| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have a large number of amendments in this interesting group, including Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 43, 45, 102, 103, 122 and 123. Those are all amendments to Clause 5. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, whose well
constructed amendment to Clause 4 would obviate the need for Clause 5. If his amendment were accepted, my amendments would inevitably become redundant.The amendments in the group are all directed at retaining and ensuring the continuation of the tripartite constitutional arrangement. We rather like the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and it is tempting to say that if the Bill had been drafted in that way, although no doubt we would have thought of some amendments to test the Government's thinking, we would not have been as concerned about it as we are by the drafting of Clause 5.
The power to give directions causes concern and we are right to worry about it. It is an awkward conjunction. The clause gives powers to give directions to chief officers, completely bypassing the police authority. As drafted, that provision is unsatisfactory. We have a series of detailed amendments that would go some way towards rectifying that situation by bringing the police authority back into consideration, which is only right.
It is an interesting group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on his amendment. Some concern about the content of this legislation might have relieved if the Bill had been drafted in that way in the first place. Sadly, for both of us, it was not.
10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, a question that does not arise from any lack of sympathy on my part with what he has drafted. I recall a situation that arose in Derbyshire some 10 years ago. The police authority in that area was very Left-wing, and was determined not to allow the chief constable the funds that he needed in order to maintain an efficient and effective police force. In those circumstances, there would have been no use requiring the Home Secretary to deal with the police authority because it was the source of the trouble. Can the noble Lord say how the Home Secretary would handle such a situation in the event of Amendment No. 29 being enacted?
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am not quite sure whether it is procedurally correct for me to respond under these circumstances; so, "Before the noble Lord sits down".
As I understand it, Clause 4 re-enacts the existing power of Secretaries of State to give directions to a police authority. I do not know the origins of the 1996 legislation, or whether it followed on from the folk memory of the traumas that arose with the Derbyshire police authority of that time and was a consequence thereof. However, I suspect that the power of the Home Secretary to give directions to police authorities was designed precisely to avoid the sort of situation referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may assist my noble and learned friend. The margin heading of Section 41
of the Police Act 1996 refers to "Directions as to minimum budget". I had a fair feeling that that wording existed. Subsection (1) states:
- "The power of the Secretary of State to give directions under section 40 to a police authority . . . include[s] power to direct the authority that the amount of its budget requirement for any financial year . . . shall not be less than an amount specified in the direction".
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 40, 42, 49, 56, 97, 100, 101, 105, 108, 117, 120, 125 and 128. This does seem to be a rather bulky form of grouping, comprising, as it does, 28 amendments. It is made more complex by the fact that several of those amendments relate to Clause 5 with which we have yet to deal, while the remainder relate to Schedule 1 and the powers of the Secretary of State in relation NCIS and NCS. However, I shall be brief.
In so far as amendments relate to Clause 5, it would be better for us to deal with them in relation to the Question whether that clause should stand part of the Bill. As has been indicated both on Second Reading and during the course of today's discussions, we have fundamental root-and-branch objections to Clause 5. The amendments in this group seek to interpose between the Secretary of State and the police authority. Similarly, the amendments to the first schedule have the same aim, except that they would interpose between the two authorities to which the schedule relates.
Noble Lords on these Benches rather warm to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Rather than continue at this time of night—I shall not say "bore" the Committee—I shall conclude my remarks on that note.
Lord Bradshaw: I, too, support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I also remember that police authorities have a large independent membership—they are not all councillors—who are all reasonably well remunerated since provision for police authorities' expenses came into effect. We are therefore dealing not with part-time amateurs but with professionals.
Lord Elton: I am responsible for only three small amendments in this group. Although they all strike in Clause 5, which we have not yet reached, they share common ground with the concerns that all noble Lords have expressed about the tripartite arrangement. I prefer to express the issue rather differently. In Clause 5, we find the chief officer of police of an authority eyeball to eyeball with the Secretary of State backed by HMI and the Home Office. It seems to me that when the Secretary of State is handing down to the chief constable the plan of action that he should take, the chief constable should be protected by his authority at least in relation to how long he has to provide the remedy.
Although it is, I suppose, only gesture politics, the Secretary of State could demand very complicated and difficult action, and he may demand that it be taken unreasonably quickly. It seems to me that those who will know best whether the time allowed is unreasonably short are those at the police authority under whom the chief police officer serves. I am simply highlighting an issue to which we may return.
Lord Rooker: If I may, I shall do a deal with noble Lords. I shall start at the end rather than the beginning and agree to consider—by which I mean take it away and come back to it—the possibility of consulting the police authority and the chief police officer before making directions. I wanted to get that out of the way. As noble Lords know, when we come to Clause 5, we shall simply make the same speeches, and that does not make much sense.
In moving Amendment No. 29, my noble friend Lord Harris has done the House a service by enabling us to debate some of the issues in the legislation, rather than simply to consider the Bill line by line. Some issues need to be debated, and we can tidy up the loose ends on Report. In speaking to the amendment, it might also be useful if I used some of the background, non-speaking parts of my notes, as they sometimes have a bit more meat. I have found them useful when serving as a Minister in other departments, although I carry the can if I misuse them. I shall use them also because I am trying to win hearts and minds in relation to my noble friend's amendment, which has won widespread support for the way in which it addresses the issue.
I cannot, however, use some arguments—such as that the police authority should not be directly involved in operational matters—because the amendment would not involve the authorities to any greater extent than the Secretary of State is involved in Clause 5. However, there is a difficulty and a difference between the police authorities and the Secretary of State in the sense that the police authorities administer funding. One would want to keep them away from operational matters for that reason alone. There is a conflict there that does not affect the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 29 would also enable the two different bodies to direct chief officers, and that might create conflict. The amendment also contains no provision requiring the police authority to do anything more than to forward a copy of the action plan to the Secretary of State. Therefore, although the amendment is a novel way of approaching the issue, it does not solve all the problems. I wanted to share those points because I am giving a commitment to re-examine the issue.
I also want to make it clear that, as I said, Clauses 4 and 5 are last-resort measures. That is stated in the long letter that I sent to Members of the Committee. It is important to note that the powers we are discussing will not be used in relation to individual or named cases.
The police authority is already built into the process for issuing directions under Clause 5 and it could be argued that routing the direction via the police authority will not achieve anything very different. I shall not discuss bureaucracy at this point. The chief officer is required to consult the police authority or the service authority before submitting the required action plan to the Secretary of State. One would imagine that the police authority would be able to take that opportunity to advise its chief constable on what it believes should be included, bearing in mind its duty of best value.
The Secretary of State is required to notify the police authority that he is invoking his power to direct the chief officer. That will be the opportunity for the police authority to advise the Home Secretary of its views as to what form remedial measures should take.
The White Paper, Policing a New Century, makes clear that operation of the direction-making power will be subject to a protocol. As that will be drawn up between the three tripartite partners—the Home Secretary, the police authorities and the chief officers—opportunities to make representations and to consult can be built into that process. I hope that that is a strengthening measure. We want to make absolutely clear that consultation can be built into that process. If police authorities also had the power to direct chief officers operationally, the difficulty I mentioned earlier would arise; that is, a chief officer could be required to comply with conflicting directions.
The police authority should already be aware of the problems giving rise to directions being issued. It would, or should, have held many discussions on the issues. It should not be a surprise to anyone by its nature of being a last resort measure. Existing police management and other measures would already have been tried to resolve the matter as police authorities monitor performance and ensure best value. The police authority should have already taken the chief officer to task if necessary. That should have been done before the powers contained in the clauses we are discussing were invoked. The Home Secretary becomes involved as a last resort when all other measures that could have been taken to improve the situation have failed.
Having said that, I conclude as I began when I say that I shall take the measure away in its totality as I should bore the Committee if I made the same points with regard to further amendments. We shall consider the measure to see whether we can build in consultation with the police authority and chief officers before the Home Secretary reaches the point of making directions.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page