Police and Justice Bill

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has always been a favoured son of this House, but perhaps I may say that he has given a great deal of pleasure to a few people who are still labouring in the vineyard away from the goods. I endorse what has been said about the care with which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and my noble friend Lady Henig have approached these issues. I acknowledge straight away that they have a wealth of experience. As I have already indicated, the Government have listened and will listen carefully to what they have said. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, of that. Before I deal with the meat of the amendments, I should make it clear that we believe that this is a power of last resort. Perhaps I may say how difficult it is to concentrate on winning this Bill when things are changing so rapidly in another place—and I do not mean the other House. Improvement of the police authority and all the things that we have put in place to make performance better will make a huge contribution to the way in which things work. I also understand what my noble friend says about accepting that an appropriate time to intervene is when there is evidence from an independent source such as an inquiry and also when there is an HMIC recommendation; and that she wishes to see a narrowing down of the issues upon which this power can be used. I want to make it plain that I absolutely understand her concern. I hope that in going through the detail, which may take a little time, I shall be able to reassure each noble Baroness that their concerns are not merited. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on her sterling perseverance in opening this group of amendments. The intervention powers, as everyone has acknowledged, are to be a last resort to require policing failings to be addressed. The rationale for the Government’s revisions to the existing powers is based on experience gained since the inception of the original powers and from our work supporting under-performing forces. Although I appreciate the position that existed in 2002, and as the noble Baronesses will know, a number of significant events have occurred since then which have made us all review the situation slightly differently. We recognise that these powers are not to be used lightly. I reiterate that they are steps of last resort to be taken only when serious and enduring performance problems have arisen. However, where performance problems are persistent and the service that the public are receiving is being affected, it is important that expeditious steps are taken to remedy it. These changes are being brought about on account of what has been learnt about police performance over the past few years. We now have a clearer understanding of what needs to be in place to ensure that all forces strive for continuous improvement and to ensure that those with the most serious problems are dealt with most effectively. Effective intervention powers must be in place to ensure that appropriate action can be taken when a police area or police authority is taking too long to show an acceptable level of performance improvement, when it simply does not have the capability to address the problems itself, or, in the most extreme and unusual cases, when it refuses to co-operate to remedy its failings. These revisions are about ensuring that the powers are framed so as to provide the most focused and effective response to performance failings in both police forces and police authorities. The revisions are intended merely to improve the processes and procedures surrounding the use of the powers to ensure that they serve as an effective lever of continuous performance improvement. Amendment No. 63 would remove all the proposed changes to the intervention powers. That would overlook the key role that intervention powers play in driving up police performance and the changes needed to frame the powers most effectively. I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said and noted that she has been persuaded by my noble friend to indicate that that course may not be necessary. Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 74 and 75 seek, in the first instance, to propose a definition for the level of performance failing that would lead to intervention for failure that was ““serious and permanent””. Furthermore, that intervention would occur only ““exceptionally”” and ““if there was no alternative””. I appreciate that there is value in seeking to clarify the terms of performance failing that would serve as the threshold for intervention, but we are not convinced by the proposed wording. I agree, too, that we should be talking about intervention in ““serious”” cases but I do not believe that we would want to wait for the failing to be ““permanent”” before we were prepared to act. The powers are intended to be used in cases of ““significant or enduring”” failings in circumstances when not acting would leave communities with an unacceptable and lasting level of poor service. However, I am not convinced that adding such a definition to the Bill would enhance the powers in the way that we intend. What would happen if the failing was significant but had yet to be proven to be enduring, but authoritative voices said that if immediate remedial action was not taken, the failing would become enduring? A number of safeguards are already built into the Bill to ensure that a power of direction is issued only when failings of effectiveness have been identified and the area has already had sufficient information and time to address them. This is so that intervention takes place only in the most exceptional circumstances and when all other alternatives have been attempted—for example, through an engagement by the Police Standards Unit. But I am not inclined to agree that it is necessary or helpful to add such further provisos to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 69 and 70 propose that we remove the revision which would enable the Secretary of State to route the powers direct to the chief officer of the force in respect of police forces that are failing or that will fail. The revision is not about bypassing the police authority or the police authority’s important role in holding forces to account for their performance; it is about reflecting the reality of how best to tackle performance problems by dealing directly with those who are able to enact the changes that are needed to address them. The revision is also intended to allow us to act on behalf of a police authority, should it so wish, in the event that it would prefer us to deal directly with the chief officer. These provisions are intended to ensure that the most effective action can be taken to address the serious failings. So we oppose the amendments which seek to remove these clauses, but we do not dismiss the importance that noble Lords have attached to them. Amendment No. 79 would remove the provision that requires the Secretary of State to notify the police authority responsible for maintaining a police force when he has given a direction directly to the chief officer of the police force concerned. This provision has been included in the Bill to ensure that police authorities are kept informed if the Secretary of State is left with no option other than to give a direction to the chief officer of the relevant police force. We believe that it is right that this option should remain a part of the Bill. It is important to make a provision to ensure that a police authority is informed from the outset of any decision to intervene. I agree with my noble friend Lady Henig about the importance of collaborative working. I now turn to my noble friend’s Amendments Nos. 68 and 76, which seek to limit the possible sources of information. The amendments propose that the trigger for the use of these powers be either an inspectorate report or an inquiry established under Section 49 of the Police Act, which finds that the force or police authority, or part of it, is failing to discharge any of its functions. One of the changes brought forward in the Bill is to widen the sources of information which the Secretary of State might examine when considering whether a force or authority is failing. The amendment recognises that it is not the inspectorate alone that might provide such a view I am afraid that it is still unhelpful to restrict the possible sources of information that might shed light on serious police failings. First, we are not convinced that it is necessarily helpful to seek to produce a definitive list of organisations and voices which can inform the Secretary of State. Naturally, we can see that that might be desirable, and I understand that the Secretary of State’s decision should be informed by authoritative and credible accounts of police effectiveness and performance. The formulation used in the amendments, if I may gently say so to my noble friend, overlooks other agencies or bodies, which might cast the spotlight on failings or performances—things that I know she knows very well. Examples might include an Independent Police Complaints Commission report or one of the now annual police performance assessments, which combine the performance data with the inspectorate’s quality of view. That would be of assistance. There would inevitably be others that we cannot foresee today, and we believe that it is unhelpful to try to set out a specific list of bodies. Secondly, the amendment overlooks the fact that the new inspectorate will not be required to report on the efficiency and effectiveness or otherwise of the police forces and authorities. I understand the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment. I understand her concern, and I think that it will be important for us to continue to talk about these issues. I reassure noble Lords that we have taken these issues into account. There are similar comments in relation to Amendments Nos. 71 and 77—and, indeed, to Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 78. I am conscious that it is almost 10 o’clock, so I say in conclusion that although I understand the nature of the concerns and the need to work on the issue, we think that we have the balance about right. We shall not use it inappropriately. I can see that it is an area in which it may benefit us to have further discussions between now and Report. I cannot say that they will necessarily bring about material changes, but we would benefit from having those discussions. I do not believe that we are far apart. I believe that my noble friend’s indications are that she accepts that other sources may give real cause for concern. My noble friend accepts that it should be in extremis but she says clearly that there has to be some sort of agreed line which makes sure that it is in extremis and not part of day-to-day practice, which we are absolutely clear it should not be. With that, I invite noble Lords not to press the amendment, not because I am guaranteeing that we will come back with anything else, but because it is an issue on which we could speak.