Police and Justice Bill |
|
Lynne Featherstone: Will the Minister give way? Hazel Blears: Let me finish my point. We do not want people to get ineffective policing and to live in fear in their communities. We have a responsibility to ensure that our police service is the best that it can be, and that can be done in a number of ways—through support, collaboration, the Police Standards Unit, the inspectorate and so on. Of course, we trust all those mechanisms. and in fact, our previous debate was on the HMIC’s expert advice, which we have taken very seriously. I think that the hon. Lady is seeking to face two ways at the same time. I say genuinely that the Liberal Democrats have had a tendency, not just in the current debate, but in previous ones to will the ends but not the means. Of course, we all want good policing, antisocial behaviour to be tackled and public services at the highest level, but in order to make that happen, the Government must be prepared to take decisions, and it is right and proper that we protect some of our most vulnerable communities, which have lived with crime for many years. I feel a personal responsibility, as do the Government, and I am sure all hon. Members, to find a way of remedying those problems and ensuring that our police service is fit for purpose and can tackle the really important problems. Lynne Featherstone: The Minister must forgive my cynicism, but the Government have just introduced recommendations to address the situation of loans to political parties as a result of political embarrassment. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab): Of course, the Liberal Democrats don’t do that. Hazel Blears: I could get into a debate about Liberal Democrats taking loans from foreign donors that have to be repaid. So far in our deliberations, the Committee has enjoyed a constructive atmosphere. Hon. Members have raised some serious points in their amendments, and until recently, there appeared to be a genuine desire to see how we can get the best legislation to enable our police forces to serve our communities. I think that we have seen graphically where the priorities of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green lie. They are not in the best interests of providing good policing for her local community. I hope that she will take part in the debate more constructively. Column Number: 103 Lynne Featherstone: Will the Minister give way? Hazel Blears: No. On that basis I ask hon. Members to reject the amendments. Nick Herbert: I expected the Minister to be a little more constructive—the word that she used in her response. These are serious amendments that we, and I believe the Liberal Democrats, tabled on the basis of concerns raised partly by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. The more that she speaks, the more concerned I am that the power to intervene in police forces will be relatively unrestrained. The more that she spoke about the passion that she felt about the need to do so, the more clear it became to me that it is the Government’s intention to use those powers. 12.45 pmWe could debate the extent to which such powers should be used in all but the most serious circumstances, but the question is whether there are sufficient checks. In my view, a provision that gives the Secretary of State complete discretion, on the basis of his or her judgment, to decide whether
is not sufficiently constrained. The Minister said that she takes Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary seriously, but the inspectorate will effectively be excluded from the process, will it not? There might be a respectable reason for doing that, relating to the Government’s desire to intervene directly when, for instance, a public inquiry recommends action, as in the case of the Bichard inquiry. That was her point on Second Reading. It is still possible to write into the Bill that, in normal circumstances, such intervention should be triggered by the inspectorate. One would think that that would be the proper balance and process. The independent inspectorate should first say that there is a problem and then empower the Home Secretary to intervene, although there might be exceptional arrangements for the Home Secretary to intervene—for instance, in the case of public inquiries. As far as I can see, the Bill does not provide for that. I thought, perhaps naively, that the Minister would accept amendment No. 79, which would insert into the Bill the words “as a last resort”. After all, that is written in the explanatory notes to the Bill. If those powers are to be used only as a last resort, why not accept the amendment and thereby offer the reassurance that that is how they are intended to be used? Her quite casual dismissal of that proposal on the grounds that it was simply not necessary was sufficient to convince us that the reason that the amendment will not be accepted is that the Government wish to use the powers in a relatively unfettered manner. Another concern is that police authorities could be bypassed under the provision. The Minister said that it might be necessary to bypass a police authority if it were unable and unwilling to act. Again, perhaps it should be written into the Bill that, in normal circumstances, the police authority should be
I am sure that we shall return to the matter. We have already voted against clause 2, which will bring the schedule into force. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessary to divide on the amendments now, but I must say that the Minister’s reply has persuaded me that we did the right thing in opposing clause 2. It is very difficult to argue, on the basis of what she said and her refusal to accept quite moderate checks on the exercise of the power, that it is anything other than a centralising measure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in schedule 2, page 72, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert—
This is a probing amendment to help us to understand the Government’s thinking on why an order under this proposed section in the schedule should be annulled in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. That seems to diverge in methodology from other parts of the Bill. Hazel Blears: We are trying to simplify section 96 of the Police Act 1996. It is a general principle that the key functions should be on the face of the Bill and that the secondary functions should be in regulations. The provision deals with regulations about obtaining the views of local people on how we should consult. It is proper for such detailed matters to be in secondary legislation. We have to consult ACPO, the APA and others before making orders. However, as I said, I will take into account the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee if it feels that there should be a different procedure. It is proper that the regulations relating to public consultation should be in secondary legislation and subject to the negative procedure. Lynne Featherstone: I thank the Minister for her explanation, which clears up a couple of things that I was concerned about. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the schedule and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill. Question agreed to. Schedule 2 agreed to. Column Number: 105 Clause 3 Police authorities as best value authorities Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 14, leave out from second ‘authority’ to end of line 26. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
Martin Horwood: These are probing amendments to try to discover what on earth is the Government’s purpose in clause 3, which does some rather strange things. It is probably common ground that we want good and constantly improving performance and business excellence in police authorities, although judging by what the Minister said at our last sitting, best value may not always be the best way to achieve it. In practice, best value has proved rather bureaucratic and tiresome for public sector organisations. The amendment would remove paragraph (d), which itself removes from a police authority’s best value obligations
and sections 13(5) and 15(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, which I consulted to see what would be left. The answer is precious little, except for the right to collect information and to be inspected. It is not so much throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as throwing out the baby and being left with the bathwater. The obligations and the bureaucracy of the best value framework remain, but the meat of best value does not. That raises the question whether the best value framework is really needed in this context and it is why we suggest removing the proposal and replacing it with a general principle of improving performance. There are plenty of other models of performance improvement that a police authority might choose to adopt: for example, one of its members may have experience of ISO 9000, Investors in People or the European Foundation for Quality Management business excellence model, any of which might be appropriate, cheaper and more effective than what is left of the best value process in the clause. That might be an alternative way to proceed and it is the purpose of the amendment. Hazel Blears: I hope I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman on why the Bill is so drafted. I am impressed by the amendments’ simplicity; we are trying to achieve the same end result but there is a caveat: we need to keep some of the framework of best value even though we are disapplying some of its specific requirements. Column Number: 106 The amendments would disapply all the best value provisions and reapply an overarching duty to secure continuous improvement, which is what we want, but it would mean that the Audit Commission had no role in inspecting police authorities. It is important to keep the Audit Commission’s expertise in carrying out joint inspections with the new commission for justice and safety which the Bill introduces. The Audit Commission has extensive experience of how local authorities should perform. Under the Bill, as drafted, we can still involve the Audit Commission in some joint inspections. If it were amended along the lines of the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, it would shut out the Audit Commission from being able to play what I regard as a constructive role, especially given some of the work that I have seen it carry out. I would not want to lose the benefit of its expertise. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we want to achieve the same as he and not bind police authorities with the bureaucracy of best value inspections. We could save about £0.5 million throughout the service if we did not have such a system, but it is important that there is an overarching duty to secure continuous improvement and value for money from our investment in policing. Members of the Committee will know that, in the past five or six years, we have increased investment in policing by about 50 per cent. That is significant, and it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we get best value. Even though my drafting is perhaps not as elegant as his, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why I want the provision to remain as drafted. I ask him to withdraw his amendment. Martin Horwood: I am flattered by the Minister’s compliments on my drafting, although I cannot claim personal responsibility for all of it. However, I shall relay those comments to the researchers who were involved in it. I am somewhat reassured by what the right hon. Lady said and I see the value of an Audit Commission role in inspecting police authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 Standard powers and duties of community support officers Nick Herbert: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 4, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
We shall now consider proposals in the Bill that will standardise to some extent the powers of community support officers. The guillotine will fall at 5 o’clock, so we shall have a relatively short discussion on such matters, although it will be important. I am sure that we agree about the role of community support officers, especially in the delivery of neighbourhood policing.
The powers are not listed in the Bill. They have been proposed. We only know the particular standardisation of powers as a result of reading the ministerial consultation document. It will be a matter for further discussion how exactly the division is to fall between regularised or standard powers throughout
It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 22 March 2006 |