Schedule 2 - Amendments to the Police Act 1996
Police and Justice Bill
10:30 am
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
The purpose of this group of amendments is to tackle the level of power given to the Secretary of State to direct the activities of police authorities—in particular, policing objectives, policing plans and policing reports. The central amendment is amendment No. 31, which would omit paragraph 11. During our last sitting, the Minister accused Opposition parties of having a conspiracy theory about Government interference in local decision making. It is difficult to reject the idea of such a theory, however, given the extraordinary interference allowed by paragraph 11. Proposed new section 6ZB(3) states:
“An order under this section requiring plans to be issued”—
on the direction of the Secretary of State—
“may contain provision as to ... the periods to be covered by plans ... the matters to be dealt with in plans ... persons who are to be consulted ... persons to whom copies of plans are to be sent.”
That may not go so far as to direct the page numbers or type-faces in which the plans and reports are to be designated—not yet—but it is clearly going in that direction. I do not know who in the Home Office will be given the responsibility to vet the plans and objectives, the consultation, and the circulation lists of all the reports and plans to be issued by local police authorities, but it will clearly be a job for life.
That provision gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers of interference in the activities of police authorities. Legislators in countries such as the United States or Australia have more seriously devolved government, where federal governments traditionally mind their own business. If we told them that legislation would give Ministers the right not only to interfere in local policing priorities but even to determine the circulation lists of the reports that are produced, they would be speechless.
It is important to note that policing priorities are a matter of local knowledge and local expertise. There are major differences between Arundel and South Downs, Cheltenham, and Hornsey and Wood Green, and the constituencies represented by Labour Members, and policing priorities will vary from place to place. For instance, in Cheltenham there are differences between areas such as Hatherley, Springbank, Whaddon and Hester’s Way, but I doubt whether the Secretary of State even knows where those places are. It is extraordinary that that level of interference can be allowed.