---

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 315:

After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT POLICE MEMBERSHIP OF NCS
(1) The reference in section 59(8)(b) of the 1996 Act to persons falling within section 55(2)(a) of the 1997 Act shall include a reference to persons appointed as police members of the National Crime Squad ("the Squad") after the date on which section 65 comes into force.
(2) The persons whose interests are to be represented by the membership of the Police Negotiating Board shall include persons appointed as police members of the Squad after the date on which section 65 comes into force.
(3) In section 62(1) of the 1996 Act (duty to consult Police Negotiating Board before making certain regulations), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(ab) section 79A of the Police Act 1997;".
(4) The function of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales of advising on general questions affecting members of the Squad within section 55(1)(b) of the 1997 Act shall include the function of advising on such general questions as respects persons appointed as police members of the Squad after the date on which section 65 comes into force.
(5) In section 63(3) of the 1996 Act (duty to consult Police Advisory Board before making certain regulations), in paragraph (c), after "39," there shall be inserted "79A,".
(6) In section 55A of the 1997 Act (retirement in interests of efficiency or effectiveness), for "member of the National Crime Squad" there shall be substituted "police member of the National Crime Squad with the rank of assistant chief constable"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Police authorities to produce three year strategy plans]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 316:

Page 59, line 11, leave out "secure that the plan is and remains consistent with" and insert "have regard in preparing that plan to"

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 324, 325 and 326. We have already covered this ground during proceedings on the Bill, so I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. Although we welcome the general proposals on three-year police plans, and so on, we believe that it is improper to have quite the amount of detailed control over the content of the plan that the present drafting of the Bill gives the Secretary of State.

The amendments are part of a whole series that we have presented during the course of the Bill's progress. They are designed to relieve that pressure, and to allow

12 Mar 2002 : Column 762

a little more flexibility in local plans. As I said, we have already covered this ground sufficiently and, therefore, I need say no more. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 327, which is included in this grouping. We fully support the statutory provision for three-year policing plans produced by the police authority. Indeed, that is what is happening in the places where good practice is found in the country. However, we have some difficulty with aspects of three-year plans with which we shall deal later. We should have preferred the tried-and-tested formulation in the Police Act 1996 because it recognises the respective roles and responsibilities of the tripartite relationship, which is about partners who work to the same time-scale together rather than working in some sort of management line, one to the other. We support the amendment. If it is not accepted at this stage, we shall return to the matter on Report.

Lord Rooker: The national policing plan is seen as a key part of the process of achieving a high standard of policing throughout England and Wales. The preparation of the three-year policing plans that are required to be consistent with the national policing plan will help to ensure that all police forces are working to this common goal. We need to ensure that different levels of the plan are consistent with each other. Hence it is appropriate that the Bill requires the three-year strategy plans to be consistent with the national policing plan, rather than simply asking those who are writing the plans to "have regard to" the national policing plan. We do not accept that this requirement undermines the tripartite relationship or the role of police authorities. Indeed, we believe that it raises their profile and supports their role in ensuring consistent and coherent planning.

Amendment No. 327 would delete the requirement for annual best value performance plans to be consistent with the three-year plans. It seems entirely logical to us that, just as the national policing plan informs the three-year strategy plans, so three-year strategy plans inform the best value performance plans. Hence the clause requires local policing plans to be consistent with the three-year plans; and that the police authority's annual report assesses the extent to which the strategy plan has been implemented.

The central bone of contention here is that many noble Lords believe that we are hell-bent on undermining the tripartite relationship. We are not. I shall keep saying that until I am blue in the face.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister will keep saying it until he is blue in the face, and we shall continue to make our point. However, we are dealing with what appears on the face of the Bill—the content of the legislation, which makes these things possible. That is the matter of concern that we have been pressing throughout these debates. I suspect that we shall never be able to agree with the Minister on this issue. We entirely accept the Minister's good faith and his good intentions, but we have to deal with the words that

12 Mar 2002 : Column 763

appear on the paper in front of us. Those words would permit rather more than I am sure the Minister intends to implement himself. We have some concern for the future. I have heard the explanation. This is a well cultivated field now, and further cultivation this evening will not improve it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 317:

Page 59, line 15, leave out from "In" to end of line and insert "considering the draft plan, the police authority"

The noble Lord said: This amendment extends the debate that has just taken place. I shall not, therefore, be very long in my introduction. We seek to emphasise that the police plan—the three-year plan—is a joint effort between the police authority and the chief officer. We believe that that Government are placing too much emphasis in the Bill on the chief officer. In our view, the plan is the authority's plan. We do not want the roles of the chief officer and the police authority blurred. Like the Minister, we want consultation with local communities. Indeed, it is one of the statutory duties of police authorities. But, at present, the Bill confuses the role of the police authority and that of the chief officer.

We shall continue to say—the Minister is aware of this—that we want the provision straightened out by the time we reach the Report stage, so that it is quite clear to any simple, not complicated, person reading the Bill that it is a tripartite relationship, and that certain duties are laid down for the police authority. That must be clearly stated in the legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I support the amendment. If we believe, as I am sure is the case with my noble friend the Minister, that the three-year plan is an important document, and if it is setting an overall direction for the police service in the area, it should be owned by the police authority. If it is such an important document, clearly there should be local consultation that is the responsibility of the police authority. For that reason, I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is eminently sensible. When my noble friend the Minister considers it in the cold light of day, I am sure that he will realise how much it supports the objectives that he is seeking to fulfil.

Lord Rooker: The Government are determined to support police authorities—full stop. I stress that point. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, cannot have it all his own way. A tripartite arrangement means that there has to be something for the other two parties to do. You cannot have a monopoly. All I ever hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is that the tripartite relationship seems to consist of only one part.

We support the police authorities and the chief police officers in their planning to achieve a consistently high standard. We need to have confidence that the local plans are based on

12 Mar 2002 : Column 764

appropriate and timely consultation with local communities. Section 96 of the Police Act 1996 requires the police authority to make arrangements for consultation. Once those arrangements are in place it is equally appropriate for the chief police officer to make use of them, as it is for the police authority.

I am looking for a shaking of the head from the noble Lord, rather than a nodding of the head. However, I am seeing only neutrality. It seems to me that this argument is too one-sided. We believe that chief police officers should be able to make use of those consultations, and that they should do so when preparing the draft three-year plan. It is not enough to expect the police authorities to have regard to these local views when they consider the draft plan submitted to them. By then, it is too late. It is far better for the chief officer to have taken note of local views when drafting the three-year plan. What on earth is wrong with that? It is the Government genuinely supporting police authorities and the chief police officers.

---