Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, the Police and Justice Bill raises some fundamental questions. I detect no common thread between different parts of it. However, that is to be expected, since the Home Office sees legislation as the answer to all society’s ills; as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly pointed out, there have been 52 Home Office Bills in less than 10 years. The only comparison that I can draw is that there have been as many Home Secretaries since 1996 as policing Bills introduced by this Government. We had the Police Act 1996, which was followed by the 1997, 2002 and 2005 Acts. In the mean time, we have seen Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke come and go, and now we have John Reid in charge. At first glance I am not sure whether anywhere near sufficient attention has been given to the fact that this is the latest of almost yearly legislative proposals affecting the organisation and function of law-enforcement agencies and, in particular, policing. There must come a time when we need to ask this simple question: does the periodic reorganisation of such agencies indicate that the Government simply cannot make up their mind about what policing is all about? No business would even consider carrying out structural and functional reorganisation of fundamental institutions with the frequency that we have seen in recent times. I do not doubt that the Bill is not as complete as it should be, because it fails to address the real issues. How do we identify the requirements of public safety and security in this country? We need to know which law enforcement functions have to be performed. How best can those functions be provided, given the constraint of resources? Is the Bill really adequate to determine what reorganisational arrangements should be implemented in order to resolve the fundamental issues of what should be done and how it should be done? In the policing debate on 10 May I said that policing is just one aspect of that discussion—an important aspect—but instead of discussing it we seem to focus more on the reorganisation of police forces. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I welcome the invitation from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, to open up the debate following his Dimbleby lecture. I shall certainly participate in those discussions. We need to answer fundamental questions about policing, which were last dealt with by the Royal Commission some 40 years ago. Would it not be wise to deliberate a little longer before proceeding with the changes envisaged in the Bill? A debate of that nature should also take into account the unremitting periodic assault on some of our freedoms. Of course, in a changing situation we cannot rule out the need to respond to the threat of terrorism and international organised crime. The impact of legislation that compromises our civil liberties is a delicate issue and we should exercise care to ensure that no measure taken should fundamentally alter the balance that we have enjoyed for centuries. Policing is about public consent and independence. I need to be convinced that the Bill is not yet another example of the move towards central control over policing. If that is the case, we are altering the balance of the situation, under which the police service was run on behalf of communities and we allowed the chief constable to have independence and autonomy over operational issues. The Secretary of State was the third element of that tripartite arrangement. I have little doubt that the proposals in the Bill will give the Home Office increased control over policing and that, with the reinforcement of national policy-setting and performance-review powers, it will provide de facto control at all levels. Local control is being eroded to the point at which it will mean little or nothing. The last time we came nearest to exercising central control over policing was during the miners’ strike, when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister. Despite all the intervening years, miners still feel bitter and their relationship with the police force has remained strained. Policing is possible only with the consent of communities. There is no way in which the police can maintain public safety unless the public consent to it. We remove that consent at our peril. We have opposed police mergers on the basis that they appear to be about saving money rather than improving performance and about centralisation rather than accountability. We must of course recognise the need for structural reforms; we have not accepted that having larger forces is the most effective way to overcome the problems identified by HMIC. Furthermore, amalgamation would reduce police accountability and responsiveness by distancing force headquarters from the communities themselves by sacrificing co-terminosity with local authority boundaries. Will the Minister confirm that the estimated £500 million to £600 million cost of amalgamation will not come at the expense of the Government’s neighbourhood policing strategy? The merger proposal was not mentioned during the previous general election, nor did it form part of the Labour manifesto. Legal challenges are still pending and the consultation process has been grossly inadequate. That said, I accept that there needs to be a complete reconsideration of a properly developed service for the future. That will take time, and real and pressing commitments must be addressed. There is a danger that failure to consider future requirements will result in a continual piecemeal slide towards greater central control and structural change, without providing any improvement. It would be unfortunate to lose sight of some positive measures in Part 1, as identified by the Minister. Of course we support a number of the Bill’s provisions, such as the incorporation of the Central Police Training and Development Authority and the Police Information and Technology Organisation into a National Policing Improvement Agency, which is a logical and sensible step forward. Computer hacking is a serious problem and the extent to which the Government are collecting personal information is frightening. The security of such data is paramount, and such information must be secure. Equally, we welcome the sternest measures that we can take to tackle the illegal possession of indecent photographs of children. My noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Linklater will have more to say about the provisions affecting children. Equally welcome is the harmonisation and extension of the powers of community support officers, provided that we are all assured that training will be an essential requirement before such powers are exercised. I also take pleasure, and credit if I may, for the campaign which I led to ensure that complaints and misconduct in the immigration and asylum system were properly investigated under powers invested in the Independent Police Complaints Commission. If only the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, had accepted my advice when I moved a similar amendment a few years ago to the immigration and asylum legislation, instead of rejecting the suggestion outright. I am glad that at last he has seen the wisdom of my case. I ought to declare a further interest. At one time, I was a member of the Police Complaints Authority. I am also acquainted with the work of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The proposal will not only create a better system but improve public confidence in the system. My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond will have more to say about police reforms. I now turn to Part 4. The Government’s intention about the inspection arrangements is not in doubt. In previous debates and questions the Minister has assured us that the Government want the current approach, methodology and the ambit of the inspection of our penal institutions to be retained. I am afraid that the Government are in a very tight spot. They cannot do otherwise because they have to meet the United Kingdom’s international obligations regarding protection of human rights of prisoners. Successive chief inspectors, such as the late Judge Stephen Tumin, Sir David Ramsbotham—now the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—and Anne Owers, have retained their independence in setting detailed criteria for inspectors, conducting unannounced inspections, and criticising unacceptable policy and practices. I have always believed that the independence of inspectors should never be sacrificed, however critical their reports. HMIs stand between unchecked oppressive policies and the civilised values that must form part of the basis of our penal policies. The Government should have no worries because almost 96 per cent of HMI recommendations are accepted by the institutions and the successful implementation is as high as 75 per cent. Of course no Home Secretary can take comfort when frequent inspection reports reflect what is wrong with our penal institutions. But we must not forget that the standards we set are the envy of the civilised world. I am aware that the Correctional Service of Canada invited out HMI to inspect two women’s prisons using criteria and methods deployed here. I am also aware that Anne Owers gave evidence in the US to a hearing of the Vera commission on prisoner abuse. Our prison inspectorate is considered to be the leading international example. We are a source of encouragement to many nations across the world. If that is the fitting endorsement of our HMI, why is it necessary to change such a successful body? We will be told that the Government wish to preserve this within the proposed new inspectorate, but all of us who have worked towards prison reform are convinced that over time we will dilute the effectiveness and independence we have cherished so long. I am not convinced that a single inspectorate for justice, community safety and custody under a single chief inspector can perform two duties, bearing in mind that there are two entirely separate functions requiring different methods. I do not dispute the need for joined-up work with other inspectorates. That already happens. There is a close working relationship with the two education inspectorates, and with the Healthcare Commission under a memorandum of understanding, and a close link with the probation inspectorate. Clause 25 gives Ministers powers of direction over the chief inspectors as well as the ability to direct that inspections are carried out and advice given. But there is a draconian requirement that, in exercising any of his functions, the chief inspector shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the responsible ministers may direct. I am afraid that that is wholly unacceptable. Taken to its extreme, this provision could also be invoked to prevent a chief inspector criticising aspects of government policy. It does not fit well with some Home Secretaries’ pronouncements that prisons work. We shall of course advance further arguments during Committee and Report. I hope that there is a change of heart in the Home Office on this contentious provision. Let me also explain my concern about the section on extradition. I fully endorse the position set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I must question the Government’s track record, given that they have failed to deal with the unfair, unequal and painfully embarrassing nature of our extradition arrangements with the United States. We were told by the Prime Minister that the only purpose of this arrangement was to deal with terrorism. The Government now see that there is evidence that such powers are used to deal with fraud offences as well. I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by the new Home Secretary. Public expectations about crime and punishment are high and the Home Secretary’s ability to deliver is limited—events of the past few weeks have clearly demonstrated that. There are some useful measures in the Bill which we support but, in return, we ask the Minister to exercise great care that the Home Office does not blur the relationship between criminal justice agencies, the public and the legislators.