Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

I rise to speak to three amendments, which, taken together, seek to preserve the checks and balances and independent assessment of performance within the current system that the Government have drawn on so heavily in creating their case for change; namely, the excellent work of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Right at the beginning of our work on the Bill, the Government told us that HMIC unearthed the evidence for the failings of the present system, which necessitated the abolition of police authorities as quickly as possible. Indeed, in the absence of an analysis of the results of the Home Office’s public consultation on their reform proposals and the rather limited utility of a Cabinet Office report now five or six years old, the findings of HMIC’s inspections of 22 police authorities could be charitably described as the nearest thing the Government have for an evidence base on which they can build the case for change—at least as far as the suggested evidence for the weaknesses of the old system goes. When it comes to this clause of the Bill, it very much surprised me—and may well surprise many of your Lordships—that, far from the excellent work of Her Majesty’s inspectorate being valued and taken forward into the new era of elected accountability, it has been relegated to the sidelines. In fact, the inspectorate is no longer going to be called upon to inspect the whole range of policing accountability but is going to be focused on forces. I find this a little odd. We are told that commissioners and their panels are the necessary drivers of change, the fulcrums on which the hopes of reforms are going to be founded. They are going to have the role in driving efficiency at local level, not the Home Office from the centre any more. Yet these crucial new transformative individuals and bodies are not to be subject to the same level of inspection in the public interest as police authorities. I find this quite strange. Surely it cannot be right to limit the scope of inspectors who could provide valuable, impartial and expert information to the public on complex areas of policing and police finance, including the efficiency of those overseeing that finance. Budgets are going to be tight in the next few years and the new system is going to be very costly. I find it hard to believe in the new system, which many of us think will increase costs. These costs will add up and may very well eat into the policing budget. It is therefore not unreasonable that inspections should be able to oversee how those costs are running and whether things are operating reasonably. I know, because we have already had this argument, that the Government will be quick to remind me that the ballot box will be the judge of how commissioners oversee and apportion their part of the policing grant and the precept. However, four years is a long time in politics and a lot of money could have been spent before the public place a cross and deliver a verdict. Who in the mean time, except HMIC, will inform the public about how effectively or otherwise commissioners have spent their money? I am reluctant to raise once again the spectre of corporations sole and, still less, the frankly frightening sight of not one but two corporations sole with two auditable bodies and consequentially opaque arrangements for overseeing public spending in policing. The only reason I want to mention them is that I think that because of that situation there will be a need for more, not less, accountability. Inspection of the new regime, when compared to what we have presently, will be more important because of the arrangements that are being set up. I believe that these areas need to be opened up to the public. Expertise should not be excluded. It is essential for public trust and confidence in the police that every penny of the policing pound is considered by those charged with inspecting and fostering improvement. That is why I think that the Government should reinsert full rights of inspection for HMIC and the ability of the local policing body and panel to call in inspectors on a regular basis. I shall briefly say something about the idea that the panel should have to pay the cost of the inspections. That is a tremendous disincentive to having inspections. I could not help thinking that if existing police authorities had to pay for inspections they would have definitely seized on that as a reason not to be inspected, particularly when it is those inspections that justify the present abolition of police authorities. Slightly at a tangent, I mention that in those last inspections of police authorities—there have been 22 in the past few months—not one authority failed an Audit Commission or HMIC inspection and more than 97 per cent of HMIC’s 110 individual assessment scores for police authorities’ performance were excellent, good or adequate, which I think is very reasonable. It is certainly a record of achievement that compares favourably with local government. In fact, police authorities consistently and significantly outperform local authorities in Audit Commission inspections of their use of resources. I do not feel that inspections should have to be paid for in this way by those who are being inspected—hence my Amendment 238 to delete this provision. In relation to police authorities’ financial management, the inspectorate’s report stated: "““Over the last ten years, forces and authorities have delivered efficiency improvements to meet Government targets. Between 2004 and 2008, forces and authorities declared just over £1.5 billion of efficiency improvements against a target of just over £1 billion””." I am sure we would want such efficiency improvements to continue into the new regime. Indeed, the public would expect commissioners on £120,000 or more a year to be driving and delivering even greater efficiencies than their predecessor police authorities. I therefore feel that the public would want the inspectorate to give them the relevant comparative information rather than leave it to the media to report, or not, as they see fit. For all these reasons, it seems to me that there should be regular inspections of commissioners and of panels. I see no reason why there should not be. I beg to move.