| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: While there might be concern about that, the concern does not spill over to the quotas for particular types of officers. I say to the Committee that that is because it is outwith whatever interpretation is put on the clause.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—
Lord Waddington: Perhaps I may take the Minister up on that point. Surely a Home Secretary—not this particular Home Secretary—could come to the conclusion that more people were needed on the ground; that the money would not allow for the recruitment of 20 further fully trained police officers, but that it would cover 20 community support officers. He could conclude that a part of the force will cease to be able to carry out its duties correctly unless there is that increase in manpower. In those circumstances, surely he could say that the way in which the matter should be corrected is for the chief officer of police to recruit 20 community support officers to help in that part of the force. I cannot see how that would be outwith the wording of new Section 41(1)(a).
Lord Rooker: The Home Secretary can say what he likes, but the chief officer can say no. That is the fact of this Bill. There is no requirement—I respect the wish of noble Lords to intervene and I shall give way as often as any noble Lord wants, but so far I have not been able to speak for more than two sentences.
Lord Elton: I have been advised to let this go, but the Minister said that the chief officer of police could say
no and that would be the end of the story. But I remind the Minister of the wording of new Section 41A(11):
- "A chief officer of police of any police force shall comply with any direction given to him under this section".
Lord Rooker: Earlier on I said that the supply of quotas for different types of officers in the forces does not fall into the categories of codes of practice, directions or regulations. It is as simple as that. It remains for someone to show me that it does, at which point I shall go away and have the Bill redrafted. At the present time, the setting of quotas in relation to officers does not come under any of those headings.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, remarked on this. Many Aunt Sallies and red herrings and so forth are being raised about this point to the effect that in the future we are going to have a nasty Home Secretary and a nasty government. If I were back in the another place, I would add other descriptions to that, but as I do not wish to wind up noble Lords and bring party politics to the Floor of this Chamber, I shall refrain from doing so.
I repeat, at the present time we have record numbers of police officers. We expect to reach a figure of 130,000 by spring 2003. When that point is reached, the Home Secretary will set new targets which will not be lower; they will be higher. I hope that that instils confidence that we are not seeking to reduce police numbers or "police" in the way that we all understand the term by the use of civilian support staff in any way, shape or form.
It is for those reasons that I have stated that, basically, the amendments are unnecessary. I appreciate that when later in the week we come to Part 4 of the Bill, we shall have more substantive debates on this matter, although I make no criticism of the fact that noble Lords are raising it today. The Home Secretary could not specify proportions of staff who would fall into particular categories even supposing that he wanted to do so. Under the terms of the Bill, and whatever reading is made of those terms, it is not possible for him to do that. The chief officer is the responsible person for the direction and control of his officers and support staff. It will be the chief officer who decides on the balance between regular forces, special constables and support staff and, indeed, on how they should be deployed.
It is true that we want to see as many support staff aiding police officers as are necessary to provide a good quality service. Over the years, under both governments there has been increasing "civilianisation" of the police force. That point was made clear during our discussions on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. For example, the use of new technology has radically changed the nature of civilian staff in the police through the use of experts to support officers in their duties.
As I have said, we are committed and on track, with present rates of recruitment and retirement, to have 130,000 officers in post by the spring of next year. That will be a record.
The provisions in Part 4 relating to community support officers and the wider police family will enable the best use to be made of those officers. When we achieve a force of 130,000, we then want to be able to allow chief officers to make better use of their skills. I shall certainly be happy to debate in full those issues when we come to them.
I would humbly submit that there is no case for the amendments. Indeed, I would challenge noble Lords on this because the issues relating to Clauses 4 and 5, as well as the issues relating to Clauses 2 and 3, but in particular to Clause 2 covering codes of practice for chief officers, are not suitable vehicles for the setting of quotas, even if the Home Secretary wanted to do that, which he does not.
I should now like to put on the record a small adjustment to a speech that I made last week relating to this very issue. Perhaps I was a little more positive than I should have been, but that does not undermine what I have just said; there is no plan and there are no powers for the Home Secretary. It would not work under the codes of practice, regulations or directions. However, when last week I referred to the scope of the Secretary of State to give directions to police authorities under the provisions of the Bill in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as regards whether this could require a certain number or proportion of community support officers, I said that it would not be used to specify what a force should have in terms of community support officers.
That is indeed the case. The words I used then were, I believe, officers by gender, ethnicity or whatever. It is correct to say that the power could not be used in that way, but I wish to make it clear, and to remind Members of the Committee, that in July 1999 the Home Secretary set for each force employment targets for the recruitment, retention and progression of people from the minority communities. That was done because there was a positive public policy argument which had transcended both governments to the effect that the police force should be made more representative. Indeed, I believe that special constables are more representative of the minorities than is the regular force. Police forces were required to adopt a 10-year target to reflect the size of the minority ethnic communities in their area with an objective of making each force more representative of its community.
That policy does not in any way undermine my remarks, but when last week I was responding to the noble Lord, I may have given a rather black and white impression by the use of words such as "gender", "ethnicity" and so forth. The point is that no order has been made; we want targets because we want to see proactive action taken by chief officers of police, although I do not think that many of them have had to be pushed. Achieving representative forces has been extremely difficult. I know for myself, having been an elected Member of Parliament, that trying to persuade people that the police force is a good and worthy cause working on behalf of fellow citizens is not easy. Sometimes those comments have been met with quite
negative views. As I have said, it is not easy to make the case. Nevertheless, that case has to be made and some small progress is being achieved.That does not alter the fact that the setting of quotas according to types of officers, whether it be special constables, community support officers or regular police officers, is not a function of the Home Secretary. For this Bill, the codes of practice, the directions and the regulations cannot be used for that function. For that reason, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to leave it at that. We shall be able to come back to the matter and deal with it in greater detail when we come to Part 4. At that point we can consider the examples that no doubt noble Lords will wish to cite.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply and for the gloss on what he said in reply to my noble friend about when the Home Secretary set something very like a quota but using powers not in the Bill.
I have listened closely to everything the Minister said. He has repeatedly said, in one form or another, that none of the clauses we have covered so far is a suitable vehicle for the laying down of quotas, but I cannot see that anywhere in the Bill. It may be that he can be held to this under the case of Pepper v Hart. The Minister's statement may be a fragile defence against abuse by that means.
I shall have to look with my friends at this issue again before the next stage and to consider whether or not the proper way of doing this is to provide a general prohibition rather than linking it to two little parts of the Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, will be brought in only in certain circumstances. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page