| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Harris of Haringey: I do not agree with the Minister that it is a straightforward amendment. I think that it is bizarre. I shall be interested to know in how many other places in statutes a company limited by guarantee (or whatever applies to ACPO) is referred to specifically. I shall be interested to know why such a provision is offered to ACPO but not to, let us say, the Police Superintendents' Association or the Police Federation which might wish to do something similar. I assume that the implication is that the person would have his or her salary paid by ACPO; that there is no implication that the Crown or anyone else would find the salary. But that means that the cost is spread more generally.
Why does it have to be assumed that the person will have the rank of chief constable? I understand that ACPO offers membership to people of assistant chief constable rank upwards. Does it mean that an assistant chief constable who becomes president of ACPO will receive automatically a pay rise and be treated as a chief constable? I find it a strange amendment.
If someone wants to be president of ACPO it is a career choice which he or she makes for three years. If there were a provision for chief constables to dip in and out of being chief constables in order perhaps to serve as representatives on other public bodies and then be engaged as chief constables elsewhere, it might be a suitable amendment. However, to specify an organisation in this way I find somewhat surprising.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the noble Lord's desire for more information. I am happy to
answer his questions. However, he ignores the special position that ACPO holds within the structure of UK policing. The ACPO president currently holds office for one year while continuing to exercise control and direction over his or her force. The view has been formed that that is less than ideal. As the demands on ACPO and its expertise have increased—that has happened not just under this Government but successive governments—the president of ACPO, who occupies a unique position in terms of leadership, spends less and less time running his own force. The full-time presidency will allow the president to contribute more effectively to policy development and implementation.If one seeks parallels, the chief executive of CPTDA and the directors-general of NCS and NCIS continue to hold the rank of chief constable and the office once they take office. In a sense, the provision is parallel to those existing arrangements. It will enable the ACPO president to maintain his standing within the police service, enabling him to represent chief officers in an effective and timely fashion.
I appreciate the noble Lord's desire for more information. However, those are the reasons that the amendment has been brought forward. There is agreement with ACPO and APA for the amendment to be made to the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: In referring to the ACPO president, the point has been raised about whether similar arrangements would exist for the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association. Is there any reason why those bodies have been excluded? Do they not play a part with regard to policy issues and the Home Office?
Lord Condon: The equivalent posts in the Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation are already full-time posts providing continuity for a number of years. I understand that the amendment seeks to put ACPO in a similar position to the Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful for the noble Lord's clarification of that point. I am still confused by my noble friend's answer. When one refers to an association in legislation, one normally refers to an association which represents chief officers of police—or some reference of that nature. Why is a specific organisation reflected in the legislation? For example, if in the future a majority of chief constables no longer had confidence in the way ACPO was organised and set up a rival organisation, would we be left with this piece of legislation relating to a specific organisation which perhaps contained fewer and fewer chief constables?
The provision could be drafted so that it did not refer to a specific organisation but achieved the laudable aim—I support it—that a force area should not be deprived of its chief constable, or whichever
senior officer it is, while he fulfils the important role of president of ACPO. It seems a strange way of tackling what I accept is a problem that needs to be solved.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a fact that ACPO is already referred to in statutes. If the noble Lord reads Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act he will see that. I do not find it extraordinary. ACPO occupies a unique place in the structure of the UK policing network.
The president will be paid by ACPO. The Police Federation is a statutory body under the provisions of the Police Act 1996, so police organisations do have a statutory reference point. It is for that reason that to effect a change we need to address it in statute. That is why the amendment has been brought forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Clause 68 [Crime and disorder reduction partnerships]:
Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 330:
- Page 61, line 24, at end insert "; and
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 330, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 331, which is consequential on Amendment No. 330. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in each district. These partnerships must undertake an audit of local crime and disorder problems and produce a three-year strategy for tackling them.
The 1998 Act made chief officers and local authorities the "responsible authorities" for the partnerships. Police authorities were required to co-operate with the local partnerships. That has had an unfortunate effect. In some areas, police authorities have been excluded from playing a full role in the work of local partnerships.
The local partnerships have now been in existence for nearly four years. Although there has been some good progress, a recent Home Office report recognised that many "challenges remain".
Our proposals seek to make the partnerships more effective by giving police authorities equal statutory status. We believe that this is even more important if we are to achieve coherence between police authorities' three-year plans and the three-year district crime reduction strategies.
One of the key findings of the recent Home Office report was that local partnerships missed key opportunities to integrate their consultation with wider consultation efforts by police authorities. We believe that our amendment will help to tackle this problem and that police authorities' involvement can bring far greater strategic oversight and co-ordination to the work of the various partnerships within the force area.
The Minister's letter said that the Government was actively considering this proposal. I hope that he will be able to give us good news today by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My speaking note says that police authorities have a key role to play in local partnerships structures. It is for that reason that I can tell the noble Lord that we are giving active consideration to the amendment on whether police authorities should become responsible authorities for the purposes of Section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I hope that the noble Lord will find that a welcoming and acceptable comment. Having given the matter active consideration and consulted further, no doubt we shall bring something back on Report.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 331 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Secretary of State's functions in relation to strategies]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 332:
The noble Lord said: We are back on the Secretary of State's functions—possibly in his alias as the National Assembly for Wales. We are dealing with the Secretary of State's powers. The Bill says that he, "may, by order, require" strategies in relation to crime reduction,
This again is Whitehall seeking to dictate the detail of what might be in a local crime reduction plan. I entirely accept what I may call "its benign intentions", but the clause presumes that the Home Secretary, if he makes orders of this nature, will be au fait with every local situation in the country. All my experience suggests that Whitehall departments, let alone Secretaries of State, who after all are guided by their departments, have that omniscient breadth of vision of knowing everything that goes on across the country.
This is a well-rehearsed discussion. We have been over this ground on numerous occasions. I need not say any more. I beg to move.
(e) every police authority any part of whose police area lies within the area"
Page 63, leave out lines 30 to 41.
"to include, in particular, provision for the reduction of—
(i) crime of a description specified in the order; or
(ii) disorder of a description so specified",
and so on.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page