Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 3, line 33, after 'time', insert

'subject to giving at least eight weeks prior notice to the relevant police force, service or squad and the inspectors of constabulary'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 113, in page 4, line 3, after 'time', insert

'subject to giving at least eight weeks prior notice to the relevant police service and the inspectors of constabulary'.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Unlike those that we debated before lunch, amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are not merely probing amendments. They deal with important matters of substance. Opposition and Labour Members agree that inspectors of constabulary should have powers to carry out inspections. We do not have a problem with the general principle of the clause. Indeed, the arrangements for inspectors of constabulary have been well established for many years. However, given the Government's proposed extension of the powers under the Police Act 1996, we want scope for those who are to be inspected to receive warning.

We do not want a force to be taken completely by surprise. It has not been the tradition of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for it to behave like an emergency hit squad and carry out dawn raids. For many generations, this country has had a high standard of policing. I am sure that that is agreed throughout the House, as is the fact that HMIC has a high status. Those who have held office in the inspectorate have been people of exceptionally high calibre. I have dealt with them through my work as a barrister for many years in the midlands and subsequently my work as a Member of Parliament, and I pay tribute to their work.

We must be aware that police forces have heavy commitments. The same applies in spades to people who undertake the important work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. I recently had a meeting with the director of NCS, Bill Hughes, so I am especially up to date with its work. I hope to visit NCIS soon. It seems entirely appropriate that, if bodies with important responsibilities are to be inspected, they should have an opportunity to prepare for that inspection.

I wish to draw a parallel with that from another area of public life. If a school is to be on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection, the head teacher and governing body are given several weeks' notice of that

inspection. They are told when the inspection will take place and they have an opportunity to prepare for it. The inspection will be of more value if there has been an opportunity to prepare the ground to ensure that the inspectors see what they need to see. A warning will not enable a force to hide anything, but will give the inspectors an opportunity to do their job properly. The Minister may say that, as a matter of practice, the inspectors will give warning of an inspection. That has been so in the past, so why should such a provision not be outlined in the Bill?

During our researches for the Committee stage of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) came across an interesting document from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, Sir David O'Dowd CBE, QPM, CIMgt. In the foreword to his report of March 2001, he says:

''HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has a statutory role to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces; recently, our remit was extended to encompass the inspection of best value reviews''.

We may return to the question of whether ''best value reviews'' actually leads to the proper and natural meaning of best value in the English language later in our proceedings. Sir David O'Dowd's most crucial point comes in the last subclause of his sentence:

''and from April 2001 we have a new role—the inspection of local or basic command units (BCUs).''

That is interesting. When we debate some of the most crucial divisions between the Government and the Opposition parties on the Bill we shall return to whether the Government's centralising tendency has gone too far, and they are trying to micro-manage down to the basic command unit level.

Interestingly, there has been a recent change of practice, which I understand did not require statutory authority. HMIC is going to go down to the basic command unit level. If that is the case, it reinforces our view that there must be a safeguard in terms of timing. Inspections must be detailed and accurate, and a force on the receiving end of an inspection should have prior warning.

I will listen with interest to the Minister's response. The amendments have been tabled in a constructively critical spirit because there are serious issues to be discussed.

Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham East, Labour)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He used the example of Ofsted, which informs the head teacher and governing body of a school of an inspection. Why has he not included the police authority in his amendments? That would be the logical extension. I am not encouraging him to go down that route because I do not agree with his argument, but why did he not include it in his basket of people who should be informed?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Lady makes a good and characteristically helpful point. We did not include the police authority because, knowing how police forces work, we felt that the minute that the force was told, the authority would be informed, but I entirely accept the spirit of her comments. We would be happy if the Government said, ''We are quite happy with the spirit

of the amendment, and will introduce a Government amendment that includes police authorities''. There is no intention to leave them out, but from my understanding of the various police forces with which I have dealt, both as a parliamentarian and previously, whenever a force is informed, the first thing that the chief constable does is to ring up the chairman of the police authority. The hon. Lady is quite right; we could have included police authorities. I hope that I have covered the serious issues in sufficient depth and I will listen with interest to the Minister's response.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I rise briefly to support the amendments introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and to draw the Committee's attention once again to the evidence of Sir David Phillips, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Select Committee, which the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) will remember. Throughout the Bill, but especially in this clause, there is an overemphasis by the Government on basic command units. He made the point that those units are not complete entities within a police force. They rely on much central revision within a police force. Indeed, when he was asked by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron):

''Is there too much stress on BCUs in what the Government is trying to do in the Bill?''

Sir David replied:

''I have suggested to them that perhaps there is. The entity that they need to concentrate on is the police force because essentially BCUs are not independent and the command of the entire police force is with the chief constable.''

Why does the Minister think that the Home Office is justified in sending an inspection team to a basic command unit? What would that do to undermine the authority of the chief constable of the force if, for example, he did not think that such an action was correct?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I shall reinforce the good point that my hon. Friend is making. He will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire discovered in the report by Sir David O'Dowd that the change to the inspection of basic command units was announced before the Home Secretary said anything about it and before the Bill becomes law—of course, we do not know the form in which it will become law. We are discussing a significant change. We want to know whether the chief inspector of constabulary is jumping the gun, as I suggested this morning that the Metropolitan police might have done.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Obviously, this point foreshadows a later debate that we shall have. I wonder how the divisional superintendent in Macclesfield, which is the police division that covers most of my constituency, would react to an inspection team coming in although the chief constable were not wholly happy with that. To whom would she consider that her line of command applied: the Home Office, the inspection team or the chief constable? There is a real danger that if the

Government go underneath the chief constable's line of command, they will undermine chief constables' responsibilities.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

On this occasion, Opposition Members may have misunderstood the current position. The amendment does not have particular merit.

Let us be clear about the current position. As a consequence of the changes that were announced some time ago, a programme of basic command unit inspections is well under way. That complements the inspections of police forces as a whole. I would have to get back to the Committee on the exact number of inspections, but more than 40 have been undertaken and the results have been published. Inspections have been undertaken in Lambeth and Bristol. The inspections are routine and notification of them is given in advance on the same basis as inspections of forces. In recent years, the inspectorate has developed thematic inspections on several issues to examine how similar issues are treated throughout different police forces.

Current legislation does not allow the Secretary of State to request the inspection of a force in response to a specific circumstance or worry. I cannot think of a reason why that should be limited to occurring only after an eight-week wait. For example, let us say that the inspectorate carried out an inspection of a basic command unit within a force and discovered that the chief superintendent—that is likely to be the rank—was unable to deliver an effective policing service because of a central direction that came from constabulary headquarters. The chief inspector might report that to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary would like to be able to say, ''You had better have a look at this particular issue.'' He would not necessarily want an inspection of the whole force's activities, which is the basis of the current HMIC programme. I cannot understand what anybody would gain by responding to such circumstances by saying, ''But we will have to wait eight weeks to deal with it.'' That would be an artificial limitation.

None of that takes away from the fact that everybody accepts that people would normally be notified in advance of routine force-wide or BCU inspections. Reference was made to Ofsted. However, we would limit flexibility if we accepted the amendment.

I shall respond to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). In the police, there is much debate about how much responsibility should be delegated or devolved to BCUs. There are wide variations in the levels of financial responsibility that have been devolved. This is a complex issue, because there can be high levels of devolution in a police force area where there is a strong central framework setting out the aims, objectives and methods of policing, but, on the other hand, in another area, devolution can allow a wide variety of policing methods. Therefore, this matter is not simply about saying, ''We either delegate, or we do not.''

In the police reform White Paper, we set out proposals to take a more structured approach to examining the evidence about which levels of devolution and delegation produce the best policing results. Those proposals are currently being taken forward.

Most people in policing recognise that the basic command unit is a key operational part of a force, as its name suggests. There is a value in being able to look at the work of a BCU to see how effectively it is operating, as part of the HMIC inspection programme.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Does the Minister accept that most of the people in the police service who have commented on the legislation have said that the Government are wrong to try to inspect and interfere down at the level of BCU? They might accept that the BCU is a basic command unit—as the name states—but most of them do not accept the Government's argument about this matter.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. The amendment is about giving notice of inspections, rather than the principle of inspections. There will be an opportunity to debate that principle in the clause stand part debate, but I am sure that the Minister will have wanted me to make that point, before he gets back on his feet.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

We should, perhaps, return to that matter in the clause stand part debate. However, I do not agree with what has been said about it.

The amendment addresses the part of the clause that allows the Secretary of State to require an inspection by HMIC. With regard to that, currently there is flexibility, and I cannot see why we should artificially impose a period of eight weeks.

Practical issues might arise. The HMIC might say that all of its resources are committed and that it does not have sufficient people on the ground to conduct an inspection. That sort of thing would be worked through in practice. There will be circumstances in which there is no need to send somebody in quickly, and it is clear that it is desirable to give notice, where it is appropriate to do so. However, the amendment proposes an artificial restriction.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Minister said that, under the current system, forces that are to be inspected are routinely notified in advance. How much notice is routinely given?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that. However, I know that it is a considerable period of time because, before the end of a year, I, as the Minister responsible for such matters, receive the HMIC programme for the following 12 months. That indicates the forces and the BCUs that are to be inspected, and the subjects of the thematic inspections. Indeed, discussion has already taken place about the subjects of the thematic inspections for 2003. Therefore, a considerable period of advance notice is given to forces that are to undergo the routine HMIC inspections.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response because it appears that he has confirmed that he is notified well in advance—far more than eight

weeks in advance—and one assumes that police forces and BCUs are also notified well in advance. We chose a period of eight weeks for the amendment because we thought that that was a realistic minimum period and that, in practice, notice might be given as far as three or even six months in advance. I have no doubt that the Minister will write to me and other Committee members about that, when he has received more detailed information.

HMIC are giving such advance notice under the current system. However, in clause 3, the Government are introducing a new power, which we would say is very much part of their centralising agenda. The argument seems to be that the Secretary of State must have this power in case he is especially concerned about a BCU or a force. The Secretary of State must be able to demand and insist on an inspection. At the level of what we would call attempting to micro-manage, it is even more important that the force on the receiving end should have at the very least eight weeks' notice, or perhaps more, although that is what we have set out as a minimum.

If, in some cases, current practice is to give far more than eight weeks' notice, there can be no reason why that period should not be put in the Bill. Surely if a Secretary of State is demanding that, there is every extra reason why our amendment should be accepted. In light of the fact that we think that this is an important matter, I propose to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

It is worth drawing the Committee's attention to the inspectorate's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. It said:

''There is particular support for the widening of the powers of the Secretary of State to require specific inspections. This fits comfortably with HMIC's current practice under risk assessment of targeting our efforts rather than scrutinising the whole of a force.''

It is probably of advantage to the Committee to know that the inspectorate, which is independent of Government, supports the provision.

We discussed, primarily in relation to amendments Nos. 112 and 113, whether there should be a time delay before an inspection takes place, and I shall not go over that again. The other part of the clause allows the inspection required to focus on a particular aspect of the police force. That is because the power to

require an inspection is currently linked to wider powers for dealing with the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Clearly, there is a case for considering a particular aspect of a force's activity.

There is little in the Bill specifically about BCUs. There is, as I say, a debate in policing about the degree of delegation. We believe that the BCU is an important part of the command structure of the police service. The responsibilities of chief superintendents, superintendents or commanders who are in charge of BCUs are great, and we wish to strengthen support for them. As we have set out in the White Paper, we are carefully considering how we can establish the most effective levels of devolution to BCUs. There is debate on those issues within the police service. We are convinced that BCUs must be strong and capable, although they must be so within the overall framework set by the force.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

We accept what the Minister said about the BCU being a crucial part of how police forces operate. However, we have a huge concern, to which we will return in other debates. I do not want to labour the point now but it is important to put it on the record in the clause 3 stand part debate, given what the Minister has just said. We think that there is a grave misunderstanding on the part of the Government that the man from Whitehall knows best—that a future Home Secretary will be better able to understand what should happen within a BCU—and that his demanding inspections down to BCU level is part and parcel of a huge mistake in the Government's thinking. It is part of Whitehall's attempt to micro-manage. My noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith said when he successfully introduced amendments to the Bill in another place that his experience during many years of public life led him to the conclusion that the man from Whitehall usually does not know best. I respectfully agree with him. It is unwise for the Government to start thinking it sensible to take powers to intervene down to BCU level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton rightly said on amendments Nos. 112 and 113, we are greatly concerned that the Government are fundamentally wrong.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Is it not the case that those who carry out inspections are not men from Whitehall but former senior officers, many of whom have held chief constable rank or the equivalent? We are not talking about civil servants from the Home Office, but those—certainly those whom I have met—with a lot of experience in operational policing.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right, and in the previous debate I paid tribute to the people who run and work for HMIC. However, the Government are starting a new trend of the Home Secretary demanding inspection. The Minister made that clear when he responded to amendments Nos. 112 and 113. Never before has there been a power for a Home Secretary to demand an inspection, which is what I meant when I spoke of micro-management from Whitehall. If the matter were left, as it has been in the past, to HMIC, that would be different. The hon.

Gentleman needs to focus on the change that the Government are making in clause 3.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a cause for concern over the BCU it will extend through the police force that manages the division? The inspections should therefore remain at police force level because it will reveal systematic problems with the police force.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. We have taken that very stance because to start cherry picking the BCUs would lead to all kinds of problems. As my hon. Friend rightly says, if there is a problem with a BCU it could be a symptom of a wider malaise, and the people best able to judge that are the senior people to whom the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) referred—those who have been appointed to HMIC. With the greatest respect to the many distinguished holders of the office of Home Secretary, the Home Secretary, of whichever party, is not best placed to make that judgment. We are worried that the traditional tripartite relationship of policing in this country could suffer if a Home Secretary undermined independent judgment.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

I find it difficult to understand in which circumstances the Home Secretary could undermine the inspection process. An inspection will not be carried out by the Home Secretary, or by any other politician, but by senior police officers and the inspectorate. How could we arrive at a situation in which a Home Secretary might undermine the inspection?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I do not think that what we are seeking to do here would in any sense undermine inspection. We do not want to repeat the debate that we have just had on amendments Nos. 112 and 113, but the Government must justify the change.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman started his intervention by talking about the ability to inspect particular parts of police forces, and I set out the logic behind that. He then shifted his argument and said that the Secretary of State should not have the ability to require an inspection to take place, so it is reasonable to ask why the previous Conservative Administration introduced such a power in the 1966 Act.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The difference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, is that something might need to happen for a force as a whole, but at basic command unit level that is a step too far.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

Many forces have at least four or five basic command units, including a couple of large urban areas and a number of rural areas. If a problem becomes apparent in only one urban area, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he prefers the previous powers, which would require every aspect of the entire force to be involved. The clause allows us to look at where the problem is, which is sensible.

This goes further than my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham suggests, because in practice BCU inspections are conducted largely by acting BCU commanders working under the supervision of the

inspectorate. They are the people who, on either side of their secondment to the inspectorate, actually do the job. Such peer inspection is valued in the police service.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

That was a long intervention—almost a speech. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the Minister, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. I shall not repeat them, because the point has been sufficiently made. We shall not call for a Division on clause stand part, because we called for one on amendment No. 112, which was the really serious issue. I am prepared to drop the matter at this stage, but I wanted to flag it up because it will be relevant to debates on other clauses. We are seriously concerned about attempts to micro-manage, and this seems to be yet another example of the Government getting it wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.