2C)'.".
Let me inflict some further pain on the Committee. The same comment can be made in respect of lines 20 and 21, which state:
- "and in section 42(1) of that Act (publication of reports) for 'or (3)' there shall be substituted ',(3) or (3B)'.".
If the Minister can say something about how this Bill could be cleansed of garbage, it would be helpful. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If I were in charge of cleansing legislation of garbage, I would probably be indulging in a fairly lengthy job. I am not going to start today in your Lordships' House, but I am sure some things could be improved and dusted down.
The irony of the noble Lord's amendment is that it probably adds to the sense of gibberish about which he is so concerned. If we were to adopt it, we would effectively prevent the Secretary of State from requiring a report to be published. I am sure that that is not the noble Lord's intention.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister has misunderstood me. I am not asking the Government to withdraw meaning from this part of the Bill. I am asking them not to mutilate it and not to conceal it. The whole point of making laws is that they should be capable of being understood without undue effort.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is being mischievously suggested to me that we should set up a special working group and task force on consolidation. I am not sure that that would take us much further forward.
The noble Lord makes an important point—that is, that in legislation we should say what we mean and mean what we say and ensure that the language expresses that clearly and in straightforward terms. We have listened to the noble Lord's point, but if we were to go along with the terms of the amendment it would make a nonsense of what we are attempting to achieve—that is, openness and transparency.
Lord Elton: I hope the suggestion that we should have a task force on consolidation was not mischievous. It would be highly constructive and welcome.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I understood quite clearly that I would get nowhere today with this cause. That does not mean to say that I shall not pursue it from time to time. But, for the moment at any rate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 20:
- Page 3, leave out line 14.
The noble Lord said: I have to confess that Amendment No. 20 is a result of complete ignorance. On page 2, at the beginning of Clause 3 the Bill states:
- "The Secretary of State may at any time require the inspectors of constabulary to carry out an inspection under this section of . . . the National Criminal Intelligence Service".
- "(3A) The Secretary of State may at any time require the inspectors to carry out an inspection under this section of . . . the National Criminal Intelligence Service".
As I understood it, the National Criminal Intelligence Service is an integrated national organisation with a director. Its position has been further clarified and under the Bill it will be free-standing. Am I to understand that there is a National Criminal Intelligence Service Mark 2 in Northern Ireland? If there is not, I am somewhat puzzled as to why, under the Bill, we need to have the organisation inspected twice.
This is a probing amendment. I am not making a frightfully serious point, but there may be something behind it that I have completely missed. There very often is, and if there is I should like to know. If there is not, perhaps the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is a helpful probe. I think that I can make the situation clear to the noble Lord: NCIS does, as he suggests, operate as a coherent whole; but NCIS operations in Northern Ireland are currently inspected by HMIC appointed as the inspector for Northern Ireland. To cover inspection of NCIS under Clause 3, both the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 and the Police Act 1996 need to be amended.
Acceptance of the amendment would mean that NCIS operations in Northern Ireland would be the only part of the police service not covered by the clause. Thereby, we should create an anomaly. I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to do that. We need to have a coherent and consistent approach. I hope that that elucidates the point and clarifies the reasons why the clause is drafted in this way. Perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I must say that I find the Minister's explanation interesting when he says, "If we do this, we might create an anomaly". But it seems to me that we have got ourselves into a situation where we may need to have this set out twice in order to avoid an anomaly.
That leads me into the school of thought of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, as regards the clarity of legislation. I cannot believe that the operations undertaken by NCIS in Northern Ireland would not be inspected, as and when necessary, as suggested by the inspectors, whether or not they are Northern Ireland inspectors. I find it difficult to believe that the inspectors in Northern Ireland are a separate organisation from those operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the implication of what has been said.
None the less, I should not want to create an unnecessary anomaly—particularly if it caused Ministers on the Front Bench opposite concern that they had allowed such a thing to happen. But I cannot
say that I am satisfied with the noble Lord's answer, which I shall study. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a great deal of detailed discussion in relation to this clause. I admit that our debate has not convinced me that the clause contains matters so fundamental and creates a situation so fundamentally new that it ought to remain in the Bill.
We are required to look at these matters on balance. In the light of our debates, my request to Ministers is that they should, if they can, justify the existence of the clause. The 1996 Act already contains the power to require inspections. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, says that this is a matter of evolution and that the provision is required to smooth and develop the process—that was the impression he gave even if those are not the words he used—but despite that, it is my view that we are on a "ratchet".
We must also consider the use that might be made of a clause such as this by unreasonable people. I am not wholly satisfied that the absolute need for this clause has been explained. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say by way of justification. I oppose the Question.
Lord Bradshaw: I add the weight of our view on these Benches to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The powers that are sought are totally unnecessary. They were included in legislation by a previous Conservative Home Secretary, and they were probably unnecessary then. This piece of the legislation should be jettisoned.
Lord Waddington: Not a jot of evidence has been produced to suggest that it is necessary to give the Secretary of State power to require the inspectors to carry out an inspection. The only expert evidence has come from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who made absolutely plain his view that the clause is unnecessary. That is my view. The Minister has not suggested one instance where the inspectorate has failed to carry out an inspection when asked to do by the Home Secretary. Surely, unnecessary law is bad law. Unless the noble Lord can produce a convincing argument that it is necessary to give the Home Secretary this new power, we should mark our displeasure at this unnecessary provision by voting against the clause remaining in the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a useful series of debates on this clause. The discussion has been helpful. I have learnt a considerable amount and have heard some interesting opinions expressed. I cannot say that I agree entirely with those opinions. Noble Lords opposite are possibly putting the
argument too strongly. After all, we embarked on this course not under our watch but under a previous government.Clause 3 simply seeks to broaden the Secretary of State's power to require inspections of forces by HMIC by allowing him to limit the requirement to a particular part of the force or to particular functions. That is about being flexible and proportionate in relation to a problem that may have been identified.
The clause also broadens the power so that an inspection can be commissioned at any time rather than, as is currently the case under Section 40(1) of the Police Act 1996, at any time but only in the context of giving directions to police authorities after adverse reports. Both changes are useful in the context of the provision to issue directions where a force or a part of a force is failing to provide an efficient or effective service.
One point should be clearly understood. The Home Secretary will want to have clear evidence of under-performance before using the powers under Clause 5 of the Bill. Much has been made of the point that perhaps in the future there may be in office those who will use the powers arbitrarily or unreasonably. I do not believe that these powers will be used in an arbitrary way.
At present—and rightly so—decisions on these matters are informed by reports from HMIC, which in turn draws up a range of indicators in assessing police performance. In the future, in developing performance measurement systems, we shall ensure that these are as comprehensive and balanced as possible, and we shall aim to measure police work in key areas and successful policing in the round.
It has to be the case that any system of measurement will depend on being able to obtain up-to-date and accurate information. That is the basis of good reporting. The new national crime recording standard that will be adopted by forces from April will help to ensure that crime data are accurate and consistent so that those assessments and measurements can be properly made. Although the Secretary of State may obtain that evidence from elsewhere—for example, from the Police Standards Unit or possibly from the Audit Commission—this provision will allow him to apply the expert knowledge of the inspectorate to the examination of performance levels where necessary.
The provision to require inspection of only part of a force or only of particular functions seems to us to be an entirely sensible addition. As I said earlier, there is no point in inspecting the entire force when the under-performance appears to be limited to only one area. It is worth emphasising that, from the point of view of the public, the most significant policing is that which is done at the local level. Providing a power useful in efforts to facilitate bringing the performance of all forces up to the level of the best seems a sensible way forward. If we cannot examine and rectify problems at the local level, we shall miss and fail to address key issues of under-performance. Action would then have to be taken further down the road when the whole force is starting to suffer.
The provisions will apply to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. As we argued earlier, there is a similar power introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the Home Secretary at any time to call upon HMIC to inspect the Central Police Training and Development Authority. HMIC already conducts inspections of basic command units as opposed to a whole force. We are not breaking, therefore, any new ground with the clause. We simply say that it provides us with a sound legislative base from which we can perform these duties properly and ensure that in future those important, helpful and supportive inspections are undertaken in the right atmosphere.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My noble friends have referred to a ratchet. The Minister drew our attention usefully to an aspect of the ratchet. The 1996 power—this power elaborates upon it—required there to be an adverse report on a police force before the Secretary of State could make the order for an inspection. That is not in the proposed new section. The Secretary of State can act of his own motives. Everything that my noble friends said about the ratchet process is right. The question of why it is necessary to legislate when the Secretary of State can make a perfectly civil request and have the work done is not addressed.
Because the noble and learned Lord is now on the Bench, I say again that having no law is cheaper than having law because one does not have lawyers.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page