Clause 5 - Regulation of equipment
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
3:45 pm
Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 5, line 48, after 'vehicles', insert—
'(aa) batons, CS spray devices and other items used for public order control'.
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 79, in page 6, line 1, at end insert—
'(c) information and communication equipment.'.
Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
Under the clause, the Secretary of State can make regulations for the use of equipment in order to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of
police forces. As we know, he must consult the police chiefs and police authority groups, and have any regulations approved by Parliament. However, the current clause stipulates only vehicles and protective clothing as equipment. I suppose it is slightly odd for the Liberal Democrats to argue for more centralised control, but I shall force myself to do it. We would like to pinpoint the equipment that might be the subject of the Secretary of State's rules and regulations, not to impose uniformity of approach, but, in terms of the devices, to make an argument for some sort of national standard, whether we are talking about the dimensions of a baton or CS sprays—pepper sprays have been mentioned. Such things are either safe or are they are not.
Our amendment may not be accurately worded, but I should like the Minister to take the spirit of our points on board. The clause could quite genuinely work towards the efficiency and effectiveness of the police force by setting standards for the sort of items that might be used for public order control. The amendment is intended to make the clause more specific, and force the Secretary of State to consult relevant groups and obtain the backing of Parliament before making regulations relating to defensive weapons, on which so much relies. Our final point is that we want the police to have absolute faith in the equipment that they use.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
The amendment is just another example of Liberal Democrat double-speak. Earlier amendments suggested that things should be left to local police authorities, but this amendment would extend national standards to include extra devices; the list could be further added to.
Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I thought that I had explained why there appeared to be an inconsistency—I made a joke against us about that. I am going on holiday and will travel on an aeroplane on Monday, so I am certainly pleased that national standards will be applied. For much equipment, it makes sense to have approved national standards; for example, it gives a sense of certainty on what can be used for crowd control. When one considers crowd control in different parts of the country and in different circumstances, an awful lot can be said for having consistent standards.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Amendment No. 79 is probing because I am perplexed by one aspect of the clause, which will replace subsections (2) and (3) of section 53 of the 1996 Act. Other hon. Members might have discovered, as I did, that those subsections did not exist in 1996, but were added in 1997. Importantly, section 131(2) of the Police Act 1997 states:
''The Secretary of State shall consult the Police Information Technology Organisation before making regulations under this section relating to information technology.''
I realise that things have moved on, and that we now have Airwave. I have already debated that with the Minister, who has answered my outstanding parliamentary questions, for which I am grateful. The roll-out of Airwave is proving extremely problematic and is causing several forces immense concern and cost, which is deflecting them from fighting crime and from using Airwave in that fight.
New subsection (2C) in clause 5 specifies that
'' 'equipment' includes—(a) vehicles; and (b) headgear and protective and other clothing.''
The hon. Lady's amendment would add further items. The effect of the clause will be to remove information and communications equipment from regulatory powers. It is perfectly valid to want regulatory powers relating to equipment, and the Government have adopted that position, but one either specifies things or one does not. Bill after Bill produces the same debate. As with any list, something is always left off, but it is odd that in producing such a small list of an (a) and a (b), information and communications equipment has disappeared from new subsections (2) and (3) of the twice-amended section 53 of the 1996 Act.
Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)
Perhaps a possible explanation is that by ring-fencing £500 million the Government have already stuffed the mouths of police authorities with gold to force them to accept Airwave. Regulations are not required, because money has been used.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
That is of course a possible conclusion to draw from such an omission. As I said, the amendment is only exploratory at this stage because I am puzzled about the clause. I came equipped with a catalogue of Airwave problems, but I shall not detain the Committee by going through it. The Minister realises that we have a serious problem in rolling out Airwave, which illustrates that a Government of any complexion should not get too involved in technical arrangements. It might have been better to have simply specified Airwave and left it entirely to the forces rather than the Government getting involved in it. However, that is a slightly separate matter. The issue is whether we have an exhaustive list and, if we do, why information and communication equipment is not on it. I look forward to the Minister's explanation, which will probably be perfectly reasonable.
Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)
I am pleased that the two amendments have come so swiftly after the intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), because I get to make my speech about lawyers. In summary, a large part of my response will be that I am advised that the wording is necessary in order to cover areas where there might have been doubt. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.
The subsection does not seek to provide a comprehensive list of categories of equipment that fall within the ambit of the regulation-making power. The clause instead relies on the common construction of the term ''equipment'', but I am advised that it is necessary to identify items that are not immediately obvious as being equipment. When we talk about items issued for public order control, we could be referring to anything from side-handled batons, handcuffs and CS sprays to riot shields and tear gas. It is the view of those who advise Ministers on the drafting of legislation that such items would conventionally spring to mind when talking about
equipment used by the police and, therefore, would be covered by the word ''equipment.''
Information and communication equipment is even more obviously equipment. Indeed, the wording of amendment No. 79 contains the word ''equipment.'' Radios, command and control suites and IT systems are all clearly equipment. Therefore, there is no need to specify them in the provision. In moving an amendment similar to amendment No. 79 in another place, the noble Lord Dixon-Smith was quite right when he said that
''in reality the word ''equipment'' is probably sufficient. Once one begins to create a list, it can go on ad nauseam.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 169.]
However, when the drafting of the clause was considered in detail, the question was raised as to whether issues such as vehicles, headgear and protective clothing, for example, would spring readily to mind as police equipment, even though they are pieces of equipment that the police use in their day-to-day work. Therefore, they are specifically mentioned to avoid any argument as to whether they are clothing or means of transport rather than equipment. They are also items for which safety or public recognition implications could mean that it would be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness that all forces use the same items of equipment.
I hope that the Committee will accept the explanation in the same way that I did when I was advised on the appropriate way of wording the clause by those who advise Ministers on the proper drafting of legislation.
Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)
Speaking as a lawyer, I wonder if the provision would not be even clearer if the words ''for the avoidance of doubt'' were inserted in the new subsection. Otherwise, I fear that the same arguments of restrictive interpretation might apply.
Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. There are points at which Ministers of all Administrations come to rely on legal advice and the drafting advice of parliamentary counsel.
Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)
That may be. However, in the light of the debate, I shall discuss the matter again with my officials and advisers to ensure that we have the drafting absolutely right. I believe that there is common intent across the parties in the Committee about what the clause is intended to achieve. If we feel that it is necessary to bring forward any clarification on Report of the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend and by Opposition Members, we will do so. If not, I hope that the Committee will accept that we have drafted the measure with the best intent and on the best advice available to us.
Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the Minister for his comments and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
In the light of the Minister's characteristically helpful and constructive response
on the amendments, I hope that he and his officials, when reconsidering the clause, will also take account of the significant views of the Association of Police Authorities. The association told my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me that it is concerned that, with the bulk of police authority budgets already being spent on police and support staff pay—and also police pensions—any statutory requirement on authorities and forces to purchase or use particular equipment or adopt particular practices will mean even less scope to allocate resources to tackle local priorities.
The Minister will be aware from the many debates that he and I have had with others in the Home Office ministerial and shadow ministerial teams that we are always referring to the huge differences between what an inner-city police force in London, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham might need and what rural Cumbria or Surrey might need. I share the concern expressed to us by the Association of Police Authorities that the provision should not be too prescriptive.
I accept what the Minister said when he quoted Lord Dixon-Smith saying that a list can go on ad nauseam. My noble Friend was absolutely right. I also accept the helpful suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) that a general phrase, such as ''for the avoidance of doubt'' might be an improvement. The Minister was helpful in agreeing to consider that again. However, I hope that he will carefully consider the wider context and whether the clause is too prescriptive and goes too far towards micro-management. Perhaps the Government will reconsider the whole matter before Report.
Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)
I support what my hon. Friend said. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently considered the Airwave project and questioned the permanent secretary to the Home Office. One of the conclusions of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee was that if local forces had been able to procure their equipment locally instead of having a national system, we would have saved about £300 million. The Home Office's argument was that Airwave, as a national system, brought additional benefits, although the Public Accounts Committee, which is an all-party Committee, was not entirely convinced. That is a good illustration of my hon. Friend's point that being over-prescriptive with police authorities and forces when acquiring equipment sometimes costs a lot of money and does not allow police authorities to be responsive to the specific needs of their areas.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
My hon. Friend brings to the Committee his great experience of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am grateful to him. Does he agree that in the light of that Committee's findings, it might be wiser to leave things as they are in section 53 of the Police Act 1996? The Association of Police Authorities has said that at present the Home Secretary has the power to require only that equipment used for police purposes satisfies certain design and performance requirements.
Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many police authorities were reluctant to take Airwave and did so only because they were given the money and told to spend it on that and nothing else.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
Is it not pretty fundamental that in a small country such as the United Kingdom, individual forces need to talk to one another? Having a common communication system is sensible, as the Defence Committee recognised in its inquiry into home defence to which my right hon. Friend the Minister gave evidence yesterday.
Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)
The experience of both the military and the police with national communication systems has not been good. Lancashire police force, which neighbours my force in Cheshire, had loads of problems using Airwave. Greater Manchester police hope to have the communication system up and running in time for the Commonwealth games—it is one of the Government's targets—but the system is not yet operating. The equipment has many problems.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but would he not agree that it makes sense to have a communication system that is common to each constabulary, because they have to talk to one another?
Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, although there are several different mobile phone companies, one can still call different mobile phones. Indeed, many police officers now carry mobile phones because they find them more effective than their existing radio systems or the Airwave system. I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath about being overly prescriptive in stating what equipment must be used by police forces in England and Wales.
Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)
I hope that I can allay the Committee's concerns. The ability to standardise should not be equated with particular types of procurement. There are some dilemmas, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham is right.
This is one of those weeks. Yesterday I was up in front of the Defence Committee dealing with issues such as counter-terrorism, civil contingency and so forth. That Committee had been highly critical of the way in which the Government previously allowed fire authorities to procure radio systems on a different basis to that of the police. It is not for me to anticipate what the Defence Committee will say in its report, but I think that it will welcome the fact that the decision has been revisited in the light of the events of 11 September.
There are issues on which, even within the House and the Select Committee system, people look to the Government to deal with standardisation where appropriate. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has a great interest in and considerable knowledge of information technology-related issues in the police service. He resisted the temptation to get into a big discussion about Airwave, and I will do the same. However, I predict that when—in the Select Committee or elsewhere—we examine the roll-out of Airwave, we will learn from the forces with the earliest experience of implementation plans that
they were left to individual police forces to develop. There is a difference between forces that had a single contractual approach to everything—from handsets to control centres to the system itself—and those that decided to buy the handsets separately and have a separate control centre contract and the Airwave system. There are lessons to be learned, but I will not go too far down that line.
The intention of the clause has been broadly welcomed. The Association of Chief Police Officers advocated a more corporate approach in the document that it published in September. It states that in
''moving from a fragmented legacy (old systems) environment which inhibits significant structural change to a unified national Police information systems environment which meets the needs of Citizens, the Service, operational staff and Government . . . will yield very significant operational and quality of service benefits.''
In a 1998 report on officer safety, HMIC said:
''Of concern is the lack of consultation in some instances between forces and other agencies when determining the most suitable officer safety equipment. There are cases where the in-depth, expert research carried out by the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) appears not to have been given due weight and preference has been afforded to the advice from what could best be described as ''well-meaning overnight experts''.''
We can all take the warnings that have been reasonably raised that neither public nor private sector procurements are without fault. That should not, however, deflect us from the central aim of the measure, which is to bring about an appropriate degree of standardisation where it is necessary to promote the general efficiency and effectiveness of the police forces maintained for England and Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.