Police and Justice Bill

I am momentarily distracted by the news I have just heard—the score is one all. I support Amendment No. 62. We have no objection to national governments setting national priorities for policing. That is partly what they are there to do, after all. The power to which we object is that which would impose particular priorities on police authorities at a local level. That is exactly the subject of the noble Baroness’s amendment. The Government have claimed that the Bill introduces a more flexible system—back to flexibility. However, it is flexibility for the Government to increase their control over policing—it is not flexibility for others. The amendment highlights the key elements of the Government’s intent in the Bill. There is a small but significant change of emphasis under the schedule. Heretofore, the Government have been able to set objectives for police authorities, but the Bill now makes a subtle but important change. It sets strategic priorities. There is a big difference between saying to an authority that it has an overall objective to do something and saying that it has strategic priorities. That suggests that there is a greater drilling down and more influence on what individual police authorities can do. The crux of the debate is whether the provision is a centralising measure. We say that it is. The concept of safer neighbourhood teams, the basic command units and the crime and disorder reduction partnerships form an element of localism. Above that, strategic priorities must lie behind what the individual organisations want to achieve with the resources that are allocated to them. The schedule shows that the balance of power is firmly with the Secretary of State, not local organisations that, in some ways, reflect local aspirations and policing needs. The influence will come from the centre, not from local neighbourhood communities. Safer neighbourhood teams can work very well indeed. Given their resources, however, there are limits to what they can achieve, and they should certainly not be subject to directives from central government. The emphasis on setting strategic priorities rather than broad objectives is extremely important and in many ways goes to the heart of the debate on centralisation throughout the Bill. The strategic priorities are set from the centre, and the safer neighbourhood teams and all the locally oriented organisations are subject to such objectives which override the local priorities. The measure is an important shift in direction which changes the dynamic. It puts much greater emphasis on and gives more influence to the Secretary of State and takes away power from local bodies. In fact, setting strategic objectives takes power away from neighbourhoods and local communities and vests it in the centre. It means that priorities are driven by the Government rather than by the local teams on the ground. As that is not acceptable, we support the amendment.