| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has provoked me into a short riposte. He lumps Clauses 4 and 5 together. There is a major difference between them. Under the terms of Clause 4, the Home Secretary can act only where there is an independent report of malfunctioning. Under the terms of Clause 5, his action need not follow any such report. We on these Benches are worried about an over-zealous, over-dogmatic or misguided Home Secretary—particularly having regard to future trends in policing—where there is no present inefficiency or ineffectiveness, having the strong and misplaced view in his or her head that to maintain future effectiveness the chief constable must do this, or must do that. That is our worry.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord on the Front Bench is known for his lively imagination and his lack of inhibition. I nevertheless fear that his masters do not always have the same elasticity and flexibility of mind.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord is absolutely right!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
The amendment raises the question: has the Home Secretary thought about the likely reaction of a force— often under-strength and facing complex and often dangerous tasks—to constant doses of advice and instruction? Most of the time, a force will be doing its best but simply does not have the men on the ground to do what is required.
This modest amendment deserves consideration. Were it to be accepted, it would go some of the way towards reassuring chief officers of police and members of the force generally that their worries were at least understood. As it is, I fear that they are not. This House would do well, either now or at some future stage, to send this kind of amendment back for consideration by another place, which has probably not even considered the matter. I very much hope that the noble Lord will take it seriously. I hope that he will at least put the point to his noble friends. I repeat my question: has he appreciated the likely reactions of a modern police force to constant doses of advice and instruction given in public?
4 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was addressing his comments about imagination and flexibility not to me, but to my noble friend Lord Rooker. I shall try to be as imaginative and flexible as my noble friend, who has such an enviable reputation in that regard.
We have listened carefully to the thoughts that have been expressed on the issue, as part of a subset of very similar issues. We are prepared to keep an open mind,
but noble Lords need to focus on what we are trying to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, got it pretty much spot on. We are talking about police forces in which there is a failure in whole or in part and looking at those forces' efficiency and effectiveness—words that are drawn from the historic Police Act 1964, which was all about the relationship between the police authority, the officers of the service and the public. That Act gave the police authorities specific responsibility for ensuring that we had efficient and effective police forces. Taking out the paragraphs specified in the amendment would deprive the Secretary of State of the important ability to address precisely that part of the police force in which there was an element of inadequacy.One issue that has come up during the debate about which I feel most strongly is the assumption behind some of the arguments that have been brought forward by all noble Lords, but particularly those on the Benches opposite, that we are seeking to impose detailed action plans on all police forces at all times. That is not the case. They will apply only when there is demonstrable evidence of specific and particular elements of failure.
Noble Lords need to think carefully about the matter, because removing the ability to issue directions in the way that we suggest would undermine the effectiveness of the power, which is designed to address underperformance. All of your Lordships are very concerned about underperformance in the public services, particularly in the police service, because we know that we need to get good value for money. We have been impressed by the effects of best value reviews in the police service, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned. They have served us well over the past few years in bringing up performance. That is what we are seeking to do. If HMIC or the Police Standards Unit have identified an area of underperformance, it is right that they should be able to make recommendations and that those recommendations can be addressed in an action plan.
This is an iterative process. It will be ongoing. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to interference. The provisions are not about interference; they are about setting the parameters of the action that needs to be taken and having a process of dialogue with the officers to ensure that we—and more particularly they—get it right, so that underperformance and bad performance can be properly addressed.
We shall listen to the points that have been made and reflect on them, but that is why we argue that the Secretary of State must be able to require chief officers to pay detailed attention to those recommendations so that that iterative process continues and the action plan and targets can be perfected to ensure that they address specifically the issues concerned. That will enable the police authority, the Home Office, the Secretary of State and, more importantly, the local communities to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred—I presume that he was talking about the crime prevention partnerships that are in place—to be properly engaged in ensuring that those targets and performance measures are delivered. We
are all committed to ensuring performance at the highest level and to getting booms for our bucks in public expenditure by raising standards in the police service. It is not about the overbearing centre always getting it right; it is about the centre helping the police service to ensure that it can deliver on the ground, where it really matters.I hope that noble Lords feel that that explanation will enable them not to press their amendments and that we can all reflect on the central importance of raising standards and quality in the localities. The issue for us in government is finding ways in which the centre can seek to help in that process.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that one of the three biggest lies in the world is when a representative of government calls on somebody and says, "I am here to help you". The noble Lord has just talked about help coming from the centre. That is a very unusual situation. If one were to ask many of the policemen who receive that constant flow of advice and instruction, they might well say that it was not always helpful. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, nor the Minister has even referred to the problem of under-resourcing. There may be inefficiency—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My noble friend Lord Rooker made it plain in an earlier exchange that by March 2002 we shall have record numbers of serving police officers in the United Kingdom. The figures are clear and uncontested. There is an ongoing process that looks again at improving the level and standard of resourcing. That is the Government not just being helpful, but putting the resources where it matters—on the streets and in the communities, making sure that the police service is there on the ground to do the job that we all want it to do. Surely that is an incontestable fact.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The basic fact remains that in London, the capital city, and in many areas of the countryside, the police are hopelessly under-resourced. That is a major cause of inefficiency and failure. Ministers refuse to acknowledge the existence of such problems and merely say complacently that we shall soon have a record number of policemen. Later in the Bill we shall deal with one suggestion as to how the Government are going to increase numbers, which not all of us find acceptable. Ministers seem unimpressed by any evidence that the police are grossly under-resourced for dealing with modern crime and the behaviour of modern society.
Lord Dholakia: Why are such draconian measures necessary? Clause 4 says:
- "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"
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that the Minister will not think that I am perpetrating another well-known lie when I say that I have a certain sympathy for him. As he frequently reminds us, he is anxious to remedy proven failure. The problem addressed by the amendment is that the power that he is taking is not limited to cases of proven failure. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has pointed out, subsection (1)(b) extends the power to a case in which the Secretary of State believes,
- "that the whole or a part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken".
The Minister is well fair enough in mind to understand our anxiety that the Government may be paying lip service to the doctrine of operational independence by legislating to call for a plan, whereas in fact, in certain circumstances, they are taking power to themselves to require measures to be taken. That is where the resubmission comes in: "Resubmit and resubmit until you do exactly what I, the Home Secretary, want". I know that the Minister is fair enough to realise that that is a genuine and a proper anxiety on our part. Perhaps he could give an indication that the Government will think again about it. We are anxious that this power may be applied to a future situation which has not yet arisen and in which there is not yet proven failure. It might be sensible, before Report, to think again about subsection (1)(b) and to remove the possibility of applying the power in such situations.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page