Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, a Metropolitan Police advertisement for the recruitment of community support officers has been displayed on the London Underground for some weeks, under the strap line, ““Make a visible difference””. As I see it, the whole point of community support officers, first introduced some three or four years ago, is to be uniformed and visible in order to provide a very necessary reassurance to law-abiding citizens and perhaps some measure of deterrent to would-be malefactors. I am pleased that there seems to be widespread approval of the relatively new creation of community support officers and their role in neighbourhood policing, especially dealing with so-called low-level crime and anti-social behaviour. It seems sensible to give them a standard set of powers and duties, as set out in Clause 5, but I welcome the reminder made in the briefing from the Local Government Association which I have just received, that a community support officer is distinct and separate from a police constable. These additional responsibilities must not detract CSOs from their core duties of visible policing and community work. There was some concern, although perhaps it has disappeared because it has not been mentioned today, that CSOs might be a substitute for rather than an addition to the police force and, indeed, would make up for the somewhat declining number of special constables. However, I hope the Minister can confirm that it now seems that the number of special constables is rising once again. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is now in his place—I rather missed him earlier. As has been the case with a number of other Bills, the noble Lord and others of a similar kind dealing with criminal justice issues have mentioned that this raises a cry that here is yet another Bill in which the Government are concentrating power on to themselves and centralising powers in various ways. When I look at this Bill I see a number of items which involve greater centralisation, but I also see a number of matters where local interests and powers are enhanced, hence the emphasis on neighbourhood policing, the greater involvement of communities and citizens in determining how their communities and police operate, and enhancing local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and their relationships with local authorities. It seems to me that the Minister, at the beginning of today’s debate, was absolutely right to say that the traditional tripartite arrangement of the Home Secretary, the police authorities and the police is being brought to an end. There is no question that it is being brought to an end. Of course, however, the Government must admit—and, surely, no government could do otherwise—that it is desirable for there to be some kind of adjustment to the balance between those three parties to the tripartite agreement. The Government do not need to deny that some concentration is taking place. What they have to do is justify to Parliament what greater centralisation there may be in the Bill. As we have heard, accurately, this afternoon, because of the inadequacy of House of Commons debates, it often falls to the House of Lords to require this. Take, for example, in this Bill, the increase in the reserve powers to give directions to the police, provided for in Schedule 2. These powers can be justified because they are dependent on there being,"““a failure of a police force to discharge any of its functions in an effective manner””." It seems to me right that the Secretary of State should no longer be confined to information obtained from Her Majesty’s inspectorate, but should be entitled to draw upon the findings of a public inquiry or national performance assessments. Therefore, I regret to say that I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. It is equally right that the Secretary of State should be required by the Bill to give the police authority and the chief constable the opportunity to make representations against the Secretary of State’s prima facie view that the force is failing, and to propose remedial measures. As I understand it, only if serious performance problems persist is the Home Secretary entitled to intervene. In the other place, the Conservative spokesman seemed to pour scorn on the Government’s assertion that these powers of direction would only be used as a last resort, but Schedule 2, in its detail, lays down clear duties to that effect on the Home Secretary. That is as it should be. Many of your Lordships on both sides of the House have expressed concern about Part 4, which involves amalgamation of the various inspectorates dealing separately with prisons, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and court administration. The aim of these provisions is, to my mind, exceedingly ambitious, if not over-ambitious: it is to report on the functioning of the justice system as a whole. That nothing should be excluded and that the whole justice system should be inspected from time to time is fully justified and worthwhile. But, inevitably, it raises the question of whether the creation of this massive new body will result in a loss of focus, which each of the bodies to be replaced currently has. At present, though one could not have foreseen this six months ago—though one should have—it seems ironic that the proposal emanates from a department of state, the Home Office, which is itself subject to intense criticism for being unwieldy—or ““cumbersome,”” as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, put it earlier this afternoon—and unmanageable. In the prison inspectorate there is particular concern about this matter, as we have heard from several voices this afternoon. In recent years we have had such excellent chief inspectors as the present one, Anne Owers, the late Judge Stephen Tumim, who came from a judicial background, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, from a military background. Each and every one of them, from their varying backgrounds, was an independent person from outside the Prison Service. That is the most vital matter. Small wonder, therefore, that there should be such anxiety as expressed here today, and indeed elsewhere, as to how one super-chief inspector can possibly have the ability and time to carry out the inspections required, and to concentrate not only on prisons, but on all the other responsibilities proposed by the Government. Anne Owers, the present Chief Inspector of Prisons, has written an article in the current New Statesman in which she describes the Government’s plans as ““reckless.”” I hope the Minister can give some comfort on this issue. I was more impressed by the four key points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, than by the 10 principles referred to as those of the Audit Commission.