Police and Justice Bill

moved Amendment No. 28: Page 84, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 85 and insert- ““““6ZB PLANS BY POLICE AUTHORITIES (1) Before the beginning of each financial year every police authority shall issue a plan (a ““policing plan””) setting out- (a) the authority's objectives (““policing objectives””) for the policing of its area during that year; and (b) the proposed arrangements for the policing of that area for the period of three years beginning with that year. (2) Policing objectives shall be so framed as to be consistent with any strategic priorities determined under section 37A. (3) Before determining policing objectives, a police authority shall- (a) consult the relevant chief officer of police, and (b) consider any views obtained by the authority in accordance with arrangements made under section 96. (4) A draft of a policing plan required to be issued by a police authority under this section shall be prepared by the relevant chief officer of police and submitted by him to the authority for it to consider. The authority shall consult the relevant chief officer of police before issuing a policing plan which differs from the draft submitted by him under this subsection. (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing that made by this section. (6) The regulations may make provision (further to that made by subsection (3)) as to persons who are to be consulted, and matters that are to be considered, before determining policing objectives. (7) The regulations may contain provision as to- (a) matters to be dealt with in policing plans (in addition to those mentioned in subsection (1)); (b) persons who are to be consulted, and matters that are to be considered, in preparing policing plans; (c) modification of policing plans; (d) persons to whom copies of policing plans are to be sent. (8) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult- (a) the Association of Police Authorities, (b) the Association of Chief Police Officers, and (c) such other persons as he thinks fit. (9) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different police authorities. (10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (11) In this section ““the relevant chief officer of police””, in relation to a police authority, means the chief officer of police of the police force maintained by that authority. 6ZC REPORTS BY POLICE AUTHORITIES (1) The Secretary of State may by order require police authorities to issue reports concerning the policing of their areas. (2) An order under this section may contain provision as to- (a) the periods to be covered by reports, and, as regards each period, the date by which reports are to be issued; (b) the matters to be dealt with in reports; (c) persons to whom copies of reports are to be sent. (3) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult- (a) the Association of Police Authorities, (b) the Association of Chief Police Officers, and (c) such other persons as he thinks fit. (4) An order under this section may make different provision for different police authorities. (5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”””” The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 28, 30, 31, 32, 49, 147 and 150 respond to the concerns voiced in Committee about the extent to which established functions of police authorities are moved from primary to secondary legislation. The Association of Police Authorities has made representations to us on this issue. In addition, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that, due to the wide nature of the regulation-making power in relation to police authority plans and reports, it should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We accept the spirit of the committee’s recommendation, but opted for a slightly different solution. These government amendments go a step further and restore to the face of the Police Act 1996 core requirements in respect of the planning process and in relation to consultation with local communities. We will now provide in primary legislation for police authorities to issue before the beginning of the financial year a rolling three-year policing plan. It will set out the proposed arrangements for policing the authority’s area during the three years that it covers. It must include a statement of objectives determined by the authority, following consultation with the chief constable, for policing the authority’s area for the period of the first year covered by that plan. As the core provisions relating to policing plans will now be in primary legislation and the regulation-making power is much more tightly focused, we do not propose to make it subject to the affirmative procedure. ACPO and the APA will of course be consulted on any regulations made under the order. We will use the regulation-making power to stipulate what other matters should be included in policing plans. It would be our intention, and we certainly envisage, that the regulations would require, as now, the policing plan to include any performance targets set by the authority and a statement of the resources available. Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seeks to incorporate these requirements in primary legislation. Undoubtedly, these are important matters that should be included in the policing plan, but our argument is this: that they are secondary details that can safely be left to regulations. Amendment No. 49 also restores to the face of the Police Act the duty on police authorities to obtain the views of their local communities. This will be supplemented by a power to make regulations covering review arrangements, persons whom the police authority should consult and reports to be made by the Home Secretary where arrangements are not adequate. I recognise the importance of preserving key points of detail in primary legislation and, as we have made plain previously, the primary functions of maintaining an efficient and effective police force and of holding the chief officer to account for the way in which they discharge their functions will remain on the face of the Police Act 1996—and now, on the basis of these government amendments, so will the functions relating to the issuing of plans and consultation with the community. I hope that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will be reassured by those comments and agree not to press Amendment No. 29. I commend the amendments to the House.