Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend. This series of amendments concerns police and crime plans. These are clearly very important because they set the strategic direction for how the police force is to be run. Clause 7(1) sets out the requirements for matters to be put in the plan, including, "““the elected local policing body’s police and crime objectives””." As my noble friend Lord Soley has said, there is no mention in Clause 7(1) of anything to do with crime prevention. The points that he raised are very pertinent and we look forward to a positive response to them. My noble friend is also right to point out that there has been a very encouraging reduction in crime over the past decade or so. However, those trends are being reversed. A report to the West Midlands Police Authority last week showed the first rise in crime for many years, which is an extremely worrying trend. I agree that crime prevention needs to be an important part of the focus of any police and crime plan. I have a series of amendments in this group, which are partly probing. I specifically ask the Minister about the rationale for Clause 5(4), the provision that says: "““A police and crime commissioner may vary a police and crime plan””." Of course, I understand the need to have flexibility. However, my concern is that the ability of the police and crime commissioner to vary the plan at will may be used to exert undue pressure on the operational decisions of the chief constable. In our first debate this afternoon when we debated pilot schemes—that seems a little time ago now—we heard from former chief officers of police in your Lordships' House that police chiefs were concerned about uncertainty and being left in limbo. Consequently, there were reservations about pilots. I wonder whether the same problem would not arise if the elected police commissioner were continually to vary the plan, as is allowed for in the Bill. I would like to understand why the Government feel that it is necessary to allow the commissioner to vary the plan during the year, and what safeguards might be in place to prevent the elected police commissioner having an ““initiative of the month””, varying the plan and leaving chief constables in an untenable position. None of my amendments would replace the requirement in Clause 7(1)(e) for the plan to set out, "““the means by which the chief officer of police’s performance in providing policing will be measured””." However, I would like to change that to the performance of the force in general. Going back to our previous discussion about corporation sole, perhaps the Government feel that there is no difference between the chief officer of police’s performance and that of the police force. We have heard that the police force is to be embodied in one person—the chief constable, who is a corporation sole. However, I think that the public want the performance of the force to be judged. Surely that is what the focus should be on rather than the cult of leadership, which the Government seem very keen on at the moment. I should be interested to hear the Minister explain why the police chief is mentioned in the Bill rather than the police force.