| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: This has been a long and interesting debate. Perhaps I should begin with a few words of explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, as to why I do not go round the whole of the landscape before I get to the substance of my argument. Quite
simply, as in this case, the reason is that we have often covered the ground earlier to some degree and also, if one were to do that, one would prolong the debate considerably with much repetition. I also like to think that Members of the Committee have experience and knowledge of the situation. I do not accept the noble Lord's criticism of my remarks. If the Bill dealt exclusively with those situations where a report indicated failure, his remarks would be entirely appropriate and I would agree with him. I cannot remember whether the noble Lord was present at the time, but we certainly tabled an amendment which we debated last Thursday as to whether we should take out of subsection (1) of new Section 41A the words "whether or otherwise". The noble Lord, Lord Condon, referred to those words, as did the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The other word that renders the whole provision rather abstruse is "will". The measure deals with a situation that might arise in the future. Those areas give cause for concern.I deal with two other issues. I pick up the resource issue and then put it on one side, so to speak. Clearly, the resource issue is important but it has nothing to do with the particular issue that we are discussing. However, as it has been brought up, one has to say that the situation with regard to manpower in the police is now improving. That must be welcome to absolutely everyone and is certainly a reversal of the trend that existed only about two years ago. That is immensely welcome and it is good to see that that situation has changed.
I come back to the substance of how you deal with a force that has a problem. The real question which lies behind the amendments that we are discussing is whether it is a right and appropriate use of a Secretary of State's immense powers—after all, he has legislative authority—to deal with what might be a problem in a basic command unit, as the powers go down that far. Last week I said that in many cases a direction emanating from a Whitehall department is less effective than a telephone call to someone in authority who is directly in charge of the situation to ask what on earth is going on as a problem has developed. The person directly in charge will already know about it as he will have seen the report and will have been present when the inspectors carried out their inspection. The inspectors will have told him that the situation was not right and asked him what he intended to do to sort it out. I draw an analogy with the Ministry of Defence. Senior officers in the military would be astonished if the kind of procedure that is suggested in these proposals were to be applied to a military situation.
However, I accept that we are discussing an entirely different situation. The police constitute a civil force. I accept that the Home Secretary finds himself occasionally in the embarrassing situation of having to answer awkward questions in another place. However, that is appropriate; he is accountable. His solution to putting that right is to ask those who are immediately accountable to him for the situation what they are doing about it. However, the powers that we are discussing do not seem to me to constitute good
management practice. We all share the same ambition; that is, to have a police force which works effectively and well on behalf of the whole community. There is no difference between us as regards that ambition. As I often used to find in discussions with my father, the difference is over method. I believe that the Government have picked the wrong method. However, I shall study what they have said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 57 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 58:
- Page 5, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: I believe that we have slipped on this amendment. I do not intend to move it. But Amendments Nos. 59, 110 and 130 are grouped with it so that gives me the opportunity to speak to them. I do not believe that I can move Amendment No. 58, but I believe that it is all right if I do not withdraw it until after dealing with the group of amendments. We had better de-group these amendments because I do not intend to speak to Amendment No. 58, but to the following amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 59:
- Page 5, line 11, at end insert "and, subject to his obtaining the approval of the relevant police authority to such plan, shall take such steps as are necessary and practicable to implement any action plan resulting from such direction"
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the House: occasionally one gets into procedural difficulties. This amendment deals with what is to happen when the chief officer of police submits an action plan and has to deal with it. By implication, an action plan is going to be acted on, but there is nothing in the Bill which actually says that it must be. It is also essential that the police authority is fully involved in the situation. The amendment is designed to bring that about.
The amendment also calls on the chief constable to obtain the approval of the police authority and NCIS as regards Amendment No. 110 and the National Crime Squad in relation to Amendment No.130 and the approval of the directors of the action plan. It is important psychologically that everyone is thoroughly involved at all levels. This amendment seeks to make explicit on the face of the Bill something which I am quite sure the Minister will tell me is implicit. He may try to tell me that the amendment is unnecessary, but we thought that it was worth making sure that this situation will come about. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not move Amendment No. 58. If he had been serious about it, he would have removed from Clause 5 a provision which states that a police officer is required to comply with
any direction issued under the clause. Effectively, the clause would have been entirely purposeless. I believe that the noble Lord realises that.He continued by suggesting amendments which effectively render the clause irrelevant or superfluous. The other three amendments provide the requirement to comply with directions under the clause, but for that to be highly qualified. A chief officer, in circumstances which the noble Lord is attempting to establish, would be required to comply with a direction issued under the clause and would implement any action plan resulting from such a direction, subject to obtaining the approval of the police or service authority.
Therefore, regardless of what was agreed in consultation between the chief officer and the police authority and of what the Secretary of State agreed to in an action plan, the police authority would effectively be able to veto its implementation. That is the effect of the noble Lord's amendment. We argue that the phrase "necessary and practicable", which seem reasonable words in themselves, would also risk offering a get-out clause if the action plan was not to be fully implemented.
Perhaps that is what the noble Lord intends. If he does, it fundamentally undermines the purpose behind having a power of direction. The chief officer could then claim that the Secretary of State had imposed impractical conditions on the force and that under this provision he was unable to deliver the action plan.
I can understand circumstances in which that might arise, but I question its desirability. Frankly, there would be little purpose in the Secretary of State being able to issue directions to chief officers if the very means of implementing them could effectively be vetoed at the very last stage by the police authority. I am not sure that that is the right way for the police service to proceed. There has to be a question mark over that point.
Perhaps the argument being put forward by noble Lords opposite is that there should be a greater role for police authorities in preparing action plans. I shall be very interested to hear whether that is the case because welcome though such involvement would be—and they are to be involved in the process—we need to focus on the real reason and intention behind the power of direction.
We keep coming back to this point. The power of direction is to enable the service to drive up and improve standards and quality of performance. After all, that is what we are attempting to achieve. We have just had a long debate about how one achieves efficient and effective policing and its importance, particularly as regards issues where a long-term and precise failure has been identified and, in such a situation, the kinds of powers of direction that may be required.
I am grateful for Amendment No. 58 not being moved. I believe that the noble Lord will wish to reflect on the net effect of the other three amendments that he spoke to in this group. They would fundamentally undermine what we are seeking to achieve where there is a measure of agreement between us on the desirability of raising standards and ensuring that
there is adequate support from the centre of the right kind and which has been negotiated and subjected to arbitration. We see that as being part of the process of getting the support in place and ensuring that the powers of direction are not undermined by an effective veto on action plans.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |