| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord should give me credit for remembering that!
Lord Rooker: I was a humble Back-Bencher between 1974 and 1979. I knew what it was like then to feel as if one was in opposition. As regards the Explanatory Notes, I plead guilty. It is outrageous that anyone who buys the Bill for £10 has to pay £8 for the Explanatory Notes, which clearly state on the front page:
- "They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. So where a clause or part of a clause does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given".
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may repeat my question to the noble Lord. Do I understand that he does not dissent from anything that is contained in that paragraph of the Explanatory Notes?
Lord Rooker: No, but it could have been bigger, better and more detailed. For example, it could have benefited from the inclusion of paragraph 13 of the letter I wrote to noble Lords on Clause 5, which is as long as that part of the Explanatory Notes. It uses the phrase "last resort"; it makes clear that there will be a protocol before anything is done and refers to what was in the White Paper which is not necessarily in the Bill. As I said, the Bill relates only to those parts of the White Paper, which require legislation.
I hope that I shall be permitted to take this away and speak to my elders and betters about the contributions made by noble Lords as regards Clause 5. That also applies in a global sense to Part 1. I understand the particular concerns about this clause. It probably requires more clarity and precision in the trigger mechanism which is used before such a clause would operate. That is going pretty far for me in Committee. I hope that I shall be able to come back on Report and please the Committee.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, he commented on the experience of the Central Probation Council and said that he had not heard any Questions being asked in relation to that since he has been in the House. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, these are early days. I asked the Central Probation Council what, even in these early days, was the developing experience. That is the background to that matter.
My second point is that the Minister makes much of the protocol which the Home Secretary intends to introduce. However, that comes into the same category as notes on clauses. It is not part of the statute; it may not be right and the next Home Secretary may not want one.
Lord Renton: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask another question. I made the point that Clause 4, which gives directions to a police authority, makes Clause 5 unnecessary. It might help if the Minister were to comment on that.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that much of Clause 4 exists at present in respect of police authorities. Last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Harris, who is not in his place, tabled an ingenious amendment which moved a good part of Clause 5 into Clause 4, thereby getting rid of it. The mood of the Committee then was, as many noble Lords said, that that was a seductive way of solving what was clearly a problem. That is on the table for us to consider in the Home Office.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I shall have nothing more to say about the national probation directorate until I start to receive questions on it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, took the wind out of my sails when the debate began. However, perhaps we might now draw it to a close. It has been a good debate. The essential issue that drove the tabling of the amendment that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill was that the clause is centralising and micromanaging to a degree which is inappropriate. We are all completely convinced of that. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that in the answer he has given he has not sufficiently allayed the fears expressed.
He began by saying that there would be discussions in all the appropriate places. Discussions are wonderful things, but we do not have discussions before us; still less do we have the content of such
discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, raised the question of a protocol. If the Government were serious about the content of the protocol, it might have been useful if we had been able to have sight of it. I know that that is often the case, and this is a circumstance which has been criticised on many occasions. In particular, I recall that there were protocols on how relations should develop between this Parliament in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. A number of us had to fly through the Scottish Parliament legislation completely blind because protocols did not exist and there was no way of telling exactly what the relationship was going to be. That is a problem.Although the Bill carefully, correctly and specifically limits the power of the Secretary of State so that he cannot take action that would affect any specific operation, the fact of the matter is that he could take a whole host of actions which could affect the capacity of the police to act effectively operationally if he were to get wrong the balance of his directions. That is not ruled out. I am not a betting man, but if I had to bet on whether experienced policemen on the ground were more likely to reach a solution to a problem with local management rather than a Secretary of State sitting in an ivory tower in Whitehall, I would bet on the people on the ground.
I accept the question that is raised in the event of a report indicating that there are problems. However, by the time that report crosses the desk of the Secretary of State, my strong view would be that remedial action would already have been taken. Such situations do not develop in isolation. By the time it was reported to the Secretary of State, the people on the ground would be aware of it. The whole technique of management today has changed. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, made the point that police authorities and, indeed, the police service generally, have evolved dramatically over the past few years. That is not just because of best value but simply because in this modern era we have much more management information which makes that possible. It is the access and provision of such information which could lead to this situation and which might drive a Secretary of State to take action. If he did not receive the information, he would not be able to issue directions.
We still have considerable doubts as to whether the clause is appropriate. For a host of reasons, most of which have been raised in this debate or in debates on the individual amendments to the clause, I do not believe that it is appropriate to have such a clause in this form on the face of the Bill. That said, the Minister indicated that he is prepared to consider the whole issue and the way it is presented. I take seriously the words of the noble Lord, and I am glad to be able to do that. With that, I do not oppose the Question that Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 6 [Regulation of equipment]:
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 62:
- Page 5, line 47, leave out "such persons as he thinks fit" and insert—
The noble Lord said: Clause 6 deals with equipment. In moving Amendment No. 62, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 131 which relates to the corresponding provisions for the National Crime Squad. The clause on its own is not a particular cause for concern. However, it must be viewed in the wider context of Part 1. It is yet another centralising measure.
The clause gives the Home Secretary the power to make regulations which require all forces to use the same equipment. He can require forces to hold stocks of certain kinds of equipment, even if they will not use it locally. As the Minister probably knows, under the mutual aid provisions forces go to each other's assistance.
We all want our forces, if possible, to be equipped with the most modern equipment. But equipment, as the Minister knows, does not come free. I know from my experience with the fire service, which was a Home Office department until recently, that half the fire services in Oxfordshire were using second-hand uniforms and equipment simply because there was not the wherewithal to buy new equipment. So it is not simply a question of the Home Secretary saying, "You will have the latest equipment", and it suddenly arriving free of charge, because it will not.
Money spent on equipment is not available to spend on police officers. Therefore, any regulations which are made have significant financial implications for police authorities. I do not know whether the Minister has yet seen the precepts for police authorities around the country. We shall talk later about such matters as police pensions. But I can assure the noble Lord that they are well above the 2.3 per cent increase which we got to fund a 13 point something per cent increase in precept. It is really quite serious.
Of course we will not have as much scope to use money as we think fit; it will be as the Home Secretary thinks fit. The recent experience with the new radio system has taught us that it is critical that the three partners—the chief officers, the police authorities and the Home Secretary—work closely together to decide whatever new equipment is bought. These are multi-million pound projects; they are not small projects. Even a decision to use a different type of baton throughout the whole of the police service would be extremely expensive in terms of both the equipment and the training that would be required to enable the officers to use whatever type of equipment was specified.
Therefore, we are asking specifically for the Association of Police Authorities and ACPO to be consulted before regulations are made. At the moment, the Home Secretary is only required to consult "as he thinks fit". We would rather that there was an obligation to consult the appropriate authorities and that such an obligation could not be bypassed should the Home Secretary so wish.
No doubt, as in the past, the Minister will give us an assurance that the Government would not dream of making regulations without consulting ACPO and APA, but we should very much like to see that on the face of the Bill. That would give a measure of confidence, extending into the future, and beyond the period, which we hope will be very long, that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sits on the Front Bench in that or in another job.
The amendment would not restrict the Home Secretary's ability to consult more widely with other interests, but it would send a powerful signal to police authorities and the police forces that he will work in partnership with them. The Minister has indicated that he will look closely at the wording of previous clauses in the Bill. I hope that he will feel able to give a similar commitment to us today. I beg to move.
"(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities in England and Wales;
(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police of forces maintained by those authorities; and
(c) such other persons as he thinks fit"
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page