| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the need for the growth and stability pact for countries within the euro area encapsulates the fact that one cannot have a common currency without a common economic policy? The corollary from that is that one cannot have a common economic policy without a common political intent to set the rules. Therefore, the growth and stability pact is an illustration of the fact that membership of the euro is inevitably linked with political union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I agree with any part of that complicated argument. We think that multilateral surveillance, which is what the growth and stability pact is, is a valuable discipline for all governments in considering their fiscal policy. It is valuable for the European economy that there should be agreed multilateral surveillance, whether it be the less formal version for those in stage 2 or the more formal version for those in stage 3.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it right that multilateral surveillance should mean interference in the affairs of this country and, for that matter, any other country of the European Union, since our taxation and public expenditure policy is a matter for the electorate of this country and not for any country or any group of foreign potentates? Is it not a fact that multilateral surveillance has encroached upon matters which are for the House of Commons and for the elected Government of this country and for no one else?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have made clear the extent to which we think that multilateral surveillance is valuable, both for us and for other members of the European Union. I do not believe that rules which, as my noble friend Lord Peston has made clear, are helpful in the conduct of fiscal policy, both here and in Europe, are an infringement of the rights of the House of Commons in any way. We think that a coherent economic and fiscal policy in Europe is to our advantage.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the growth and stability pact has already served an extremely useful purpose in encouraging a number of EU member states—Italy and Greece spring to mind—to adopt the kind of fiscal rules which I am sure that all members of this House would want them to have whatever our formal relationship with them? Can
he further confirm that the Chancellor is currently excluded from discussions on the interpretation of the growth and stability pact by virtue of the fact that we are not members of the euro-zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that multilateral surveillance of the kind set up in 1998 has been valuable. On occasion, countries have for their benefit and that of the European economy as a whole changed their policies as a result of that surveillance. We welcome that. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor has made clear, there is a need for a degree of flexibility, reinterpretation and reform. But to the extent that it has strengthened the European economy, which is so important to our economy, it is certainly valuable.
As to the role of the Chancellor in determining policy, of course the decisions about implementing the convergence programmes of those outside and inside the euro-zone are a matter for ECOFIN, of which this country is a member.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, if the situation in relation to the pact is as relaxed as the Minister suggests, why did the Commission's statement on 30th January say that the United Kingdom's budgetary projections,
- "would not be in line with the requirements",
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first, I did not use the word "relaxed" and, secondly, the noble Lord protests too much. When we submitted our convergence programme last December, the projected government deficit was 1 per cent of gross domestic product at the end of the forecast period in 2006. That is very close to "at or near in balance or in surplus"—I cannot remember the exact wording. ECOFIN recognised that by in its comments only noting the UK's position. In the light of the fact that our gross debt at 60 per cent of GDP and our net government borrowing at 3 per cent of GDP are so far within the range of the growth and stability pact, a difference of 1 per cent in four years' time is relatively minimal.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, as the Question is about fiscal matters, does the Minister agree that time is money? Is he therefore able to say that when we reach stage 3 of European monetary union the Government will consider harmonising our timescale with that of Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was going to answer the first part of the noble Lord's question by saying, "Which time is money?", but he answered that himself. I do not think that there is collective
responsibility on this matter, so I can say personally that I strongly agree with what he says and has always said about European time.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Newby, the Minister stated firmly that the growth and stability pact was a matter for ECOFIN all together. Would he therefore confirm that the story in the Financial Times that discussion of the letter to the German Government about the growth and stability pact took place within a group that did not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer is inaccurate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather think that the content of a letter that might have gone to Germany but did not go in the terms originally intended was discussed in many contexts, including and excluding this country.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I did not think that anyone thought that that was the question. Perhaps I may pursue the matter. The Minister is trying to take the growth and stability pact seriously, but that does not really chime with what a Treasury spokesman was quoted as saying on 30th January, which was:
- "The UK has no intention of reducing public spending by £10 billion as the Commission seems to imply . . . As we are outside the single currency we are not subject to its sanctions".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is actually quoting a Treasury spokesman. My point is that the Chancellor has for some time now been arguing for a sensible and prudent reform of the growth and stability pact. That is valuable whether or not we have joined European monetary union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the Minister agrees with his noble friend Lord Peston that healthy fiscal policy requires adherence to a clear set of rules, can he explain to the House why the Government recently supported the Germans in driving a coach and horses through the pact in question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, that is an interesting question but I do not accept the terms in which it is asked of driving a coach and horses. What in effect was the judgment of the European Union about the German economy was, I believe, quite right: the German deficit resulted from cyclical factors which, in our view, ought to be taken into account in making the judgments called for.
Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Police Reform Bill [HL]
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 5 [Directions to chief officers]:
Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 35:
- Page 4, line 10, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Limitation of powers of Secretary of State) of the Police Reform Act 2002,"
The noble Lord said: At this stage of proceedings, I always feel rather like someone on the promenade of a rather overpopulated holiday resort, leaning on the rail and waiting to see what will be left on the beach when the tide has gone out. I hope that what we find will be adequate to our needs.
In moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 61. I give notice that I shall not speak to Amendment No. 65, which is superfluous. While we wait for the Chamber to clear, I remind the Committee and the Minister in particular that what renders some of us not just worried but seriously anxious about the Bill is not primarily how the present Government will use the powers that they seek under it—although of course we are concerned about that—but how those same powers might be used by a different and less politically responsible government formed by a party either far further to the Left or far further to the Right than at present. The possibility of such a government taking power is usually remote but always present. The less we recognise the danger, the more real it is.
We also need to guard against dangers that are more immediate and less dramatic in nature. The less that we provide against the abuse of legislation, the more likely it is to be abused. Such provision is the purpose behind this group of amendments. What one means by abuse of legislation of course depends on what one thinks the legislation is for. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has been most helpful in defining the purposes for which the Government seek our approval of the Bill and in providing that definition early in the Committee stage.
Last Thursday, we were discussing the first group of amendments and the not unreasonable proposal that the Home Secretary should be required to consult various persons before drawing up his national policing plan rather than afterwards, as is currently proposed—a point on which I hope that we shall persuade either him or your Lordships collectively on Report. In that debate, the Minister acknowledged that a general concern had been expressed that the Home Secretary should not use the Bill as a means to intervene in the proper running of a police force and to
substitute his own judgment for that of either the police authority or the chief constable. He made it clear that that was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government. Helpfully, he went further:
- "I remind noble Lords that in the White Paper we made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the national policing plan, as set out in the new clause introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill, is to consider strategic policing priorities. That hits it on the head; this does not concern micro-managing the police force. That is not its function. If a matter moves away from the area of strategy, then it will be thrown out. We are not interested in it and it would not form part of the action".
- "Again, I should like to make this absolutely clear: this is not about micro-managing the police. It concerns only general strategic policing priorities for the police forces. It is crucial that Members of the Committee keep that in mind".—[Official Report, 28/2/02; col. 1552.]
According to that definition, any non-strategic use of the powers proposed in this clause—and, I presume, the clauses included in furtherance of it, including Clause 5—would be outwith the purposes and intention of the Government and would, therefore, by definition be an abuse of the proposed legislation. We must see that that does not happen.
Of course, what was said was said in the context of Clause 1, which relates to the national policing plan, and this group of amendments relates to Clause 5, which creates a power for the Home Secretary to give directions not to a police authority but directly to a chief constable, who is inescapably bound to obey them. If noble Lords have any doubt about that, they might turn to subsection (11) of the new Section 41A, where they will find that doubt dispelled:
- "A chief officer of police of any police force shall comply with any direction given to him under this section".
First, I take it that the powers of direction for the Secretary of State proposed in Clause 5 are to be given to him in furtherance of the purposes of Clause 1—a means of carrying out the national policing plan—in which case, they fall squarely within what the noble Lord said on Thursday. Even if that is not the case, we must know whether the words that I quoted apply to this clause and to the intended use of the proposed powers for the Home Secretary. I shall repeat what the Minister said:
- "this is not about micro-managing the police. It concerns only general strategic policing priorities for the police forces. It is crucial that Members of the Committee keep that in mind".
Before the Minister answers, I should make it clear that our anxieties about the uses to which such powers might be put are not limited to those that I mentioned to fill in time while the Chamber was emptying. There is another danger, much closer to home, that we must address. We will be asked to agree to the creation, elsewhere in the Bill, of a new sort of policeperson; not a fully trained police officer, not a fully empowered constable nor yet a straightforward civilian assistant. It will be something in between.
We shall discuss the presentational and operational pros and cons of that later, but two things are clear. First, they will cost a good deal less to pay and a great deal less to train than fully trained policemen. Secondly, because of their lesser training, they will be able to accomplish a great deal less than fully trained policemen. Whatever view the Home Office takes of their lesser effectiveness, the reduced cost will be evident and attractive to the Treasury and to all other departments competing for scarce resources. Even a reluctant Home Secretary may therefore find himself under extreme pressure to secure an increasing proportion of that sort of cheaper policeman in police forces. It is important that the Bill should not make it easy to yield to such pressure.
Members are aware of the constant public clamour for more policemen on the beat, a clamour that any government anxious to be rewarded for being tough on crime, as well as tough on the causes of crime, must want to satisfy. The problem is making more policemen visible to the electorate without having to pay for them with the money that the Treasury refuses to cough up. The answer is cheaper policemen. We also know that, outside the Met, there is no great enthusiasm for the new, cheaper quasi-policeman. There may even be resistance to the idea of employing him at all. How convenient for the Home Secretary to be able to give directions to a reluctant chief constable—directions with which, as subsection (11) says, he must comply—that a proportion of his force must be made up only of such assistant policemen.
The powers that could be used for that purpose are in subsection (2)—to direct a chief officer of police to prepare and submit to the Home Office an action plan—and in subsection (7)(a), which relates to the taking of specific steps and the meeting of specific performance targets. Amendments Nos. 35 and 52 would make both provisions subject to the prohibition in the modest new clause proposed in Amendment No. 61. A single application to the whole clause might be better. There should also be provision in Clause 1, but we can discuss the principle now and get the detail right on Report. The prohibition is on using those powers to impose on any chief officer of police a requirement to ensure that any particular proportion of his force should be made up of the new sort of assistant policeman, as defined elsewhere in the Bill.
I am confident that, if we have no such provision, some Home Secretary quite soon—possibly even the present Home Secretary—will use those powers for the purpose of securing those levels within police forces. If the Minister argues, as he may, that the proper place for the restriction is elsewhere or that the drafting is wrong, I shall be happy to accommodate him on Report. I see that he wishes to say something before I sit down.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I was not sure whether the noble Lord was coming to a conclusion. I was waiting for him to acknowledge the fact—it will be dealt with later—that we currently have record numbers of police officers. He has not deployed a shred of evidence—not a
scintilla—that we intend to reduce those record numbers simply to add to their support. I could not see how that aspect of the facts of life fitted in with his speech.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |