Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in schedule 1, page 37, line 24, at end insert

‘and

(iv)monitoring and reporting continuous improvement in the exercise of functions, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness;’.

Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 83, in schedule 1, page 40, line 11, leave out subparagraph (3).

No. 84, in schedule 1, page 40, leave out line 33 and insert—

‘(d)persons whom the Agency considers to represent the interests of police officers of police forces in England and Wales.’.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

This is a probing amendment to examine, in terms that we will understand, what is best value, and under what terms the national policing improvement agency will operate. It relates to a later amendment to clause 3 that looks at the regime under which police authorities might be asked to perform. We are uncertain about the regime under which the agency will work—is it a best value organisation?

We suggest that the national policing improvement agency should have a clear duty to promote best practice, provide support, monitor and report on outcomes, but through the amendment it would not actually be tied up in best value itself. We are focusing on continuous improvement. We want to probe the Government and the Minister about what the standards will be and why, and how they will be promoted by the agency.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

Amendment No. 83 is a probing amendment intended to establish the scope and latitude of the new agency. In the 2004 Government White Paper, the Home Office said:

“The Agency will have clear authority to deliver in the following three core areas: good practice development ... an implementation support function ... and operational policing support.”

Paragraph 5(3) of schedule 1 sets it out that the strategic priorities determined by the agency in its annual plan will be subject to paragraph 6, which allows the Secretary of State to make directions regarding what priorities the Secretary of State thinks the agency should have. That raises the question of what scope and latitude the agency will have to come up with its own independent thoughts?

My concerns are highlighted by the fact that the Secretary of State has wide-ranging powers effectively to set the membership of the agency in terms of who is appointed and what work they do. In addition, while the agency is required, when drawing up its plan, to consult with certain bodies, including police authorities, the Secretary of State is able to direct the priorities of police authorities. I am sure that we will come to that in later consideration and debate.

Is the agency supposed merely to draw up or implement priorities that are set by the Secretary of State because of provisions in the schedule, or is it intended to have some greater ability to come up with its own priorities, given that its objects are set out clearly in paragraph 1, which is the guiding principle that sets out what the agency seeks to do? One could argue that, provided that the objects are right, it should be for the agency to interpret and come up with its priorities based on those objects and its consultations with the Secretary of State and other bodies.

There must be robustness and clarity of direction regarding the agency’s aims. That brings us back to paragraph 46 of the schedule, which we will debate later, which also appears to give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to change the whole make-up and situation of the agency. With amendment No. 83, I seek clarification on where the agency sits, what its   ability to come up with strategic priorities is, and whether it is heavily hemmed in. If it comes up with priorities that the Secretary of State may not like, will it be told that it cannot have those priorities despite thinking that they are important and should be developed and advanced? I hope that the Minister will clarify what will be the scope and operation of the agency.

Amendment No. 84 follows on from amendment No. 83. With it, I want to ensure that in delivering the work that it seeks to do, the agency will consult sufficiently widely in drawing up its plan. Paragraph 5(7) requires the agency to consult

“the Secretary of State ... persons whom the Agency considers to represent the interests of police authorities”

and

“persons whom the Agency considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police”.

Although there is a catch-all provision relating to other persons whom the agency might reasonably consult in drawing up its annual plan, priorities and strategic objectives, including the objectives of individual police forces, and in delivering on the purpose for which it was set up, it would be sensible to make specific provision to require the agency to consult bodies representing ordinary officers. Chief police officers will have a senior managerial perspective on the delivery of high-quality policing in their areas, and police authorities will have a slightly different picture. However, if we are to deliver good practice and high-quality, effective police services on the ground and to achieve safer communities and the reduction of crime that the Minister said were among the objectives of the Bill, it is important to ensure that the agency consults ordinary police officers.

It is interesting that the Police Federation has raised the issue. In its briefing paper for the Bill, it said:

“Since the 1919 Police Act the Police Federation has been consulted on all policing matters on a part-statute/part-goodwill basis. It should be noted that the objects of the agency ... “the promulgation of good practice in policing”—overlaps to a certain degree with the statutory role of the Police Federation to ensure the efficiency of police officers.

The NPIA’s work will impact on the whole service and it is important that the whole service has an input, particularly in respect to training and personnel issues ... where the Police Federation has a great deal of knowledge and experience.”

As I suggested, paragraph 5(6)(d) enables consultation with

“such other persons as the Agency considers appropriate”,

but I hope that we shall be given some assurance that organisations such as the Police Federation will be regarded as appropriate organisations for consultation. I hope that we shall ensure that ordinary officers have an input and that the whole police family is properly taken into account when the agency’s objective are set.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Before I reply on the detail of the amendments, let me try to reassure all hon. Members by saying that the introduction of the national policing improvement agency was originally suggested by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I was very willing to take that suggestion on board. If people in the police service feel that the agency is owned and led   by them and that it is right at the heart of policing, it will be far more successful than an attempt by Ministers to impose their will on the service. I am an absolute believer in the power of collaboration, with people coming together to share ideas and then drive forward continuous improvement.

However, it is important that we get the settlement of the relationship right. As we explore the amendments, hon. Members may come to a wider understanding of the depth of agreement across the service about where the balance properly lies. We have a tripartite agreement about policing, with a clear role for the Home Secretary, chief constables and police authorities. That is a wholly unique feature of British policing, and it is extremely important to me. Getting that balance right is a challenge for us all.

Amendment No. 49, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, would give the NPIA the additional function of monitoring police forces’ compliance with best value. We will consider police authorities’ duties under clause 3 because best value relates to them, but I do not regard that as being a proper function of the agency. As I said to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, performance monitoring is not a role for the agency; it is about self-improvement.

Under part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999, responsibility for inspecting police authorities’ compliance rests with the Audit Commission and HMIC. In future, police authorities will be jointly inspected by the Audit Commission and the new justice, community safety and custody inspectorate. As a non-departmental public body, the NPIA will not be subject to best-value provisions itself. It will have to show that it is efficient and effective and that it is using its resources properly. It will be accountable to the Home Office for the way in which it uses its resources, but it will not be subject to the best value regime, which, in statutory terms, relates to local government and to police authorities. We will not therefore be able to accept the amendment.

On amendment No. 83, I cannot accept that the priorities determined annually by the NPIA should not be consistent with the Home Secretary’s strategic priorities for the agency. We need to get the balance right. If the agency was able to set priorities inconsistent with the Home Secretary’s strategic priorities, we would create a recipe for tensions and the fracturing of our settlement almost from the outset. That does not mean that the NPIA will not have a role in horizon scanning, looking at the threats coming towards us in the next few years, anticipating them and preparing to deal with them. I expect the agency to raise matters as a result of its investment in research or as it looks ahead for us.

Setting strategic priorities for the police service as a whole, and for national agencies such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the NPIA, is an entirely proper function for the Home Secretary. That is what Governments are elected to do. In our tripartite arrangement, the Government, through the Home Secretary, have a clear role to set strategic priorities for   the police service as a whole. At the end of the day, we are accountable to Parliament for such matters. It is right that there is that process.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

I beg the Minister’s pardon for not responding immediately to what she said, because it took me a moment to take it in. I think that she has slightly missed the point of amendment No. 49. She may be right to say that the NPIA is not a best value authority, but the amendment would not impose that. If the NPIA is intended to offer support on matters such as best practice, quality management, excellence management and business excellence models, it should not be encumbered by best value bureaucracy. Surely the amendment does not impose such a requirement, but simply says that such activity could be one of the responsibilities of the NPIA. For instance, it could, if it wanted, recommend not best value but something such as the European Foundation for Quality Management’s business excellence model as a way of improving performance.

Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman may make an intervention, because of the nature of the Committee. If he is not happy with what the Minister says, however, I am sure that he will catch my eye to make his own, more substantive, contribution, but interventions must be brief.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am at pains not to add more bureaucracy to our system. In fact, the purpose of introducing the NPIA is to try to strip out some duplication. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the agency may want to recommend certain models of organisation. Clearly, that will be part of its function in developing best practice. It is taking over responsibility for the National Centre for Policing Excellence, which prepares codes of practice. It may well want to act as he suggests. The amendment that I sought to reject would put an additional duty on the agency to monitor police forces’ compliance. I do not see the agency as being about monitoring compliance and performance. That is a role for other persons. Indeed, clause 3 will remove the best value bureaucracy for police authorities, and we will come on to that.

I have no objection to the new agency’s developing models of practice that, if implemented across the service, will make us more efficient and effective. That is exactly what I want it to do. However, I do not want to constrain it by putting it under more burdens, particularly under the best value regime.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s clarification on the setting of the strategic objectives by the Secretary of State. How does she envisage the priorities of the agency under paragraph 5(2)(a) and (b) differing in practice from the strategic priorities of the Secretary of State? What is the difference between the two?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

At the moment we have a national policing plan. As required by statute, the Home Secretary has to publish the policing plan every year, which sets out his strategic priorities for the police service. The Bill will abolish that requirement to try to streamline the bureaucracy. We recently launched a national community safety plan, which is different from the policing plan because it is a cross-agency plan that recognises that much work done by the police is not simply police business. Incorporated in that plan there is still a policing plan; that is necessary. In future, however, the Home Secretary may want to issue his statutory priorities through the community safety plan, which draws in all agencies. It will inevitably deal with fairly high-level priorities, perhaps in connection with neighbourhood policing. That is certainly one of our priorities, as is tackling antisocial behaviour.

The agency may come up with some priorities that, although consistent with the high-level issues, will involve more detail or be focused on a particular area or impending threat. An issue relevant to street crime, for example, was that growth in mobile phone ownership led to an increase in street robberies involving mobile phones. The agency may identify a similar threat and come up with good practice, tactics and strategy for tackling such an issue. That would be perfectly consistent with the Home Secretary’s strategic priorities on reducing crime.

That is how I see the relationship developing: the Home Secretary will set high-level priorities, but the agency may want to come up with other issues. Those, however, should be consistent with the Home Secretary’s priorities, and not diverge from matters on which the Government properly want to make progress. The agency might develop training packages to give people specific skills to deal with new threats. I envisage it doing a great deal of work on IT, an area in which there is a need for improvements, greater consistency and an ability to implement solutions throughout the police service. There will be many areas in which the agency will, I hope, be imaginative and come up with ideas.

I am very excited by the prospect of the agency. It is the first opportunity that has been presented to us to obtain a solution, across the police service, to many of our pressing problems. I hope that we shall be more effective, and gain economies of scale, as a result of implementation, and I hope that hon. Members would welcome that.

Amendment No. 84 concerns the duty placed on the NPIA to consult in the preparation of its annual plan. The amendment would add the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association. I am sure that it is not his intention but that would remove the agency’s ability to consult other stakeholders that it might consider appropriate. It would close off the ability to consult.

I can give the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Committee, the assurance that the chief executive, Peter Neyroud, will consult all the staff associations and the Police Federation, whose members are often at the sharp end. In most organisations, the people who   deal with problems day to day often have good ideas about how to make improvements. Involving the Police Federation, which is very constructive, will be important. Superintendents, many of whom are basic command unit commanders, will be central to police reform and therefore need to be involved as well. There will be consultations with the chief officers body, Unison, the National Black Police Association, the British Association for Women in Policing and a range of staff associations.

In addition, and importantly, I want to ensure that the agency will consult not just with people already involved in policing. If we are to have a customer focus in the police service, which I believe to be important, the agency should consult the public about what they want from a policing service. That approach of involving all the agencies in policing and studying how to make the service more effective for the public is crucial. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Lady will feel inclined to withdraw the amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. Will you clarify the grouping of amendments, and explain whether, if amendments are dealt with as part of a group, it is possible to withdraw them formally?

Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

It is not necessary for an hon. Member to seek to withdraw an amendment that has been grouped with the first amendment under discussion. The discussion takes place on the group. If an hon. Member wishes to divide the Committee on a particular amendment, I put it in the order in which the matter appears in the Bill. For example, we shall now discuss the Government amendments, but I shall not put those amendments when I put amendment No. 63. If there is to be a division, I shall call it later, when it appears in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wished to divide the Committee on amendments Nos. 83 and 84, I should have been happy to enable him to do that. However, as he did not indicate that that was his wish, I did not. He does not have to withdraw his amendment, but if he would like to divide the Committee, he can indicate as much and I shall put it formally.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. I do not want to divide the Committee on the issue. My reason for asking was that I wanted formally to withdraw the points that I had made on the basis of the assurance that the Minister had given in relation to consultation. That was very helpful, and I am grateful for her clarification.

In relation to my previous amendment, while I heard what the Minister said about the intention and the fact that it is not proposed that the measure be used as a means of micromanaging the agency, my concern   remains, and we may well return to the matter. Thank you very much, Mr. Conway, for your guidance on procedure.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in schedule 1, page 41, line 43, at end insert—

‘(4A)The Secretary of State must exercise his power under sub-paragraph (1)(c) to ensure that at all times a majority of the members are non-executive.’.

Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 64, in page 43, line 2, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—

‘13(1)The chairman and members of the Agency shall appoint the chief executive.

(2)Before doing so, they shall consult the Secretary of State. (3)The chief executive of the Agency shall be a member of its staff.’. Government amendment Nos. 1 to 3. Nick Herbert: I cannot resist commenting on the fact that the Minister says that she is excited by the establishment of a national policing improvement agency. I wonder whether that excitement will be shared outside the House. One thing I have noticed is the way in which it is possible, even after only a few months as a Member of Parliament, to lapse into jargon. I suspect that that leaves our constituents, who are worried about whether there are police officers on their streets, and about local crime levels and antisocial behaviour, wondering what we are talking about and whether it has any real meaning. The Minister told us that the NPIA is an NDPB, which replaces the NCPE and PITO. It was proposed by ACPO and will work alongside HMIC and the PSU. APA welcomes it. We could go on. I wonder about the more arcane deliberations in this House. Nevertheless, I accept that in so far as driving up the standards of the police is important, the agency is important. We would prefer a less centralised model, and I shall return to that later.

(3)The chief executive of the Agency shall be a member of its staff.’.

Government amendment Nos. 1 to 3.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I cannot resist commenting on the fact that the Minister says that she is excited by the establishment of a national policing improvement agency. I wonder whether that excitement will be shared outside the House. One thing I have noticed is the way in which it is possible, even after only a few months as a Member of Parliament, to lapse into jargon. I suspect that that leaves our constituents, who are worried about whether there are police officers on their streets, and about local crime levels and antisocial behaviour, wondering what we are talking about and whether it has any real meaning. The Minister told us that the NPIA is an NDPB, which replaces the NCPE and PITO. It was proposed by ACPO and will work alongside HMIC and the PSU. APA welcomes it. We could go on. I wonder about the more arcane deliberations in this House. Nevertheless, I accept that in so far as driving up the standards of the police is important, the agency is important. We would prefer a less centralised model, and I shall return to that later.

The amendments relate to the structure of the national policing improvement agency, and how it is governed. They draw on the Association of Police Authorities’s concerns about that body’s constitution. Amendment No. 63 suggests that there should always be a majority of non-executive members on the agency’s board. That is a perfectly sensible suggestion, and it is in tune with the principles of corporate governance, which I think should apply to all such organisations. It is never a good idea for an executive team to have a majority on a board. The Bill already makes provision for the constitution of the board, so it would be sensible to provide that non-executives are represented at all times.

Amendment No. 64 proposes what might be a more contentious change—that the agency’s chief executive should be appointed by the board, not by the Secretary of State. The Minister stressed that she wanted the agency to be owned by the police. The White Paper states:

“It is essential that the culture of the Agency should be professionally driven but outward looking”.

The Minister also said that Ministers should not impede the will of the police or the expression of that will through the agency. Those wishes will be compromised if the Government appoint the chief executive.

If the agency is to be truly owned by police forces—however many remain after the Minister has finished her round of amalgamation—it would make sense to allow the expression of that ownership by letting the board appoint the chief executive. That is not possible now, because an acting chief executive has already been appointed, and I certainly do not seek to disparage him. Given the plethora of central control and intervention that already exists, however, if police forces are to have confidence in the body as one that they can shape and direct, having a chief executive who is not imposed on them—albeit one on whom consultation is provided for in the schedule—would be a good principle. I should be interested to hear why the Minister thinks that a bad idea.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

On amendment No. 63, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to have a non-executive majority on the board of the NPIA. That is important, as it will bring a wider perspective to its work and will provide for the input of different views and for effective oversight and rigorous governance. I want to ensure that those factors are properly embedded in the provisions for the new agency, so that executives are subject to proper scrutiny. I want to ensure that we are delivering.

The hon. Gentleman says that the introduction of the agency may not be exciting for our constituents. Most of our constituents are extremely concerned to ensure that policing is efficient and effective, and that the police are reducing crime and making our communities safer, ensuring that we get the very best value from our massive investment in the last few years. The agency will help us to do that. I think that the introduction of the agency is exciting, therefore, although I apologise if my use of police acronyms reduces the excitement. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to, I can spell them all out, but the Committee would need in excess of eight sittings if I did so, and we could be sitting until midnight. None the less, I have, I think, a reputation for fairly plain speaking, and I shall do my best to continue that.

I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought. The Bill provides that the chief executive should be a member of the board.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I was referring to our collective use of acronyms. I did not intend to criticise the Minister.

On amendment No. 63, I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that the Government intend that there should always be a majority of non-executive members on the board. Would it not be a good idea to write that into the schedule? If that is the Government’s intention, that would seem a fair thing to do. I see no legal obstacle, and given that the   schedule makes various provisions on how the board is to be constituted, I see no reason why it should not be possible.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

We create boards in many areas of government, and my officials say that it is not the practice to write such a provision into legislation. It would to some extent be superfluous because the Home Secretary will make those appointments, and I have given the undertaking and assurance that we intend to ensure that non-executive members are in a majority. At this point, I do not feel that there is a need to spell that out on the face of the Bill. I am clear about the need for proper scrutiny of the agency’s executive management .

The fact that the chief executive will be a member of the board is perfectly proper. That is in accordance with the guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Other members will include the chair and those appointed by the Secretary of State.

In relation to amendment No. 64, the chief executive of the agency is a critical appointment for the future of policing—it really is a serious appointment. That decision should fall to the Home Secretary, but there is provision for consultation with all policing partners when making that appointment. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities were part of the interviewing panel when Peter Neyroud was appointed as shadow chief executive of the agency, and they had a full opportunity to make clear their views on that appointment. Again, I can give an undertaking that that procedure will be adopted for future appointments—involving people on the interviewing committee is important. However, the final decision should rest with the Secretary of State.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

In answer to amendment No. 61, the Minister said—I think that I am quoting her exactly—that that body was going to be “police-owned and led”. How can that be the case if the appointment is made from on high?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I hope that, as we go through the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will develop a more sensitive understanding of the balance of relationships in our police service. The agency will be police-owned and led in the development of practice, training packages, products to support operational policing and other activities relevant to the police service. That is why we envisage that many police officers will have an input into the agency. Some of them will become associate directors for a time and lead some of the programmes, so it will be police-owned and led.

Chief constables will be on the board of the agency and they will have a real say. However, there has to be a recognition of the tripartite relationship—the police officers themselves, the police authorities and the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament and the country for ensuring an effective police service.   Therefore, there needs to be the right balance between who makes the big decisions and who implements them in the service.

The appointment of the chief executive of the national policing improvement agency is so important to the future of policing that it is right and proper that the Home Secretary should make it. It will be crucial also to get the right balance of skills between the chair of the agency and the chief executive. Again, that is why it is important that the Home Secretary is involved.

As I said, the Home Secretary will not make the appointment in isolation. There will be full consultation—that is the right way forward. If the agency were to appoint the chief executive, we could be in danger of losing that connection with the Home Secretary, who sets the strategic priorities for the police service. Those relationships and connections must be strong, open and transparent, and everyone must understand where the balance lies.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

My concern about the Minister’s comments is regarding micromanagement—I alluded to that in discussing my previous amendment. If the Secretary of State can set the strategic objectives and appoint the chief executive, the impression is given of central control. What assurance can she give that that will not lead to micromanagement by the Home Office?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I can certainly give the assurance that the ability of the Home Secretary to set priorities is strategic, and therefore it will be high-level and not about micromanagement of delivery on the ground. There is a clear distinction, giving the police service the freedom to get on and do its job, but within a framework that says, for example, that we want to reduce crime everywhere and more in high-crime areas. It is perfectly proper for the Home Secretary to set that kind of priority and then to work with organisations to see how we can deliver.

I will probably say this at least 100 times as we go through the Bill: we are talking not about centralisation, but about trying to ensure that we have a robust regime that drives performance. If we take a hands-off approach and say that the Home Secretary, Ministers and the Government are to have no control at all, we will to some extent leave the service without the sense of direction that it welcomes to take it forward, and leave communities vulnerable to variable strategies and tactics and different levels of performance. It is not right that some of the most vulnerable communities that are still subject to crime levels that are too high should be left without the support and back-up that our police service can provide.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Does not the Minister accept that that level of control might blur the balance between political and operational issues?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am sure that we shall come on to decisions about possible politicisation of the police when we debate some of the amendments concerning directly elected police authorities. I am not in favour of   politicising the police service. It is important that it has the freedom to get on with the job. However, I am absolutely convinced that it is the Government’s responsibility not only to ensure that the police service has the facilities that it needs, but to set the direction in which we want it to go.

I make no apologies for saying that the Government have an important role in making communities safer, reducing crime, bringing more offences to justice and securing better detection rates. To abandon that and say, “That’s not our responsibility—it’s a matter for somebody else” is an abrogation of our responsibilities as an elected Government. There is a balance. There is a completely proper role for Government, which we can debate.

Government amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are designed to allow the NPIA to recruit police officers directly, in addition to engaging them on secondment. That is something that Peter Neyroud, the chief executive designate, has specifically asked me to take forward. The reasons for the amendments are threefold.

First, the only alternative to direct recruitment is through secondments. They have their place, but they can lead to instability in an organisation. Sometimes, secondments can be withdrawn at fairly short notice and it is important that the agency has stability in its staffing. Secondments have not been that well taken up in Centrex and PITO, or necessarily enhanced the careers of officers. It is therefore important to have the ability directly to recruit officers who will become permanent members of the NPIA. Again, that will embed a sense of police ownership in the agency, and ensure that the products on which the agency works have a real sense of police ownership.

Secondly, I want the NPIA to be seen as a real career option for officers, providing them with access to a wider range of professional experiences than they would perhaps have by working just in a force. I want a period with the NPIA to be seen as an invaluable addition to an officer’s personal development and career progression. I want people to be fighting to get into the agency, because they see it as a driver of reform and improvement and important to their careers. The NPIA will not be for everyone, but I want to ensure that those officers who want to come in and play a role in transforming our police service have the opportunity to do so.

I want to ensure that the highest calibre of officers can come in. The provisions will give them the flexibility to do that. As far as possible, officers who are directly recruited will be subject to the same regulations as would apply if they were employed by a territorial police force in England or Wales. The biggest exception is probationary officers. I do not believe that working directly in the NPIA would give them the range of experience that they need in the early days of their careers. We are talking about directly recruiting into the agency not probation officers, but fully qualified officers.

Thirdly, the agency’s chief executive will have direction and control of the NPIA’s police officer staff regardless of whether the chief executive is a serving   constable. That approach is not unprecedented. The director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service has control of police officers, irrespective of whether he or she is a chief constable. As it happens, Peter Neyroud is a chief constable and will have direction of police officer staff of the agency, but that might not be the case in the long term. The provision is therefore important.

We will table a related amendment covering complaints and disciplinary procedures in order to achieve parity and alignment with the police service. I apologise that the amendment is not ready for us to debate now, but I will bring it forward on Report. With the amendment, we will seek to ensure that officers will have similar provisions regarding their appointment to the agency.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

Again, I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister’s response. I accept that it is not usual to stipulate in primary legislation that the majority of a board’s members should be non-executive, which is the substance of amendment No. 63, and I am grateful for her assurance that Ministers intend to ensure that that will be the case.

On amendment No. 64 and the broader point about who owns the NPIA, I think it perfectly respectable to hold the view that Ministers should take powers and seek to direct policing in the way in which the Minister does. I have a different view. It could be argued that that is one way in which policing could be governed. What we cannot do, however, is say that the agency will be owned by the police but that we will appoint all its members and the chief executive. We cannot say that Ministers should not impose their will and then take the powers to do so. Such doublespeak is problematic.

Throughout Second Reading, Ministers constantly asserted that the Bill is a localising or decentralising measure, but it is clear that they are taking greater central powers.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which will, I am sure, be a recurring theme throughout our discussions in Committee. Does he agree that the need for some independence on staffing arrangements is underlined by other provisions in the Bill that appear to give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to change the agency’s object and composition, and that there is therefore a need for greater reassurance?

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I wonder whether we went far enough with the amendments and whether we should not have considered giving the Association of Police Authorities, or some other arrangement of police authorities, the power to appoint members to the body, rather than proceeding on the assumption that only the Secretary of State is competent to appoint members. If the body were truly to be owned by the police, that would be the logical approach. Perhaps we   will return to the issue, but I am keen to make progress and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in schedule 1, page 48, line 4, at end insert—

‘Funding arrangements

31A15 per cent of the Agency’s funding shall be provided by police authorities’.

The amendment concerns the issue that we have just debated, namely, who owns the national policing improvement agency. The Association of Police Authorities has proposed that, in order to make it clear that police authorities really have a say in how the agency is run, they should make a contribution—it suggests 15 per cent.—to the agency’s funding. That is the figure that my amendment would insert.

I know, because the Home Office has already responded to the APA by rejecting the proposal, that Ministers feel that the Government should provide 100 per cent. of the funding, and that the APA and ACPO should have their say through their representatives on the board. However, it is always the case that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The APA makes the point that, if police authorities were to determine at least part of the agency’s funding, they would have some stake in and ownership of the agency, and that would act as a balance to the central direction of the agency.

I urge the Minister to consider the matter carefully. People do not offer the Government money every day. Normally, taxes are dragged from reluctant taxpayers and charge payers, who protest greatly about increases—and the increase has, of course, been substantial under this Government. This is an unusual suggestion on the part of police authorities, which, in part, get their resources from local taxpayers.

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservatives, in that respect, are proposing an increase in council tax?

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I perhaps should not have trespassed into electioneering. I am happy to make a pact with the hon. Gentleman not to continue in that vein.

Celia Barlow (Hove, Labour)

As a local taxpayer in the hon. Gentleman’s police authority area, I declare an interest. I must also ask how much public consultation he has held about giving away 15 per cent. of the funding.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

The public are going to pay for the body one way or another, through central or local taxation.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister of State), Home Office; Ealing North, Labour)

Stop digging.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I think that that is a very important point. The burden that has been shifted onto the local taxpayer through the doubling of the police precept under the current Government has been significant. It has contributed to the rises in council tax about which people—police authorities, in particular—have protested. Nevertheless, in the overall scheme of things, the agencies themselves have suggested that it would be a good idea to contribute to the costs of the agency, because that would give local people—through the police authorities—a greater stake in the running of an otherwise central organisation.

Part of the problem with the increase in the police precept has been that it has accompanied a centralisation of policing, so that people pay more but have less of a say over policing in their areas. There is nothing wrong in principle with the idea of local authorities contributing, provided that they have some stake in the outcome. I was making a slightly tongue-in-cheek point, but there is a serious underbelly to it, which goes back to the Minister’s claim that the agency would be owned by the police. If that is so, why not let the authorities make a small contribution to its funding?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am determined that the agency will be police-owned and led, because it will not work otherwise. That is why I was at great pains, in the steering group set up to develop the agency, to ensure that chief constables and police authority representatives were at the heart of it. The APA has been very influential in developing the kind of work that the agency will do and how it will operate.

If hon. Members were to speak to authorities such as ACPO and APA, they would acknowledge the significant contribution that the authorities have made to the development of the agency. It is not a construct made from the centre, with a blueprint being imposed. If hon. Members have the opportunity to discuss the matter with senior members of ACPO and the APA, I hope that they will gain a real sense that there has been intense collaboration between the centre and the locality. That is what is unique about the agency. That is why I believe it will be extremely effective.

One reason that I reject the idea of having separate funding streams, whether through the APA or ACPO, is that I want them to influence 100 per cent. of the agency’s budget, not only a small proportion. Having different funding streams is likely to set up tensions   from the outset, with the APA feeling that it could influence only the 15 per cent. that it funded. I want it to be able to work with the police service, chiefs and officers at every level to ensure that it influences the way in which the agency operates, the strategies that it promotes, the improvements in IT that it will be working on, and the new tactics for dealing with new threats.

I see no purpose in setting up an agency that is fractured with internal tensions from the outset. If it has different sets of funding streams and different priorities, it will not have that sense of common and united purpose that will make it effective in the long run. We may take a different view on that, but I feel strongly and passionately that, if the agency is to work, there has to be trust, confidence and collaboration, and a sense that it is a joint and mutual enterprise for the good of the police service as a whole.

The agency will have the opportunity to influence the entire budget through the board, on which it will be represented. People will be able to influence it through committees and various advisory groups. A large part of its work will be about commissioning different solutions for the problems that we face—on neighbourhood policing, the sharing of information and data, how to tackle level 2 serious and organised crime, and other important and fundamental issues.   The APA and the chief constables will have a role in commissioning the kind of solutions that we want to take forward. We need to work together on that.

The NPIA is a tremendous step forward for the police service. Like any new organisation, it will doubtless have some bumpy periods as we develop it, but I have a real sense that people want to see the agency be taken forward. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I understand the Minister’s point. However, I think that she was labouring under a slight misunderstanding of what would constitute a 15 per cent. share of funding. It would not imply ownership of a defined 15 per cent. of the budget, or that police authorities could influence only that part of it. We assume that the money would go into a central fund and be budgeted accordingly. It would not be possible for the APA to identify a slice of 15 per cent. and claim that the remaining money belonged to the Government. Nevertheless, the funding issue is subsidiary to the overall question, which is the extent to which the NPIA will be centrally directed and controlled. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.