Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, I am rather sad at the noble Baroness’ last comment; I always enjoy her speeches on best value—it is one of my first thoughts when I wake up in the morning. I have become used to them and they have become part of the familiar landscape of my daily routine. I would not wish to deny the noble Baroness the opportunity to talk to me further about best value. I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness and I appreciate that she is trying a different tack. I am intrigued, if not a little pleased, at her offer of a best value ““lite”” regime. That was an interesting step forward and I suspect that we might want to consider that after we have rejected her amendment. The problem with her approach is that we are both arguing from a similar position; we both want to strip away unnecessary bureaucracy, but we disagree about the means by which we achieve it. We believe that we are removing an overly bureaucratic and excessively resource-intensive process. The noble Baroness, with honesty and integrity, is trying to leave in place a framework that she believes will help keep the best value review process in place. I suspect that she thinks that without that framework it will not happen. I am more optimistic. We should retain our approach and we do not need a statutory power to carry out best value reviews. Police authorities can draw on their powers in Section 22 of the Police Act 1996 to request a report from their chief officer on best value approaches. Police authorities will still be able to discharge their general duty to secure continuous improvement in the way in which the functions of police officers are delivered. That general duty is well worth retaining. The noble Baroness did not speak to Amendment No. 2 in this group, but I shall do so, because it has been a point of difference between us in earlier debates. Amendment No. 2 should be considered in conjunction with the Government’s amendments to Part 4, which we will reach later. These have removed the provision for the Audit Commission to act jointly with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in inspecting police authorities, which I know has raised the noble Baroness’ ire and concern. Her amendment, however, seeks to remove altogether the current role of the Audit Commission in the inspection of police authorities as best value authorities. I understand, but do not share, the noble Baroness’ concerns about the role that the Audit Commission would have played in joint inspections with the new inspectorate, but this amendment goes too far. The Bill retains the overarching duty on police authorities to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To ensure compliance with this duty, the Audit Commission would work with the Inspectorate of Constabulary, and that needs to continue to have the powers set out in the Local Government Act. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the Audit Commission has a valuable role to play. Historically, it has acted in the inspection of the quality and cost-effectiveness of a whole range of local authority services through the comprehensive performance assessment framework. It regularly works with other inspectorates. For example, it works with Ofsted to deliver comprehensive performance assessments and joint area reviews of children and young persons’ services, and with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to deliver community safety. With its wealth of experience, it makes sense for the Audit Commission to continue to have a role in carrying out inspections of a best-value authority’s compliance with Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel confident and happy to withdraw the amendment. I await her response with interest.