Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, particularly on the point about consultation. The powers to make regulations with regard to equipment do not seem to be wholly unreasonable. There have been incidences in the past with incompatible equipment between forces and so on. It is taking time to worry those difficulties out of the system. I recall several years ago one authority ordering state-of-the-art equipment; but that then put it virtually incommunicado with its neighbours. That of course cannot be satisfactory.
It is absolutely essential that if the Secretary of State is to regulate in this area of equipment he should have the fullest possible discussion, particularly with those who will use the equipment, in determining its specification. Getting things wrong in this area would be completely disastrous. I am sure that he would not wish that to happen, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will be most helpful on this point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord said that I was going to be the emollient one this afternoon. That does not mean that my noble friend Lord Rooker is not emollient at all appropriate times.
If the noble Lord agrees not to press his amendment this afternoon, I shall agree that we shall take the matter away and construct an amendment which gives effect to what he is after. We think that a reasonable point has been made. We agree in principle about the need to consult representatives of chief officers, police authorities and so on and their equivalents with NCS and NCIS. That would be our intention in any event. But the point has been well enough made.
The amendment is defective in the sense that it needs to be made more consistent with other legislation, and in particular with Section 37 of the Police Act 1996. So,
if the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is good on this one, we shall be helpful, take it away and bring something useful back on Report.
Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 63:
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are simple little amendments which add words to the Bill. It is really a moot point whether proposed new subsection (2C) (at the top of page 6) is appropriate in the Bill at all. It states:
This is just a probing amendment to discover whether there was a specific reason why the Government decided to mention vehicles, headgear and protective and other clothing.
On the subject of vehicles, I hope that the Government will be extremely careful what they do. My local police force in Essex has a large Ford establishment within its boundaries and has had a long, co-operative arrangement with Ford developing carsnot just for police use. That has been an extremely useful arrangement for both sides. If we are to "regulate" vehicles and vehicle types, I hope that the arrangements will be sufficiently flexible to permit such a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship to continue. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: There was a time when there was a commonality of communications equipment and information technology, when we had whistles and notebooks. The amendment seems sensible, although I am a little cautious about adding needlessly to the list, which should be confined to essential matters where there is plainly advantage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have the feeling that when he was a lad in and around Sudbury, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was probably caught out by whistles and notebooks. Perish the thought!
I return to the probing amendment. We intend communications and IT equipment to be categories of equipment that could be subject to the regulations. The items listed in the clausecars, clothes, and so onare specified as included only because they are not obviously equipment. Communications equipment is obviously equipment so there is no need to specify it in
So that is the explanation for the wording of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has been helpful in tabling his amendment because it has enabled us to clarify that point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: If the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has achieved anything, he has made the point that the definition should stop at the word "equipment" and we should not list anything for the sake of clarity. If we were to ask a police officer in a traffic division whether his car was equipment, he would say that it was essential equipment because he could not do without it. This has been an interesting debate but perhaps we can make better sense of it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: The Minister has given us assurances that he will consider suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. In the light of that, I do not intend to press the matter further.
Clause 7 [Regulation of operational procedures and practices]:
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 66:
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 132. The two amendments are similar to Amendments Nos. 62 and 131 which we have just discussed in relation to clause 6. I hope that they will receive the same emollient response from the Ministers on the Government Front Bench. They are of greater concern because Clause 7 is even more worrying than Clause 6. That is because it represents a significant departure from the existing constitutional position. It gives the Home Secretary power to determine operational policing practices and specify them in regulations. We all want good policing practices to spread; we all want standards of performance across the country raised to the level of the best. There is no argument about that.
However, I question whether the Home Secretary is necessarily always the best person to determine what is good operational practice and especially whether something that works in one area will work in another. Our concern about the clause, as with so many others, is that it provides yet another piece of the jigsaw that, when assembled, will result in a very different picture of the tripartite relationship. We seek by the amendments to provide a small but important safeguard by recognising the roles of the other two partnersthe Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officersin determining the regulations.
Operational practices and procedures concern the style and nature of the local policing: issues in which local people have a keen interest and now rightly have a voice through their police authorities. No doubt the Minister will remind usI am already aware of thisthat both the APA and ACPO are represented on the Central Police Training and Development Authority, which will be responsible for drafting the regulations. So why have we tabled the amendments? Because the role of the CPTDA board is to provide strategic oversight of police training. The board cannot and should not spend its time trawling through draft codes and regulations. It will not be able to consider detailed comments from police authorities and forces. If it did, it would never have time to do its job properly.
As I said, the clause represents a radical change in the constitutional position. We must ensure that the views of police authorities and forces are heard clearly by the Home Secretary himself, not just the CPTDA, before decisions are reached on any regulations. We feel strongly that the voice of local people, reflected through their police authorities, must be heard in decisions about how they are policed.
We received an emollient response to the previous, similar amendments. I hope that the Minister will again feel able to give a commitment to re-examine the issue of consultation before Report, when I am sure that we shall return to the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: To cut a long story short, while we do not support the noble Lord's amendments, we are happy to reflect on whether there should be an express duty on the CPTDA to consult ACPO and the police authorities separatelybearing in mind that, as I said on Thursday, they will have representatives on the board anyway. It is the duty of the CPTDA to organise the codes of practice and it will clearly consult on that. We do not want to be unnecessarily bureaucratic by building in a second round of consultation. We will reflect on whether to place that duty to consult on the new authority.
( ) communications equipment"
"In this section 'equipment' includes
(a) vehicles; and
(b) headgear and protective and other clothing".
There is a great deal more to equipping a police force than vehicles and headgear and protective and other clothing. The amendments would add the words "communications equipment" and,
"information technology (whether hardware or software)".
However, I think that in reality the word "equipment" is probably sufficient. Once one begins to create a list, it can go on ad nauseam.
5.45 p.m.
Page 6, line 28, at end insert
"( ) On considering any advice received from the Central Police Training and Development Authority and before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult
(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities in England and Wales; and
(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police forces maintained by those authorities."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page