| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am very grateful to the Minister. I wish that I could agree with him that guidance should not be threatening. The difficulty is that I have seen guidance in, one might say, an earlier
metamorphosis with a different department. There was a great deal of guidance and it was, in fact, obligatory to comply with it. It went into the most amazing detail. In the end, it was, in my view, completely unreasonable.I hear what the Minister has to say. I am encouraged by it because I have great faith and belief in what he says. But I constantly remind the Committee that we must consider what might happen if this legislation, as drafted, were in the hands of less reasonable people. It may seem to some that that is a quibble, but in my experience it is not. It is a very serious matter. We shall study the explanation, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 319 to 321 not moved.]
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 322:
- Page 59, leave out lines 32 to 34.
The noble Lord said: At this point we may have some difficulty with the detail of the Bill. Subsections (8) and (10) to (15) fundamentally alter the nature of the proposals and, in our view, represent unwarranted central control over local planning. We agree that we should have three-year strategies and that they should be consistent with the national policing plan, but we do not agree that police authorities should have to submit their three-year plans for the approval of the Home Secretary before they are published. That is like a child being told to submit his homework for marking by the Home Secretary or by officials after which it is returned to the child and he is asked to amend it before resubmitting it.
The proposals cause considerable offence. They demonstrate a lack of trust by the Government in police authorities and police forces; they undermine the tripartite relationship; and they seek to turn police authorities into little more than agents of Government rather than proper bodies carrying out a proper job on behalf of local communities.
We recognise that the Bill does not refer to the three-year plans having to be approved by the Home Secretary, but that is the cumulative effect of subsections (8) and (10) to (15). We have no objection to police authorities sending a copy of their three-year plans to the Home Secretary, as currently they send their annual plans, but we believe that the Government are going for over-elaboration. Subsection (3) makes it a statutory duty on police authorities to ensure that their three-year plans are consistent with the national policing plan and failure to do so will mean that the authority is in breach of that statutory duty. That alone should provide the safeguard that the Government seek.
We see no reason why the Home Secretary needs to go any further and interfere with the content of the plans. There is no evidence that in producing their annual plans, policing authorities disregard the priorities set by Ministers. If I am wrong, I shall be more than happy for the Minister to offer a correction to that assumption. I believe that it is true to say that most authorities go to considerable lengths to reflect
the Government's priorities. I ask the Minister to give further thought to those provisions. I believe that they will irreparably damage the nature of the tripartite relationship. I am sure that we shall return to this issue on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 323 is grouped with this amendment and contains a delicious irony. We consider that this part of the clause should be left out, although to a certain extent that is against what I am about to say. My amendment proposes leaving out subsections (10) and (11) of Clause 66. Those subsections state:
- "(10) If the Secretary of State considers that there are grounds for thinking that—
- (a) a police authority's three-year strategy plan . . . may not be consistent with any National Policing Plan applicable . . . he shall, before informing the police authority of his conclusions on whether or not it is in fact so inconsistent, consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (11),
- (11) Those persons are—
- (a) the police authority in question;
- (b) the chief officer of police of the police force maintained by that authority;
- (c) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of police authorities; and
- (d) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police".
There is a glorious inconsistency in those words compared with almost all the rest of the Bill. We consider that the subsections allow the Home Secretary to tell a police authority what to do. In debating such matters we have said that our difference with the Government is not about ends but means. We believe that the Government are wrong as to the means and consider that those subsections are not appropriate. I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his remarks and our amendment supports the position he has taken.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am unsure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is complaining that there is too much consultation. If the Home Secretary believes that the three-year plan of a police authority is inconsistent with the national plan he will consult the police authority, the chief police officer, ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities. Perhaps that is a consultation too far.
This clause is long and I want to make it absolutely clear that it does not give the Secretary of State a power of veto over the three-year strategy plans. To listen to the tenor of the debate one would think that it does. The police authority has to decide whether to take the views of the Home Secretary on board. There is no power of veto by the Home Secretary. As we said in relation to the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 316, the three-year plans are required to be consistent with the national policing plan to
demonstrate that all the forces are working to a common goal. It seems sensible that someone should ensure that they are consistent with each other.The Home Secretary has an overall responsibility, as part of the tripartite arrangement, for policing in England and Wales, so it is entirely appropriate that he should check the plans for consistency with the national policing plan and inform police authorities if he concludes that they are not. I believe that it is appropriate for the Home Secretary to do that. We do not believe that that undermines the tripartite relationship of the authorities. It raises the profile of police authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and his mates and "matesses" on the police authorities will be in front of cameras and on the wireless when their turn comes to submit their strategy plans. People will say, "Hey, I didn't know we had police authorities; I thought it was just David Blunkett and the chief constable". The role of police authorities will be elevated, which is important and consistent with our dedication to the tripartite arrangement. If the Home Secretary is not convinced, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, he will consult. The clause does not give the Home Secretary a veto over the plans. That point has to be clearly made. Noble Lords are free to return to this matter at a later stage, but I hope that they will not press their amendments tonight.
Lord Dixon-Smith: If the Minister would accept the principle of the wording of this clause and apply the consultation back through the Bill to Clause 1, we would all be happy.
Lord Bradshaw: I hear what the Minister says, but I am afraid that the propensity of the Home Office to interfere in matters is large indeed. Plans may be held up for comment and they will be delayed because those comments will be late in coming, as they always are. I hope that these amendments will be given serious consideration. It will be necessary to refer back to them. It is extremely difficult to get the local press to come to a policy authority meeting. They are extremely dull meetings. In the nine years that I have been a member of the police authority, we have never had the luxury of having the television medium present. We have had junior reporters from the local press who usually get everything wrong because they cannot understand what is going on. However, it is a far cry from reality to talk about the interests of the local press. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Minister takes what I say seriously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 323 to 329 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 329A:
- After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 340B and 341A. It is a straightforward group of amendments. ACPO wishes to move from a part-time one-year presidency to a full-time three-year presidency. The ACPO president currently remains in charge of his force while he serves as ACPO president for one year. Following his or her election, the president of ACPO will need to resign from his force or retire in order to take up full-time office. ACPO believes that the president needs to retain the rank of chief constable. The amendment will have the effect of ensuring that, while he holds office, the ACPO president will continue to have full police powers and the rank of chief constable. I am advised that ACPO and the APA are content with that approach. The amendment reflects that desire and makes good sense in terms of the general direction in which ACPO wishes to take its presidency. I beg to move.
"PRESIDENT OF ACPO
If a person who holds the office of constable becomes the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, he shall, while he is the president of that Association—
(a) continue to hold the office of constable; and
(b) hold that office with the rank of chief constable."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page