---

Lord Elton: I am obliged to the Minister for enabling me to amend my speech before I finish making it. I had thought that he would say that to demolish me at the end of the argument.

I do not, in any way, minimise the importance of the numbers of policemen now being fully trained. The numbers are not yet sufficient, but there has been an extremely welcome change of direction. However, the economic facts of running the country remain the same, and the difference between the economic costs of producing the two different sorts of personnel remains the same. There will be a temptation, when the tide of recruitment of fully trained officers turns, as, I regret to say, it certainly will. It will be too late to do anything about it then; we must do something about it now. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: The Minister will remember that I had the opportunity of raising some of these matters when we were last in Committee. He will forgive me if, to some extent, I repeat myself. I shall state the argument swiftly.

As my noble friend Lord Elton said a moment ago, there is little enthusiasm, apart from in the Metropolitan Police, for the idea of community support officers. The Minister has been at pains to point out that chief constables in the provinces have nothing to worry about; they have no need to recruit community support officers, unless they really think that that is desirable for their force. I accept that from the Minister, but he will recognise that we are legislating not just for this Government and this Home Secretary but for anybody who may become Home Secretary in the future.

I am worried that it will be all too easy for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to ask the Home Secretary of the day, "Why are you asking for more money for the police when there is a simple way of making better use of the resources that you already have? Why should you come to us for more money when there are available to you powers to recruit community support officers who will cost you very much less?". That is the simple argument.

We are not challenging the probity of the Minister or the Home Secretary. Not for one moment did I doubt the word of the Home Secretary when he said that it was not his intention that these powers should be used to make chief officers of police recruit community support officers. However, we must legislate to protect future Home Secretaries against pressure being put on them of the kind I have mentioned.

We must find a formula that will enable a future Home Secretary to say to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, "I cannot do it. It's no use you telling me that money can be saved by recruiting community support officers. I cannot do it because of Section 61, or whatever it is, of the Act".

5 Mar 2002 : Column 135

I am not saying that my noble friend's wording in the amendment is right, but before the Bill leaves this House there must be something in it which says that the Home Secretary cannot in any circumstances require a chief officer of police to recruit community support officers. That is the point and I humbly suggest that it is a good one.

Lord Dholakia: The key amendment is Amendment No. 61. Part 4 of the Bill contains provisions which enable chief officers to decide whether to have designated community support officers or accredited persons operating in a force's area. The Government have made much of the fact that these are enabling and not mandatory provisions.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seeks to ensure that the Government do not use their powers to give directions to chief officers under Clause 4 or use power to regulate for operational practices and procedures under Clause 7 as a backdoor way of forcing chief officers down that route. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord therefore receives our support. It is obviously right that one should support it.

The debate on Part 4 is still ahead of us, but we have been assured by the Government—I hope that the Minister will confirm it—that decisions about whether to have new-style police auxiliaries or to give police powers to the staff of private security firms will be entirely for the chief constable. None of that will be mandatory.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has pointed out, what is there to stop the Home Secretary, whether now or in the future, using powers contained in Part 1 to force a chief officer down that route? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's answer. He may tell us that any direction or regulation under this part could not override the discretion given to chief officers in Part 4. That may be true in strict legal terms, but a great deal of informal pressure could be brought to bear on a chief officer to include such provision in the action plan he will have to produce under Clause 5. We hope to discuss that matter later.

Those who are even more cynical and suspicious might envisage the Home Secretary exerting pressure in a less overt but equally forceful way. Therefore, it is right that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is supported.

Lord Tebbit: Perhaps when the Minister responds to my noble friend he will be kind enough to say whether the Bill as presently drafted gives power to a Home Secretary, either directly or indirectly, to require a chief officer to behave in the way which my noble friend fears he might be asked to behave in relation to the recruitment of police and what are, in effect, auxiliaries.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The wording of new Section 41A, which is set out in Clause 5 of the Bill, is at best, on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord

5 Mar 2002 : Column 136

Elton, ambiguous—at best. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the general wording of new Section 41A.

First, the direction of the Secretary of State does not have to follow on an adverse report. Secondly, subsection (2) provides that the remedial measures which the Secretary of State may direct the chief officer of police to address can be in relation,

"to anything that the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters".

That is very wide.

Secondly, subsection (7) provides that the direction by the Secretary of State may be,

"for the taking of such steps . . . as may be specified for the purposes of the plan by the Secretary of State".

Finally—the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made the point but it is worth emphasising—unlike Clause 2 where a code imposed by the Secretary of State is one to which the chief officer of police "shall have to have regard", in new Section 41A it is a question of complying—the word used is "comply"—with any such directions.

Unless there is a complete misreading of the breadth of the new section, we believe that the noble Lord's point must be accommodated—apart from the fact that we want Clause 5 taken out of the Bill altogether.

Lord Hylton: I support this group of amendments. I notice that the new Section 41A(1) provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied,

"that the whole or any part of the [police] force is . . . not efficient or not effective".

Presumably, that indicates a very bad state of affairs indeed; one in which policing is not being carried out effectively. Can the Minister say what can be done to improve the situation before that point is reached? Does the Home Secretary have a right to draw attention to such a situation? If so, how?

Lord Rooker: When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rose, I was about to answer the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, because I can do so without advice. The answer to his specific question is no. I shall take advice on the matter but I covered it in part on Thursday. In fact, I have a minor adjustment to place on the record in relation to a comment I made on Thursday about this part of the Bill.

I want to make the matter clear so that there is no misunderstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, hit the nail on the head in that the issue is pre-judged because the police force in question is clearly in trouble. If not, there would be no such action. It is clear that there is a major problem which locally no one has been able to solve; not the police authority, the chief constable, the inspectorate or anyone else.

It is clear to me and my colleagues that a majority of Members of this House do not want Clause 5 as currently drafted in the Bill. However, the codes of practice which we discussed last week are intended to spread good practice throughout the police service. They are not binding on the chief constable. The directions for chief officers are for use where remedial

5 Mar 2002 : Column 137

action is required to address under-performance. Regulations on operational procedures are for use where it is in the national interest that all forces adopt the same procedure or practice; for instance, as regards equipment.

I hope that as a result of that brief summary Members of the Committee will see in a flash that the setting of quotas for particular types of officers in each force does not fall into any of those categories. Therefore the issue does not arise.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early in his response and I am most grateful to him for giving way. I think that what he has said so far is not consistent with new Section 41(1)(b). I should remind the Committee that that provision allows the Secretary of State to impose a direction not where at this point in time there is any inefficiency or lack of effectiveness, but rather it looks towards the future; that is, where the Secretary of State considers that in the future a force may lack effectiveness or efficiency.

I put it to the Minister that, set against his protestations at the start of his remarks—that this could arise only where there was a serious lack of effectiveness and efficiency—this does not square with those comments. I believe that that is why a great deal of concern has been expressed.

---