Clause 77 - Police authorities to produce three-year strategy plans
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
10:30 am

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 70, leave out line 36 and insert

'In considering the draft plan, the police authority'.

The position of the police authority is absolutely crucial throughout the Bill, and the amendment emphasises the role that we think the police authority should play. The clause is clear that the police authority will be responsible for issuing the three-year strategy plan. Naturally, the chief officer will produce a draft and must be mindful of local opinion during that process. We want to ensure that the police authority makes contact with the local community. That is its legitimate role and such input is an important part of the tripartite system that we have discussed so much.

The Bill confuses the roles of the police authority and the chief officer in many ways. The amendment would reinforce with whom we believe the consultation should occur and the police authority's role, rather than that of the chief officer.

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

The Government took the line in another place that the amendment adds nothing to existing arrangements. Under section 96 of the Police Act 1996, consultation with local people on policing in their area is done by the police authority in conjunction with the chief constable. We expect the same arrangements to be used—and improved, if necessary—when developing the three-year plans. Most people believe that the consultation system works satisfactorily for the one-year plans.

The amendment would bring in the police authority's assessment of consultations at a very late stage—after the chief officer had produced the draft plan. At the moment, the arrangements in place in most local areas are that those views are

fed into the draft plan while it is being prepared by the police authority in conjunction with the chief officer, which is a sensible arrangement. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment because it does not helpfully add to the arrangements that have been in place since 1996.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

That argument is a matter of opinion, but as future amendments require further debate and we will return to the issue, I shall withdraw the amendment. I am sure that the Minister has been involved in compiling many local authority plans and knows that there is interaction at an early stage. When draft plans are being produced right across the range of services in my local authority, councillors go out and consult the local authority early in the plan's preparation. That would be good practice for a three-year strategy plan. The matter gains significance with the additional time in the plan. I ask the Minister to give the matter further consideration, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 71, line 6, leave out from first 'plan' to the end of line.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald, Conservative)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 70, in page 71, line 12, at end insert—

'(6A) Any guidance, or any modified or revised guidance, issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) above shall be issued no later than 30th June in the year preceding the beginning of the relevant three year period to which it applies.'.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

We discussed this subject at length earlier in the Bill when we debated part 1, which related to the appropriate extent of the Home Secretary's powers and how far he or she should be able to go in directing or cajoling police authorities or individual chief officers. Proposed new subsection (6)(a) requires the Secretary of State to:

''issue guidance to police authorities and chief officers of police as to the matters to be contained in any three-year strategy plan''.

We do not object to the idea of the Secretary of State issuing guidance, and it is sensible that police authorities and chief constables are made aware of national priorities and good practice. It is also appropriate for the Secretary of State to say, ''Given the changes in technology, you should be looking at this,'' or, ''Given this experience and training, you should be looking at that.'' That is entirely sensible.

The form of words that we object to is:

''and as to the form to be taken by any such plan'',

which we believe to be unnecessarily over-proscriptive. If the Secretary of State can issue guidance, he or she has other levers to pull elsewhere in the Bill or in existing legislation—throughout the Police Act 1996, for example. Why is it necessary to include those words?

I am sure that the Secretary of State could achieve what was required without inclusion of the words in question. As drafted, the new subsection goes too far in restricting the ability of the police authority or chief constable to respond to local conditions. Those bodies should be able to understand the guidance from the Home Secretary, to take full account of it and include it in their plans, but nevertheless produce a plan that reflects the local community and its needs.

The form set out by the Secretary of State may be too much of a straitjacket, making it difficult for the Secretary of State's wishes to be delivered at local level because the form is not applicable to the area in question. The form would be very different for London and for Sussex or other shire counties. We oppose such unnecessary inflexibility.

Amendment No. 70 concerns timing. We seek to ensure that the Secretary of State gives police authorities and chief constables adequate time to draw up a plan that works and meets the Secretary of State's own requirements. The Minister may argue that 30 June is the wrong date and we may disagree about the exact date, but we believe that November—as is currently proposed—is a little late.

Those of us who have been in local government—I served for six years as leader of a district council and I am sure that other Members of the Committee have council experience—will know that local authority officers complain that they are given insufficient time to respond to Government circulars, diktats and requirements. They need to be given their budgets in time. They have to respond in a haphazard and unco-ordinated way to meet deadlines for the beginning of the financial year. Amendment No. 70 is intended to install good practice—from the Minister's point of view, to ensure that the Secretary of State's wishes and guidance are properly taken into account. If the guidance comes out late in the year, that will hinder the police authority and the chief constable from responding to it in a positive and constructive way.

These are sensible amendments, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.

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

Amendment No. 69 is about form rather than substance. We want to enable the Secretary of State to say, for example, that it is not adequate to have one copy of the plan that is kept in a locked room in police authority headquarters—although that is not a hugely important point. We want to encourage a proper balance between traditional and modern forms of communication, so that the plans can be made available on the internet, as well as in the form of leaflets and so forth.

There is nothing particularly exceptional about having such wording in legislation of this nature. A best value provision in the Local Government Act 1999 has a different but similar form of words. It states:

''The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the form and content of plans and the manner in which they should be published.''

Therefore, there is nothing sinister about the use of the word ''form'' in subsection (6)(a).

Amendment No. 70 raises a more substantive point. It is important that guidance about the preparation and publication of the three-year plans goes out to the police authorities and the police service. We will soon be into the annual programme of updating the national policing plan, the first of which will be published in the autumn. The national policing forum, which advises the Home Secretary on the plan, met for the first time on 24 June, and there was a good discussion about what would be valuable to have in the national policing plan in future years. That plan will develop incrementally, and it will become the document to which police authorities will be able to refer from year to year, when they draw up their one-year or three-year plans.

I acknowledge the point that if there is any additional guidance ahead of that, it should go out in good time. For reasons that we discussed in earlier debates, it will not always be appropriate to tie ourselves to a specific calendar date, but I accept the point that Governments have a responsibility to ensure that such advice is put out in good time, so that those who are meant to act on it can do so.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his constructive response. On the words in the Bill to which amendment. No. 69 refers, I accept that his intentions are good. We must ensure that police authorities do not keep a single copy of their plan in a locked room, and in a safe with a combination that is difficult to crack. However, we must examine what the words that are employed in legislation could be used to achieve. I submit that the words that amendment No. 69 seeks to delete can be used to achieve a different purpose from that which has been described, but that is not a particularly important point, so I will not pursue it.

On the issue of time for guidance, it is important that the Minister said what he said, and that those comments have been put on the record. He recognised the need to allow proper time. In the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 71, leave out lines 20 to 22.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald, Conservative)

With this it will also be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 72, in page 71, leave out lines 32 to 41.

No. 102, in page 71, line 33, at end insert 'in preparing'.

No. 103, in page 71, line 37, leave out

'may not be consistent with'

and insert

'the police authority in question has not taken into account'.

No. 104, in page 71, line 37, leave out

'may not be consistent with'

and insert

'has not had regard to'.

No. 105, in page 71, line 40, leave out

'is in fact so inconsistent'

and insert

'did in fact fail to have regard to the relevant National Policing Plans'.

No. 73, in page 71, line 42, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 2 on page 72.

No. 74, in page 72, leave out lines 14 to 21.

No. 75, in page 72, leave out lines 22 to 24.

No. 107, in clause 82, page 76, line 28, leave out 'include' and insert 'take account of'.

No. 108, in page 76, line 34, leave out

'so as to include in it a'

and insert

'to take account within the'.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

This group of amendments again raises the issue of the proper powers of the Home Secretary vis-à-vis the police authority and the chief officer. It returns us to the discussion about the appropriate weight on each leg of the tripod. I make no apology for raising that issue here, and for tabling these amendments.

I return to the point that I made in our discussion of the previous amendments: this Bill and earlier legislation give the Home Secretary many levers to pull, and these amendments have been tabled because we object to some of those powers—they are a lever too far. We particularly object to the powers in clause 82.

The amendments would remove the requirement for the police authority to send a copy of the plan to the Home Secretary for amendment—it would have to send the plan, but not for amendment.

When the matter was discussed in the Lords, Lord Rooker was keen to emphasise that in his view the clause does not give the Home Secretary a power of veto over the three-year plan. However, that is a matter of interpretation, and we believe that there is a possibility that that might be concluded from the drafting of the Bill.

Having read the Lords Hansard carefully, we do not believe that Lord Rooker made a persuasive case for the Home Secretary to have the power to call in draft plans to be checked, presumably by his officials, and to make comments to the authority if he or his officials are not happy with a plan. I do not understand why the Home Secretary feels that he needs those powers. There is no evidence that police authorities will not have regard to the national plan in developing their three-year plan. There are many other checks on police authorities. The Home Secretary issues guidance, and

there is HMIC and a police standards unit. There is a range of other ways of ensuring that police authorities and chief constables do their duty properly, without such micro-management, poring over plans in great detail and having Home Office officials checking them and sending back comments as though they were recalcitrant pupils who need to be ticked off by the teacher, which is how the clause reads. In practical terms, a point might also be made about whether Home Office officials in Queen Anne's gate are in a better position to know what is best for micro-managing a police authority or force elsewhere in the country than are people who live, work and regularly deal with police matters in that area.

I am at a loss to understand why the Home Secretary feels that the powers are appropriate. I hope that he will explain why he feels that they are and that he will accept that the provisions are in some ways offensive to police authorities, according to comments that I received from the Association of Police Authorities. They do not believe that the proposal will enhance their role or that it is innovating. On the contrary, they believe that it will undermine their role in a way that suggests that they are not to be trusted. The Minister may not like what I am saying, but he will have to deal with the APA's view. I urge him to give further consideration to the provisions and to consider whether they are necessary or may in fact unnecessarily damage the tripartite arrangement.

We are happy to endorse Conservative Members' amendments. I shall return if necessary to the subsequent group of amendments, but the key point relates to arrangements in the tripartite structure and the erosion of the police authorities' powers.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

As the Committee will have noticed, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I have added our names to several amendments in the group of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. We have also tabled a cluster of amendments, Nos. 102 to 105, which are in our names only. The distinction is best described by saying that amendments Nos. 71 and 72 take a bludgeon to the clause, whereas Nos. 102 to 105 take a scalpel to it. However, the effect, and the concern, is the same. The concern is so strong that, depending on the debate and the Minister's response, I am minded to press amendment No. 102 to a Division.

The group stands together. Amendments Nos. 102 and 103, or, alternatively, Nos. 102 and 104, are necessary to make grammatical sense, and are followed by amendment No. 105. The purpose of the amendments is to retain the police authority's ultimate discretion in setting its three-year strategy. The tripartite arrangement, for which all Committee members have expressed admiration and support throughout proceedings on the Bill, is essential. Like the hon. Member for Lewes, I am concerned that the clause will tilt the balance back towards the Secretary of State. I am slightly puzzled about why the clause is here and not in part 1, which brought together the national policing plan, where it would have fitted much more clearly. However, that is a technical issue.

It seems entirely obvious that it is necessary for authorities to refer to the national plan when drawing

up their three-year strategies. It also seems sensible that, if it is obvious that a police authority has totally and utterly ignored the plan and gone off in completely the wrong direction, there should be some mechanism for saying, ''Hang on, you'd better have another look at this—do you realise that you are one police force acting totally differently from all the rest?'' I accept that the Secretary of State should then at least have the power to consult those listed in subsection (11), to see whether they agree with him that that particular police authority has gone completely away from the national plan.

The distinction that I want to draw, however, is between the wording about guidance in subsection (6) and that in subsection (10). Subsection (6) says that

''it shall be the duty of every police authority and chief officer of police to take account of any guidance under this subsection'',

and I have no difficulties with that wording at all. Where I have a difficulty is with the wording in subsection (10), which states:

''If the Secretary of State considers that there are grounds for thinking that''

the plan

''may not be consistent with any National Policing Plan''.

That takes the wording a stage further.

We are arguing about the meaning of words, but I think that, to most people, the term ''consistent with'' means almost matching, or having a very close similarity. That is, to me, as the hon. Member for Lewes said in a different way, granting to the Secretary of State the power to ensure that his policing plan is adhered to almost to the letter, through the police authorities' three-year strategies, and that is too much of a tilt towards the Secretary of State. Yes, those authorities should have regard to the policing plan or take it into account. We have given the Committee the option, through amendments Nos. 103 and 104, of having the wording ''taken into account'' or ''had regard to''.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, having taken the plan into account, the police authorities should then be able to defy it?

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I certainly believe that a police authority should have the ultimate decision about its three-year strategy. As I made clear, if it seems to the Secretary of State that the police authority has drawn up a strategy that, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, defies the plan substantially—goes off completely in the wrong direction—it would then be acceptable for him to use his power to consult the people listed in subsection (11) about whether they agree with him that that is the case. Even then, however, I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to overrule the contents of that strategy. The tripartite arrangement is so important that the ultimate decision about the content of the plan must lie with the police authority. It is perfectly reasonable to say that it must take account of or have regard to the plan, but we should not use the phrase ''consistent with'', which, to me, implies a much closer identity.

The penultimate line of subsection (10) says:

''he shall, before informing the police authority of his conclusions on whether or not it is in fact so inconsistent, consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (11).''

There is a much more desirable way of explaining that if an authority clearly defies the national policing plan, the Secretary of State can operate according to the legislation. We are now addressing amendment No. 105, by which we seek to insert the words

''did in fact fail to have regard to the relevant National Policing Plan''.

He should not have the powers to make it consistent, but he should have extreme last-resort powers in the eventuality—which I do not envisage—that some police authority and chief constable were complete and utter mavericks and went off in completely the opposite direction to the national plan. In that case, I would be prepared to accept that there should be a fall-back position. I am concerned about the terminology. The word ''consistent'' implies that the Secretary of State could intervene on much more minor aspects of deviation from the plan.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman accepts that the police authority should not be able to defy the national plan, so I presume that he accepts that there should be broad compatibility between the various tiers of police planning. What is the difference between compatibility and consistency?

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The difference is that ''compatibility'' does not appear in the Bill and ''consistency'' appears in our amendment. No one has put forward the word ''compatibility'' so I do not see the relevance of it. We are discussing a grammatical interpretation of individual words. I am concerned, and if there is an alternative form of words to explain the meaning that I am trying to achieve, I will be the first to accept that.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Is not it the point that the police authority and the chief constable in an individual area should—having had regard to guidance—be able to use local flexibility to get to the end that the Home Secretary wishes, but not necessarily by going along a particular road at a particular speed in the particular vehicle that the Home Secretary wants them to use?

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That is a perfectly good analogy of what we are trying to achieve. We come back to the interpretation of words. I believe that the word ''consistent'', which is what we take exception to, implies a very close following of the plan in detail. Therefore, the Secretary of State's powers outlined in the later parts of the clause can be brought into play far too early in the proceedings, and he can effectively dictate what is in the strategy. That is what I am trying to avoid. I simply say that the purpose of the amendments is that the police authority should make the final decisions as to what is in their strategy for the reasons proposed by the hon. Member for Lewes, other than absolutely in extremis when there is complete failure to have regard.

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

We have had a useful debate, which will give me the opportunity to clarify what the clause does.

Let me reiterate our support for the tripartite structure. There have been several references to the

three legs of the tripod in this and other debates. It is worth reminding ourselves that tripods are generally erected in order to support something. In this case, the tripod exists to support effective policing at national and local level throughout England and Wales. The combination of the national policing plan, the local consultation, the local plans and the clauses work to ensure with the partners in the police service—[Interruption.]

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald, Conservative)

Order. Can I ask the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) either to take that device outside, or to switch it off now?

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

The combination of measures is intended to ensure that we promote the most effective policing at local level, and ensure that the combination of forces working effectively with each other at local level produces the most effective policing at national level. That is what the clauses do.

The hon. Member for Lewes asked for examples and I shall give one on which there will be consensus in the Committee. It is highly likely that the national policing plan to be published in the autumn will yet again emphasise the importance of extending the national intelligence model to all forces in England and Wales during the next year or two. If a police authority decided that it was not prepared to make resources available for implementation of that model and said so in its plan, the Home Secretary would have every right to raise the matter. The process is that the Home Secretary would do so after consultation with ACPO and the police authority. There would be a bringing together of the circle because those police service partners were involved in drawing up the national plan and advising the Home Secretary. That is an example of when it would be right for the Home Secretary to say that a police authority's action was simply not consistent with the national policing plan. I suspect that hon. Members would be sympathetic if a force or authority had clearly set itself against measures that had been advocated after Sir David O'Dowd's taskforce reports on the reduction of bureaucracy and red tape in the police service to free up officer time.

The national policing plan will, in addition to best value performance indicator and other indicator targets that we are trying to bring together coherently, give a sense of direction in some of those qualitative areas of work that do not lend themselves easily to numerical targets.

Having explained the role, I turn to the amendments. On consistency with the national plan, there are two arguments. The process involves consultation with police authorities and different elements of the police service. On the policing forum are Victim Support, the Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations, the Evangelical Alliance, the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Chief Education Officers, the Local Government Association and a wide range of partners from outside the police service as well as the core police service advisers. We brought those people in to give a sense of direction to policing

at national level. It would be wrong to say that the Home Secretary should not be able to express a view on what is happening in a specific force.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire expressed the argument more subtly. He said not that there should be no response from the Home Secretary but that the choice of wording is between ''have regard to'' and ''consistent with''. Without becoming too bogged down in the interpretation of individual words and phrases, I simply say that to make a judgment on whether a police authority did or did not have regard to something is a much more subjective assessment for the Secretary of State to make than whether the document produced as a result of whatever process is consistent with the national policing plan. In practice, it would be enormously difficult for the Home Secretary to have a clear view on whether the document in front of him had been through a process of having had regard to the national policing plan. It is relatively straightforward to be able to make a judgment about consistency. That is why we prefer the word ''consistency''.

The final point must be emphasised strongly. At that stage the process stops. There is no further stage at which the Home Secretary can draw in the plan and order it to be rewritten. It is important to understand that. The Home Secretary may tell a police authority, after consulting other organisations, as set out in the Bill, that its plan is not consistent with the national policing plan, but that is where we have let the process stop. There is no further power—despite the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes—to rewrite that plan.

That is a balance between a good, sensible, broad sense of direction for national involvement in the police service in England and Wales and the development of plans consistent with that. However, ultimately, the autonomy that is highly prized by the hon. Gentleman and others on the final content of the plan will lie with the police authority, as it does today. I hope that we have the process correct.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. However, if that is the case, why has he included subsections (10) and (11)? What happens if the Secretary of State believes that the strategy is inconsistent with the national plan and consults the people listed in subsection (11)? If he cannot rewrite the strategy, what is achieved? Assuming those people all agree with him, what does he do? Does he just put a note on the strategy to say that he does not accept it?

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

The reason for including subsections (10) and (11) was to underline the fact that the national policing plan, though produced by the Home Secretary, is produced after consultation with the national policing forum, key members of which are tripartite partners at national level: the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. We thought it advisable that the Secretary of State should consult ACPO and APA before he writes to a police authority to say that he does not like its draft plan or that it is inconsistent. Clearly, for a police authority to know that the Home Secretary had written after consulting police authorities at national level through ACPO and that they shared the view that

there was a serious inconsistency in the plan would have greater force that what might be seen as the opinion of the Secretary of State. The point of the process, even at that stage of intervention, is to bring in the other partners who played a key role in drawing up the national policing plan, in addition to the Secretary of State.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I understand the reason for the consultation. However, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State simply writes to the police authority after the consultation, assuming that it supports his view, and says that he does not believe that the police authority's strategy is consistent with the national plan and that all those consulted agree with him, but that, ultimately, if the police authority wants to stand by its strategy, it does so?

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

That is precisely the point. The Secretary of State relies on the force of the intervention based on his consultation with the other police service partners. He does not rely on an ability to require the plan to be amended in a specific way.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I would like the Minister to deal briefly with one further point. My hon. Friend has drawn out from the Minister who the Secretary of State will consult and what then happens. The Police Federation believes that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to consult the Police Advisory Board and the Police Federation Joint Branch Board, in addition to the people who are listed in subsection (11). Has the Minister considered those suggestions?

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

I cannot imagine that it would usually be advisable to involve the Police Advisory Board. It deals with different matters, such as the non-statutory part of employment conditions in general and other wider issues. The Police Federation is involved, in that as a member of the national policing forum it will have advised the Home Secretary on the national policing plan. Sensibly, the legislation is probably better as it is. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the other two main tri-partite partners and leaves him some discretion.

It is always dangerous for Ministers on their feet to come up with examples but if, for example, the area of concern was that a police authority plan clearly neglected the importance of partnership with other local agencies—the entire Committee agrees that the police service must work in partnership with other groups—it might be appropriate to consult other organisations such as the Local Government Association or the health service before commenting to the police authority on what the expectations are. However, I would not want to give a commitment to the federation, the PAB or any individual members of the national policing forum that they would always be consulted. There is a substantial number of them, as I indicated earlier.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was useful in teasing out the fact that a police authority may stand its ground if it wishes to do so. The Secretary of State will obviously be able to pull other levers, and will be keen

to invoke the police standards unit, HMIC and anything else he can get his hands on, but it is important to establish that a police authority has the right to stand its ground.

Nevertheless, I am unhappy that there is still too much potential for interference after the guidance has been issued. The Minister talked about the national intelligence model, and picked an example that would, of course, find consensus in the Committee. It would obviously be a serious matter if a police authority did not opt in to a policy that needed to be operated nationally, but detailed interference may be inappropriate in other cases. A study in a small force somewhere in the country might, for example, conclude that police stations outside major towns should be closed, because they take up the time of officers who should be on the street. The national guidance might then recommend reducing the number of police stations and the working hours that they involve. However, a police authority might feel strongly that that was wrong, and that we should increase the number of stations and keep them open for longer because of the need for community support. The Minister will be aware of the recent reversal in Sussex. The previous chief constable closed police stations, but I am glad to say that the new chief constable is reopening them.

Those are matters for individual chief constables and police authorities, not for guidance from the Secretary of State. The clause would, however, allow guidance to be issued not simply in the initial stages, but as a comment on plans that were being produced. That would be inappropriate, and would put undue pressure on police authorities and chief constables.

The Minister did not like the phrase ''have regard to''. I agree that it is more subjective, but that is no bad thing; subjectivity is sometimes quite useful. Some police authorities and chief constables might want to take a different direction from the Secretary of State or a different route to the same end, as I suggested in my earlier analogy. They would still listen carefully to him; indeed, they would be foolish not to. None the less, they might ask, ''What is his purpose? Does he have a valid point?'' Having listened carefully and considered the matter, they might conclude that he is wrong and that their duty is to plough ahead.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister feels that the words ''have regard to'' are too subjective, which is a subjective judgment in itself. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that amendment No. 103 offers an alternative, and that the Minister could not possibly object to the phrase ''taken into account'', when he uses something similar in subsection (6)?

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

We have not yet heard a Minister object to his own formulation, so I suppose that he will go along with that phrase.

Mr John MacDougall (Central Fife, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be inconsistent to use delegated responsibilities to give police forces the power to act in ways that were not consistent with a plan drawn up after extensive consultation? Would the Secretary of State not then intervene more often? Is it not better to have consistency once one has reached an

agreed position? As the Minister explained, police forces will have room to stand their ground if they have credible reasons for doing so. Will that not allow for consistency and the freedom to act without intervention?

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Minister's concluding remarks mean that a police authority can stand by its plan, I welcome that. However, I do not want to get into an argument about semantics, or about consistency and compatibility, because that would not be helpful.

I would like the Home Secretary to issue guidance, and the police authority to take it forward. The Home Secretary should have a right to intervene if the police authority goes way off beam into a different direction. However, if the police authority determines that it should take a different route to the same end, or go at a different speed in a different vehicle, I see nothing wrong with that.

Mr John MacDougall (Central Fife, Labour)

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if it is not consistent, then it must be inconsistent? We will end up in the position of saying, ''This is the agreed procedure, but we can be inconsistent with it.'' Does that not make a mockery of the consultations that lead to the agreed position?

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

We are getting into semantics. It depends what it is consistent with—the overall aims and objectives or the micromanagement that the Home Secretary might wish to impose.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall return to semantics. There is a difference between a requirement to take something into account and an objective of seeking consistency. The former is a process, the latter a desired outcome. As a public lawyer, I have seen numerous judicial reviews in which somebody who is required to take something into account pays lip service to the principle and says that he has done it, but clearly has not.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The alternative ''has not had regard to'' appears in one of the amendments. I do not think that a police authority will proceed in a way that is completely at variance with the Government of the day. No police authority is not going to take seriously the comments of a Home Secretary. When the tables were turned and I said that the Home Secretary could do one thing or another, the Minister's response was to say that no Home Secretary would ever do that. For the purposes of its deliberations, the Committee assumes that the level of variation from the norm by chief constables, police authorities or the Home Secretary is limited. Therefore, the problem will not arise.

I return to the point that there is too much potential for micro-management, although I welcome the Minister's confirmation that a police authority can, if it wishes, stand out. It will be judged by its decision and that will be subject to comment by HMIC and others, as is proper. I still believe that the clause goes too far in giving the Secretary of State the ability to intervene on a micro-management level. I shall not

press amendment No. 71 but, given the comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, he may wish to pursue one of his amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 102, in page 71, line 33, at end insert 'in preparing'.

Question put, That the amendment by made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 15.