Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for her introduction to the Bill, and thank noble Lords who have contributed to this Second Reading debate. There have been knowledgeable, powerful and, indeed, passionate contributions from all sides of the Chamber that have highlighted only too clearly the fact that this Bill has a very long way to go before it meets the high standards which this House sets for legislation. We recognise the negative impact that crime and anti-social behaviour can have upon neighbourhoods and communities, in particular upon the lives of children and young people, who are the future of our country. However, on balance, I argue that the Bill provides more cause for concern than comfort. Three significant areas that have been raised today are police reorganisation, the merging of the criminal justice inspectorates and our extradition arrangements with the US. I will not go into the detail of what has already been so aptly set out, but suffice it to say that once again we are faced with smoke and mirrors as the Government claim that they are handing the power back to communities, making local policing more accountable, yet all the while the Bill increasingly centralises power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I have been both an elected county council member of a police authority and a magistrate member. I wholeheartedly support the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on magistrate members of a police authority. We have good grounds for caution regarding the powers set out in Part 1 when we consider how the Home Secretary’s predecessor, having failed in his use of ““bully and bribe”” tactics, is now forcing through changes of great constitutional significance despite little consultation and strong opposition from the police authorities. Indeed, I believe that the four chief constables of Wales have recently withdrawn support for the restructuring and have submitted a formal objection. As we have heard in recent days, legal challenges have begun around the country. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that is correct. My honourable friend in another place highlighted the report of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O’Connor, on which the Government are relying for the police merger plan, and made this very point:"““The constitutional implications . . . are significant””." This Bill will confer very significant new powers on the Home Secretary to interfere with police forces and authorities. Clause 2 provisions will give him wide powers to prescribe the membership of police authorities, and new powers to intervene in police forces. That will scrap the statutory duty on police authorities to determine local policing objectives, replacing it with additional rules from the Home Secretary. It will put basic command units on a statutory footing—an apparently unnecessary provision, but one that the Association of Police Authorities believes may be the precursor to more direct Home Office control. I reiterate the association’s warning that,"““These provisions represent a fundamental constitutional change, and a significant shift in the balance of power within the tripartite relationship””." Clauses 4 to 6 in Part 1 address issues to do with community support officers. We will seek to tease out the detail and address the concerns of the Standing Committee on youth justice, among others. I am glad that the Standing Committee and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children have produced briefing and a child impact assessment on the Bill, and look forward to full debates on those issues in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lord Hurd have highlighted the combined concerns of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Prison Reform Trust, the Magistrates’ Association, NACRO and the Howard League for Penal Reform, to name but a few. There is an overriding concern that the prisons inspectorate’s wealth of experience, expertise and independence will be lost in the proposed single inspectorate in Part 4. That would be a seriously backward step for a body which has obtained universal recognition and respect for its work, as was so vividly illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. We will pay careful attention to details of Part 6 on extradition. As your Lordships have said, there are concerns surrounding the lack of safeguards in the Extradition Act 2003. There is a significant debate to be had regarding the balance of the UK-US extradition treaty, which remains a one-sided operation until it is ratified by Congress—a prospect that I fear is not close to hand. The Bill also provides for the amalgamation of various police and court functions, for example powers regarding bail conditions and conditional cautions in Clauses 7 and 12. These have given rise to fears that the police will become investigator, prosecutor and judge, and that extending these powers could give rise to summary justice made, as the Bill currently stands, without proper support or training. The Magistrates’ Association is not alone in considering that such processes are contrary to the principles of justice if punishment is to be imposed without the involvement of the judiciary. The traditional separation of powers is a vital part of our constitution and is entrenched in previous legislation. It should not be altered lightly. We must not forget to set this Bill against the context of chaos at the Home Office. One cannot help but think, as we turn our attention to what my noble friend Lady Anelay has highlighted as the 52nd Home Office Bill since 1997, about what is potentially slipping through the net in legislative terms, especially when the bulk of the Bill is not discussed in the guillotined debates in the other place. Indeed, in the light of the new Secretary of State’s comments on reorganisation, I wonder whether we are to expect additional new clauses from the Government. I hope the Minister will indicate whether that is so and undertake to give the Members of this House the fullest time possible for their consideration should they arise. Our detailed scrutiny is all the more important, especially if we are to rebuild public confidence in our police forces. Effective policing, including preventing, reducing and detecting crime and providing safety and security, is at the heart of civil society. I believe all Members of your Lordships’ House agree with the aspirations of the recent Respect Action Plan, to create a decent, civil society in which people can shape their lives and participate fully in their communities. We on these Benches look forward to working constructively with the Minister and her team, throughout the progress of the Bill, on the significant and varied concerns raised here today. But, first, we look forward to her response.