Police and Justice Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78 and 79, standing in my name, and particularly to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. In speaking to these amendments, I am very conscious that we are talking about powers of last resort. However, I am also conscious that numerous bodies involved in policing are dedicated to improvement. A large number of agencies, inspectors of constabulary, the standards unit, APA, ACPO and the Audit Commission are trying to improve policing. Against that background I am very concerned about these powers. Nothing in the legislation concerns me as much as the provisions on intervention by the Secretary of State in a failing police authority or a failing police force. The objectives of my amendments fall into three or four categories. The first is to narrow the ground on which the Secretary of State can intervene. I accept that there may be drastic situations in which everything else has failed and the Secretary of State has to intervene, but those should be few and far between and need to be specified. I accept that if HMIC says that there is a major problem, it should constitute a ground for such action and that if there is a national inquiry, as we had not very long ago, that should also constitute a ground. However, a wide power for the Secretary of State to intervene in police forces or authorities, not defined in the tight way that I seek, would be too great a power for him. Secondly, I go back to my absolute conviction that the tripartite structure is the right way for policing to proceed. We all say how important the tripartite structure is. If it really is that important, then before the Secretary of State intervenes he should have to consult ACPO and the APA. Such problems in forces or authorities do not occur in isolation. Both ACPO and the APA would be the first to want to resolve these issues. Intervention will not be effective without collaboration with ACPO and the APA. Therefore, my second intention is to ensure that the Secretary of State has to consult those national bodies, which have the interests of forces and authorities at heart. My third objective is that the Secretary of State should, as now, have to intervene through the police authority. I do not believe that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene directly in a force and bypass the authority. That would undermine the police authority. If you agree with the tripartite relationship and you want strong police authorities and forces, you have to go with the structure that you have. If intervention takes place, it should occur as now, through the police authority. In 2001–02, we fought very hard to get the structure that we have in place. I do not understand why it is now felt necessary to move away from that structure and for the Secretary of State to be able to intervene without going through the police authority. As I have said, upholding the tripartite relationship is central to my concerns. I do not believe that the Home Secretary should be able to micromanage forces or authorities. If I believe anything at all strongly about this legislation, it is that the Home Secretary has strategic responsibilities, but delivery is in the hands of authorities and forces. You cannot deliver from the Home Office; you have to deliver through agencies in which you have confidence. That is the bedrock of the tripartite relationship and what local accountability means. In 2001 and 2002, when these issues were last debated, this House and the Commons rejected proposals to enable the Home Secretary to intervene directly. It was right then, and it would be right now to reject those proposals. I do not believe that anything significant has changed in the interim; indeed, quite the contrary, because in the interim we have had a difficult problem in a police force in Humberside. How was that resolved? It was resolved in partnership between ACPO and the Home Office and between local and national authorities. That is how we will resolve issues, and if we are not to resolve them in collaboration, they will not be easily resolved. We know that in practical terms the Home Office and the Home Secretary must work with agencies, either with ACPO and the APA, or with the local force and authority. I therefore feel very strongly that the clauses should reflect the reality of how improvement will be brought about. So, as ever, my amendments seek a positive way forward. I do not believe that the intervention powers as posited in the legislation will work effectively; they will have an adverse effect. I seek to be helpful and positive, and I suggest that if we want these powers to work they must have certain safeguards. That is the purpose of my amendments.