| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In light of my response, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I thank the Minister for that response. However, I would have thought that HMIC would have the ability to seek out those with greater knowledge than he or she has on a particular piece of kit. But I hear what the Minister says, and I do not think that we will get any further on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: Amendment 43 is a probing amendment to find out what sort of software the Secretary of State might make compulsory by regulation. I understand that powers are available to ensure the use of hardware, but that current legislation does not allow for software to be similarly prescribed. The subsection would allow the Government to insist on common programmes being used, so has the potential to make considerable savings in the realm of data sharing across different authorities. The principle appears very sensible and entirely in line with reducing unnecessary red tape. Police forces need every encouragement to use sensible computer programmes so that police officers can spend less time at their desks and more time on the beat. Similarly, ensuring that records can be easily accessed by different authorities will help to ensure that offenders are properly identified across the country. The principle we accept. Our concern therefore lies not in the power that the section gives, but in whether it actually could be used.
I think that we all agree, perhaps even on the noble Lord’s Benches, that a great many government IT procurement and implementation projects have been a costly disaster. There have now been two reviews on how to reduce the bureaucracy and data burden in policing—the question is whether the Government have the drive to ensure that their recommendations are pushed through. Is the Government’s intention to set up another large database? If so, what steps have they taken to ensure that it does not go the way of the NHS database, for example, and so many others that have had great failure rates? If the Government intend to increase the sharing of data across police authorities—demanded by regulation—how will they ensure that there will not be another disastrous loss of confidential information? I beg to move.
22 Jun 2009 : Column 1440
Lord West of Spithead: I understand that this is a probing amendment. As noble Lords will know, the policing Green Paper, From the Neighbourhood to the National, identified that the full potential of information systems to support better policing would be achieved only if there were a co-ordinated strategy for those systems developed across the police service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, points out, that is a necessary way to go and it is important that we achieve that. She is absolutely right: not just in government, but across the private sector, we have not got the most brilliant record on large IT systems, and we certainly need to be very nervous of them. Certainly the intention here is not to set up another huge database and go down that route.
Since the publication of the Green Paper, the National Policing Board has commissioned the National Policing Improvement Agency to take forward or consolidate a strategy, known as the information systems improvement strategy. Part of the strategy’s approach is to build on the excellent and innovative collaboration work already taking place between forces. The strategy will also review the procurement of IT systems so that, wherever possible, national solutions are delivered for national problems. Historically, we have been very bad at this. I remember sitting between two chief constables and talking about some equipment. One said, “I’m going to buy this”, and the other one said, “In that case, I’m not going to get that”. We must not be in that sort of situation; it is just outrageous.
Section 53 of the Police Act 1996 already allows the Secretary of State to set standards for “equipment”, a term which covers IT hardware but not IT software. A strategy that covers hardware alone is not really feasible. It would need to be able to set standards in respect of software as well to deliver the desired benefits in terms of better procurement, more effective services to the public and greater collaboration. Setting standards in respect of IT software will allow us to maximise efficiencies, whether at local, regional or national level. IT software and its development is a very costly element of any IT project, sometimes more costly than the hardware. Major efficiency gains could be made by ensuring compatible software platforms and leveraging more out of the provider—the people whom we are buying from.
9 pm
The amendment seeks to limit the scope of the provisions to IT hardware only. While much progress can be made through voluntary collaboration, we need to be certain that, if it is clear that there are benefits to the public and the police service generally for greater IT collaboration, the Secretary of State has the power to support that collaboration through setting requirements for both IT hardware and software.
It is not our intention to cut across the operational decision-making of chief officers. We are merely seeking to enable a more effective regime for promoting efficiency and effectiveness. The Secretary of State would make regulations that support the joint design, procurement and management of IT systems at a national or regional level only if it was necessary to do so for the purpose of promoting that efficiency.
22 Jun 2009 : Column 1441
Legislation would require any regulations to be preceded by consultation with the APA, ACPO and other relevant bodies. The existing legislation already provides for regulations on hardware, as I said, and Clause 10 now has the modest effect of extending them to software and making it more flexible. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that explanation. As long as we do not set off on a nationwide renewal programme, which is bound to go wrong, I am happy with the response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 11 : Police procedures and practices
Debate on whether Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am rising on behalf of Liberty to propose that Clause 11 and Clause 12 do not stand part of the Bill. I am happy to do so because it is important that Liberty sees its way into Hansard.
Clauses 11 and 12 raise some serious concerns about the ability of the Secretary of State to interfere in operational policing matters with regard to specific forces. Currently, the Police Act 1996 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all police forces to adopt particular practices and procedures. These regulations can only be made if the Chief Inspector of Constabulary states that he or she is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to ensure co-operation between police forces and also to ensure that the proper procedure is carried out and that it is in the national interest.
The proposed new Clause 11 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to that effect which only apply to one or more police forces. It would also allow regulations to be made if the chief inspector thinks it necessary to do so to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force, rather than just to ensure co-operation. Similarly, Clause 12 seeks to amend the current position, enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all police forces to use specified facilities and services if he or she thinks it is in the interest of efficiency or effectiveness to require just one or more specified police force to do so. Enabling the Home Secretary to direct the type of policies that apply to specific police forces to promote efficiency in that force raises the spectre of political interference in particular police forces. The current power does not allow the Secretary of State to pick and choose between police forces, and that provides some limit on the power of central government to control how a particular force operates.
Liberty has consistently warned against political interference in policing. The police must remain able to investigate crime independently and to apply the laws made by Parliament free from political pressure. Liberty’s position is that police authorities should be responsible for setting the strategic direction of the police force and should hold the chief constable of the
22 Jun 2009 : Column 1442
We have been going over this ground all afternoon. I make no apology whatever for going over it again and I am delighted that Liberty has provided this particular opportunity.
Lord West of Spithead: Clause 11 extends the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations to require police forces to adopt certain procedures and practices. At present, regulations can be made in respect of all forces only where in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Secretary of State such regulations are necessary to support joint or co-ordinated police operations and are in the national interest.
The proposed change allows regulations to be made in respect of one or more forces. It also allows the regulations to be made where in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Secretary of State the adoption of practices or procedures will promote the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force and are in the national interest.
This clause further strengthens the ability of the Secretary of State to provide a regulatory basis for convergence in support of the information systems strategy. It has been our experience historically that the cost of developing common IT applications in policing has increased where there has been no agreement over common business processes.
As in the case of Clause 10, we do not expect that such regulations will be made frequently. This provision is nevertheless valuable and necessary to improve information systems in policing. It is quite focused. Regulations under Section 53A could however also be used more generally to support the recommendations in Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s Review of Policing for more efficient and effective police business processes that would help to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, improve police procurement and create a national set of standardised forms.
Clause 12 is the last of three clauses which are intended to give the Secretary of State more flexible regulation-making powers in support of a common approach to the development of information systems and services in the police service. This clause will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the use by one or more police forces of specific services. Regulations will be made only where the Secretary of State, having consulted the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, considers them to be in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness of the police.
The power already exists if applied to all police forces at once. This provision allows the flexibility to make regulations that apply, for example, to one region. The circumstances in which this power might be used would be if there were benefit in a collaborating group of forces using a shared information service—for example,
22 Jun 2009 : Column 1443
Clause 12 : Police facilities and services
44A: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Police authorities: membership
(1) Schedule 2 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) is amended as follows.
(2) Paragraph 2 shall be renumbered sub-paragraph 2(1).
(3) After sub-paragraph 2(1) insert new sub-paragraphs—
“(2) A relevant council or joint committee shall exercise its power to appoint members of a police authority under paragraph (1)(a) and (b) so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, in the case of the members for whose appointment it is responsible, the proportion who are members of any given party—
(a) where it is a council that is responsible for their appointment, is the same as the proportion of the members of the council who are members of that party; and
(b) where it is a joint committee that is so responsible, is the same as the proportion of the members of the relevant councils taken as a whole who are members of that party.
(3) A relevant council or joint committee shall exercise its power to appoint members of a police authority under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) so as to ensure that, as far as practicable, it has regard to the relevance of the skills, knowledge and experience of the members for whose appointment it is responsible.”
(4) At the end of paragraph 3(1)(a) insert “or a committee of the authority”.”
Baroness Henig: The amendment aims to do two things. First, it puts councillor nominations on a more competency-based footing. This is intended to support the Green Paper’s ambitions, which I fully endorse, to strengthen police authorities. It aims to contribute to this by improving the capacity and capability of police authority members. Independent members of police authorities are already selected through a competency-based process but the amendment extends this requirement to councillor members.
At present, the only requirement in selecting councillor members is political balance. In my view, this must remain the overarching consideration. We discussed this on earlier amendments. The ability of police authorities to reflect a balanced range of views has been fundamental to keeping them independent and largely free of party-political domination over the past 15 years.
However, there must also be room for improvement in the quality of councillor members. As an ex-councillor and ex-police authority chair, I am well aware of the
22 Jun 2009 : Column 1444
I am not arguing that councillor members should necessarily be expected to bring the same competences to police authorities as independent members. They have a different role to play, focused on engaging with local communities, understanding their needs and better joining-up policing with local councils. But the public have a right to expect that councillors should discharge this responsibility effectively and that the enthusiasm and suitability of candidates should be considered in deciding whether to appoint a councillor to a police authority.
Secondly, the final paragraph of this amendment corrects a possible anomaly in the current legislation about appointing independent members. A significant round of appointments to police authorities took place last year across the country, which threw up some queries about whether the final stages of the appointments process need to be conducted by the full authority, or whether it can be done by a committee of the authority. Good recruitment practice suggests that it is not particularly effective to subject a candidate to an interview panel comprising 17 or more people, which is the number of members of a full authority. However, there are some doubts about whether it is adequate under current legislation to conduct final interviews through a committee and then ask the full authority to endorse the recommendations of the committee.
In theory, a police authority can delegate any of its functions to a committee unless the law says otherwise, but this amendment is designed to put the matter beyond doubt and make it clear that the decision on who to appoint can be delegated to a committee of the authority, if desired. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I added my name to this amendment, but the Liberal Democrats have a rather different system for the construction of police authorities. The first parts of Amendment 44A would be quite difficult to support, although I support proposed new sub-paragraph (3), which states:
“A relevant council or joint committee shall exercise its power to appoint members of a police authority under sub-paragraph (1)(a) ... to ensure that ... it has regard to the relevance of the skills, knowledge and experience of the members for whose appointment it is responsible”.
That is a very important part of the amendment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, said, having spent a number of years in a full police authority, lining everybody up to interview people to pick the independent members of an authority is ridiculous.
22 Jun 2009 : Column 1445
Baroness Hanham: We all have views on how police authorities should be and they are all different. My main concern is the practicality of what is being proposed. Local authority members are not chosen because of their expertise in any particular matter—not yet. That may come in due course, and we will be fluffing around trying to find somebody with financial experience to lead the council on finance matters. But we are not there yet. I am worried that some people who would be very good police authority members would be precluded because they do not happen to have the ability or expertise that the police authority is looking for. Such expertise may not be available on the council at all. A police authority needs people with a robust connection with their local community, who have a lot of common sense and who understand policing. That does not seem to require any expertise other than being able to live in your local community and understand it.
Although I understand the sentiments behind the amendment, I would not want to support it, because it might put local authorities in a very awkward position. If they were trying to appoint the sort of people that a police authority said it wanted, they might preclude somebody who was very good indeed and who might have been appointed if such restrictions had not been in place.
9.15 pm
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am disappointed that we do not have an amendment from the Conservatives so that we could have a lively debate about their proposals for police authorities. I am sure that we can wait for another day for that.
The difficulty that we face is that, given the state of local government elections and local government reorganisation, with yet more authorities put on hold in local government review, not only are the electorate not very interested in turning out to vote for their local authorities, but the attendance at police authority meetings, which has never been fantastic, is suffering again a fall in interest from members of the public.
In proposing amendments to the Bill, we are between a rock and a hard place in coming up with any good suggestions in a system that is so broken and that the Government have so far failed to fix in the much wider context not just of the police authorities but of local government. The issue is very difficult and needs a lot of energy and input before we can get anywhere near solving it.
Lord West of Spithead: The noble Baronesses seek to enshrine in primary legislation the existing duty on those who appoint councillor members of police authorities to reflect the political balance of councils in that area. The Government are aware of the importance of this long-standing principle, which is why it was included in the Police Authority Regulations 2008. I am afraid that I do not see the value of moving this into primary legislation. These regulations have the
22 Jun 2009 : Column 1446
This amendment also seeks to place a duty on councils and joint committees to fill skills gaps in police authorities when appointing councillor members. This duty has long been placed on independent member selection panels when they appoint independent members. Extending this duty to the appointment of councillor members merits serious consideration. Many councillors have a broad range of skills and it appears sensible, in essence, for these skills to be considered in their appointment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |