Schedule 1 - National Policing improvement Agency
Police and Justice Bill
9:30 am
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.