---

Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 3, line 36, after "may" insert ", after consulting the police authority responsible for maintaining that force about the remedial measures needed,"

The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the last phrase of Clause 4, to NCIS and to the other police bodies. It takes effect only if we decide to have the inspections. If an inspection takes place, the amendment seeks that the police authority or the authority of the service concerned will be consulted about the remedial measures proposed.

When an inspection is made it is usual for the report to be seen in draft before it is finalised. I am quite sure that these one-day BCU inspections go through the same process, so that the report comes as no surprise when it is printed in final form and delivered to the officers concerned. In most cases the officers of the authority will have already taken measures to deal with any matters required to be dealt with. The police authority will have ensured that those matters have been followed up. Therefore, by the time they reach the Home Secretary the matters requiring attention would have received it.

I move the amendment on the assumption that the inspections take place and that the rest of Clause 4 is enacted. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the inspections are unnecessary because the mechanism to require them already exists by simply requesting the inspectors, without force of legislation, to carry out whatever the Home Secretary wishes. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: Although the noble Lord undoubtedly has a brief point of substance in his favour, I hope that he will not mind my pointing out that, if the amendment is accepted, the same phrase would be repeated twice in the clause as it would then become. Indeed there would be two references, one after the other, to,

"the police authority responsible for maintaining that force".

We really cannot have overlapping and tautology of that kind.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with the point well made by my noble friend Lord Renton.

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1616

I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment. It reminded me of my total failure to table an amendment to leave out altogether lines 36 to 38 in Clause 4. They state that,

"the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining that force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction".

That is a fairly open menu of powers and opportunities for the Home Secretary.

I heard with some relief just now the noble Lord use these words. He said, "We are not looking for a national police force". That is exactly the reassurance that we on this side of the Committee need. However, when we see such words in the Bill which give fairly well carte blanche to the Home Secretary to direct the police authority, it revives our anxieties, even in the face of that friendly and welcome reassurance.

Perhaps I may encourage the Minister to go a little further so that he can relax us again, remove the tensions and the fear that—whether the Home Secretary intends it or not does not matter—this is leading in the direction of more centralisation, and with that centralisation comes, most naturally, detailed control over the whole police force in the country. These words represent to me quite an obstacle for the noble Lord to jump over. I hope that he will.

Lord Rooker: I look forward with interest, before I go home tonight, to nipping into the Library to read Hansard on the Police Bill of 1996 to see what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said about the words, which are the same as in the 1996 Act. The words that he has identified at the end of the clause are not new; we are not introducing a modification.

That was a cheap little jibe at the noble Lord, for which I apologise profoundly. I shall give way to him.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I assure the noble Lord that had I been sufficiently alert—which I can never guarantee—in 1996, I should have said exactly the same thing, no matter where in this House I was sitting.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may continue, because I want to help the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Basically, I want to take his amendments away to consider them and return with proposals on Report. Is that okay? I do not want to repeat our debate, but I am not unsympathetic to the noble Lord's point. It would be tautologous to continue and I shall return to the matter on report.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may give him a little jibe in return. I have read the Second Reading debate on the 1996 Bill, and I hope that he will take note of what some of his Labour colleagues said then about the unnecessary accretion of power to the Home Office.

Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1617

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 3, line 38, at end insert "and which, in the opinion of the person making the report, are necessary"

The noble Lord said: The amendment, which nearly got dragged into an earlier discussion, adds a few words to the end of the clause somewhat to focus the Secretary of State's power of direction. The clause states:

"Where a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection . . . states, in relation to any police force . . . that, in the opinion of the person making the report . . . the whole or a part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective . . . unless remedial measures are taken . . . the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible . . . to take such measures as may be specified in the direction".

Of course, the question is whether or not that is already sufficiently qualified. Because we have some doubt about that, being naturally suspicious legislators, or suspicious of legislators—anyone who has been involved in local government legislation, as I have been for many years, has every right to be suspicious of it—our amendment would add a few words. Under our amendment, the clause would read:

"the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining that force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction, as, in the opinion of the person making the report, are necessary".

In other words, if the Secretary of State feels that he must make a direction, it must be a consequence of the report, not a freewheeling direction, as we otherwise suspect that it might be.

That may in some ways seem to be small beer, and, as I said, there is a question whether the clause is already sufficiently qualified. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. We still question whether the provision is necessary. We know that we are in the business of management information, which will continue to develop. I dare say that if we go far enough, we shall be able to find under-performing constables before too long. Heaven forbid what the Secretary of State will do with them. But we are not there yet; Utopia has not arrived. I must say that I am immensely relieved that it has not, as we all should be. Heaven help us, we might even get to the point at which we start to talk about under-performing Peers. Then we shall be in serious difficulty.

Although I jest, there is a serious point to all of this, which is to make sure that if the Secretary of State is going to do something by way of direction, that direction should be properly focused on the matters that have been drawn to his attention as being—I will not say "flawed"—possibly deficient. It is a sensible amendment, and I hope that the Minister will find it in his heart to treat it with some sympathy. I beg to move.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The Minister might find it not only in his heart but in his head to accept the amendment. It lets him off the hook of repeated criticism of a kind that he has dealt with good-temperedly today.

The question of whether the lines are new to this Bill or are derived from the 1996 Bill is beside the point. It is highly questionable whether we should ever legislate

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1618

to give an unfettered power of direction to the Secretary of State. The power is not fettered by anything else in the clause or elsewhere in the Bill.

The scheme of the Bill puts a great deal of weight on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Rightly, the inspectors are appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Home Secretary, and they are, without exception, highly experienced and distinguished police officers. The scheme of the Bill, under Clause 3, is to allow the Secretary of State to require the inspectors to carry out an inspection. When they do that, Clause 4 allows the Secretary of State to,

"direct the police authority responsible for maintaining that force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction"

once the report has concluded that the force is inefficient or ineffective or will be unless certain measures are taken. The weight is placed on the unique status and standing of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

All that the amendment asks is that such direction as the Secretary of State consequentially makes shall be made in conformity with the opinion of the inspector making the report. That is a thoroughly reasonable requirement. It derives from the whole purpose of this part of the Bill. The power to make a direction is triggered by the receipt of a critical report. Why should not the power to make the direction be fettered in the way that the amendment stipulates? It is an answer to all the Secretary of State's difficulties, with which the Minister has striven carefully to deal, and I hope that the noble Lord will find it in his head, as well as his heart, to accept the amendment.

---