---

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with every word that has so far been spoken in this clause stand part debate. I should just like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of what he said the other day. I am sure that I am right in saying that it was him. I believe he said, "We are not looking for a national police force". In responding to the debate, it would be helpful if the Minister did not just repeat those words, because I am sure that he meant them. Perhaps he could go a little further and tell us that he will be satisfied after the next stage of the Bill that it would not be possible for someone with very different intentions from his own, and those of the present Government, to use the provision in the way that the Opposition now fear.

5 Mar 2002 : Column 161

There are some 60 lines in Clause 5. However, there are but 11, or so, lines in the brief summary of the clause that appears in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to that quite short paragraph, and to ask him whether he has any reservations as to what is said therein. It would be of some comfort to me if the noble Lord were to say that that is an accurate summary of the clause. The paragraph begins by saying that the clause,

"empowers the Secretary of State to require a chief officer to take remedial measures where he is satisfied that the whole or any part of the force either as a whole or in any aspect of its operations is not efficient or effective (or will become so unless such measures are taken)".

The main point to note is that it is entirely on the initiative of the Home Secretary: no one else is involved. There is no consultation, and no warning to a police authority of what is afoot. It is just a matter of the Home Secretary saying that there is something to worry about in a particular force that must be put right; and that he requires the chief officer to take the remedial measures. He is giving instructions. That certainly raises a big question mark over that declaration to which I referred earlier; namely, that the Government are not looking for a national police force.

The paragraph in the Explanatory Notes to which I referred continues to say:

"The intervention power takes the form of a requirement on the chief officer to prepare and submit an action plan to address those aspects of the force's performance that the Secretary of State considers inefficient or ineffective".

If that is not a step in the direction of a national police force, I really do not know what is. It is possible that the Government do not intend to land us with a national police force, but one cannot help fearing that they may one day wake up to the fact that they have actually taken a series of measures that have precisely that effect. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has experience of opposition. He should not dismiss—I am sure that he will not—all the fears of opposition as being purely founded on partisan, party considerations. They are not; they are genuine anxieties. There is a long and deep-rooted tradition of not having a national police force that will now be eaten away, whether or not that is the Government's intention.

The last part that I want to quote from paragraph 30 of the Explanatory Notes is that under Section 41A(9),

"the action plan must be prepared in consultation with the relevant police authority".

It is nice that the police authority has been let in at the last minute. But, unless the Government regard police authorities as being worthless organisations, it seems an extraordinary omission that the Home Secretary has not placed upon himself or his successors the duty to consult them.

I agree with everything that has been said about this clause. As it stands at present, I hope that, even if we do not divide against it today, we shall certainly reject it on Report.

Lord Dholakia: I concur with everything that has been said about the clause. I have no doubt that in a

5 Mar 2002 : Column 162

few years' time the Home Office will ask some kind of management consultant to consider the arrangement that the Minister seeks to introduce. He will wonder how the hell we got into such a mess.

We argued that during debate on the probation legislation. My noble friend Lord Phillips rightly pointed out the Government's insatiable appetite for controlling everything centrally. We are opposed to any move which takes away the powers and functions of the independent police authority and gives those powers to the Home Secretary. Clause 5 effectively introduces new Section 41A to the Police Act 1996, giving the Home Secretary power to issue directions to chief constables to take remedial action, bypassing the police authority. We object to that. It should be the police authority and not the Home Secretary which controls that type of function.

The Home Secretary's new Police Standards Unit already has sufficient teeth, and sharp ones at that, although we have already made known our concerns that this part gives the Home Secretary too much power and control at the expense of local policing. In effect, Clause 5 gives him the power to direct chief constables in all but specific operations or cases. That is a new departure and one which threatens the viability of local policing. I believe that the perception of the general public is that that is going down the road towards central control of police or a national police force.

The role of the police authority, and thus the local community, is all but ignored. The Home Secretary will simply notify the authority of any direction and the chief officer will then consult it on his action plan. Otherwise, it is a two-way dialogue between the chief officer and the Home Secretary.

Why does the Home Secretary need those powers when he already has extensive powers under Section 40? Our opposition in relation to clause stand part seeks to restore the balance in the process. It should be the job of the local police authority and not the Home Secretary to oversee the remedial action.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Rooker: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, for saying that I have been persuasive. I must report back to the boss at the end of the day that I have defended Clause 5. I believe that the clause is defensible. However, I, together with my noble friend, said on Thursday and again today that if Clause 5 is put to the Committee as it stands—that is, unamended—it will be rejected outright. We are not stupid—we understand that there is no question about that. We shall not wait until Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked me last week whether we could discuss the matter beforehand so that it was not left until the last minute. As a result, discussions are taking place and suggestions are being put forward in the appropriate quarters.

Therefore, with the permission of the Committee, I do not propose to go back to first principles but I do want to place a few matters on the record. There is complete distrust of the Home Office which is

5 Mar 2002 : Column 163

probably sometimes born out of experience. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense; it is a healthy scepticism. But, two ex-Ministers of State and an ex-Commissioner have obviously, over the years, seen something in a way that I have not done.

However, I said last week that, even before it starts, the operation of the clause will be subject to an agreed protocol between the Home Secretary, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. I made that clear. No Member of the Committee today has even referred to that. With respect, most noble Lords have simply gone for the jugular. They have completely ignored the caveats that I have already inserted. But, in fact, the Home Secretary does not want to do many of the things that noble Lords are suggesting. Before he begins to exercise any powers under the Bill, he will obtain an agreed protocol—by definition, it must be agreed—with the relevant authorities; that is, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

Although I suspect that the lawyers will have difficulty in finding the necessary form of words—however, that is their job; it is what they are paid for—the powers will be used only in the last resort. I know that that is not a very legalistic form of words, but that is the situation. In the letter that I sent to noble Lords in response to a submission that we received following Second Reading, I made it clear that, by their nature, the powers would be exercised only as a last resort. That applies to Clauses 4 and 5; it is not new. Some of the powers already exist in relation to police authorities, although it is true that they have been delineated separately for chief officers.

I shall obtain an answer to the example of the motorway given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. It was a good example because it is one that people can readily understand. But, to my mind, it is inconceivable that the Home Secretary will operate on the powers without advice. I believe that, by way of example, both my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have mentioned Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Police Standards Unit and the Audit Commission. There are other bodies. Such action will not be taken on a hunch. The Home Secretary will not operate in an unreasonable fashion. Ministers are not allowed to do that; we are subject to the legal process.

I accept that the Committee is unhappy. Examples have been given in relation to the national probation directorate. I stand to be corrected because I do not remember every Written Answer for which I am responsible. However, since I have been in this House—that is, since last June—I do not believe that the words "national probation directorate" have crossed anyone's lips at any Question Time. I hear from a sedentary position the words, "It's too early yet". But the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has already quoted a letter today stating that the national probation directorate is not working, and so on. I do not track all the Answers given in the other place; that is outside the remit of my day job, if I may express it in

5 Mar 2002 : Column 164

that way. But all the key issues are raised in this House. Therefore I am confident that issues relating to the national probation directorate have not been raised by your Lordships.

The Home Secretary will not, in the words of one noble Lord, "dive in". He will not, in the words of another noble Lord, send in "hit squads". Those allegations are without any foundation whatever.

The answer that I must give to the first question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, must be: yes; by the end of Report stage, after Easter, I do not want to be in a position—nor do I believe that anyone else would—of looking back in a few years' time and being told, "Well, you didn't ask enough questions as a Minister". That is what I have always done in all the roles that I have held. I am engaged in one such role at present which has nothing to do with this Bill. I am saying, "Hang on a minute. That may go wrong". I may be asked later, "Did you ask these questions or did you get a second or third opinion before you took this course of action?" Those are ordinary, reasonable things which a Minister should do. It is true that it sometimes slows down decision-making processes, but by the end of the next stage I believe that one should be comfortable in providing the answers. The fact is that, when the Bill leaves this House to go to the other place, it will do so only by consent. I understand that. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made what was probably a slip of the tongue and said that I had had no experience of opposition. All my life I have been in opposition, even when I have been on the side of the establishment.

---