BEST VALUE AUTHORITIES

HC Deb 24 March 1999 vol 328 cc440-50

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ?Subject to subsection (4A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 5.

No. 55, in page 2, line 12, at end insert— '(4A) This section shall not apply to police authorities in respect of their oversight of any of the following police functions:

1. (a) any issues relating to national security;
2. (b) any relating to any matter whose public disclosure might compromise current or future police operations;
3. (c) any which is a statutory duty of police forces;
4. (d) the provision of any support service that may be specified by order of the Secretary of State.'.

No. 27, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, at end insert— '(5A) The Secretary of State shall consult with—

1. (a) the authority or body concerned, and
2. (b) all other relevant bodies

before making an order within this provision.'.

No. 58, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert— `(1)(A) In the case of police authorities, the general duty in this section shall be without prejudice to section 10 of the Police Act 1996 ("General functions of chief constables").'.

No. 72, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end add— ?() In preparing a best value performance plan, a police authority must also have regard to section 8 of the Police Act 1996 ("local policing plans").'.

No. 73, in page 6, line 3, at end insert— '(5) In the case of a police authority, a draft of the best value performance plan shall be prepared by the chief constable for the area and submitted by him to the police authority for it to consider. (6) Before issuing a best value performance plan which differs from the draft submitted by the chief constable under subsection (5), a police authority shall consult the chief constable.'.

Mr. Hayes

I am delighted to speak to the amendments, but I have no wish to delay the House unduly. Far be it from me to lay myself open to the charge of filibustering, whether justified or not. I have never filibustered on this Bill—at least, not deliberately—and I have no intention of doing so this evening

. The amendments address an issue which is at the heart of the Bill, and which was debated a number of times in Committee: the inappropriate application of the Bill to police authorities. The application is inappropriate not just because police authorities have been shoehorned into a Bill that was in essence designed to deal with local authorities, but because the premise of necessity on which the Bill rests simply does not apply to police authorities. The amendments go some way towards solving the problem, although we would prefer the Bill not to apply to police authorities at all.

I say that the premise of necessity does not apply partly because of existing statutes. Hon. Members will be familiar with the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which deals with issues of police management and efficiency, and with section 43 of the Police Act 1996, which gives the Home Secretary specific powers to require police authorities to report to him on matters connected with the discharge of their responsibilities. Moreover, section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—now section 96 of the Police Act 1996—makes specific arrangements for the obtaining of local people's views. Police forces also have a statutory responsibility to draw up local policing plans.

Because of the existence of those Acts, there is no need for the Bill to apply to police authorities. The Home Secretary already has powers to scrutinise the drawing up of plans and the requirement to consult. If the Government are saying that the aim is simply to satisfy the requirements of existing legislation, and if the current arrangements are effective and efficient, why include police authorities?

In addition, the Audit Commission publishes a series of performance indicators—measurements of police efficiency. I have a copy of the document relating to 1996–97, which all hon. Members doubtless regard as essential bedtime reading. [Interruption.] It appears that the Minister does not.

The Audit Commission, however, acknowledges that Police forces should be locally accountable and must respond to the needs and expectations of their local community. As those needs and expectations vary in different parts of the country, additional performance indicators—benchmarking—will be of limited use. The need for different approaches in different parts of the country is one reason why the Association of Police Authorities has expressed reservations about the Bill. It does not want a uniform set of targets to be applied nationally.

Hon. Members will be familiar with the work of the Policy Studies Institute. In a report on local policing plans, it says: Although policing plans must include national objectives, we found no evidence that plans were becoming dominated by central concerns. National objectives that are included in those plans already give us an opportunity to judge police authorities according to some standard criteria, while allowing enough flexibility for the necessary discretion to be exercised locally.

The questions currently asked by the Audit Commission strike me—and, indeed, chief constables and the Association of Police Authorities—as satisfactory. We do not think that additional legislation is needed. The police also come within the ambit of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and there are questions to be asked about the relationship between it and the Audit Commission. Those questions were dealt with to an extent by a memorandum that was circulated in Committee. We were told that discussions were in progress, and that an accord was developing between the two bodies. As with other aspects of local government, however, we have a vision of finding a different inspector from a different organisation around every corner and in every corridor of police authorities. That, I think, is something of an insult to police authorities and chief constables, suggesting that they cannot manage their affairs properly.

That brings me to the nub of the argument. As I have said, if the existing arrangements are satisfactory, it is surely unnecessary to include police authorities; but a more fundamental objection to the Bill is that it challenges the current governance of the police. The time-honoured tripartite arrangement is at least challenged, and arguably weakened, by the Bill. The Association of Police Authorities has made that point as well. The Bill, moreover, has three further weaknesses.

First, there is the setting of additional national targets. We must assume that they are additional, because if they are not, they have no point. The setting of additional targets may endanger the independence of the constabularies, especially if the targets are uniform and based on the false goal of comparability. Comparability has some value, but it should not be worshipped like a god. Comparisons between a rural and an urban police force are of dubious merit: many aspects cannot be adequately or properly compared, and the comparison may be misleading rather than edifying.

Secondly, if operational matters are to be included in the assessment of best value, the Bill will also impinge on the discretion of chief constables. Chief constables have always had discretion over operational matters, and police authorities have traditionally recognised that. Their relationship with chief constables has been founded on the division of responsibilities.

Thirdly—and even worse—we must consider the Bill's possible impact on the style of policing and the character of police forces.

That which is most measurable is not necessarily that which is most desirable, or even most desired. Of course the logistics involved in dealing with offences are important, and highly measurable. Many aspects of input are also measurable—questions such as "how many?", "how much?" and "how long?" On the contrary, the value of community policing—police visits to schools, for instance, and the preventive policies of local forces—is harder to measure, because its effects are less immediately tangible.

Bobbies on the beat may not be particularly fashionable according to the accountants' view of policing that we seem to be adopting, but such non-adversarial policing is very popular in my constituency. Along with Gary Jenkins, editor of my local newspaper—I shall not waste this opportunity of naming it: it is the Spalding Post—I have been running a campaign to increase the number of bobbies on the beat. Some so-called experts have told us that is no longer seen as an important part of policing, because its value cannot be measured empirically, unlike other aspects of policing that relate easily to uniform targets and uniform methods of measurement.

The amendments attempt to limit the excesses of the Bill—by exclusion, in the case of amendment No. 55; by clarification of the Bill's interface with existing statutes, in the case of amendments Nos. 58 and 72; and by defending the role of chief constables, in the case of amendment No. 73. Of course we want effective and efficient police forces, but we also want police forces that preserve the best traditions of impartiality, independence

and local accountability. We are justly proud of those things. They are a result of the current system of governance of police forces, which the Bill seriously jeopardises.

6.30 pm

Mr. Burstow

One of the amendments has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is not in his place. It raises an issue that was touched on in the Committee that is considering the Greater London Authority Bill—the application of best value to the Greater London authority. Both the right hon. Gentleman and I have the pleasure—I think that that is the right word—of being members of that Committee, and have had the opportunity to explore a little further how best value will apply to the authority.

In a number of written questions, I have sought to clarify—both for my benefit and, I hope, for the benefit of those who will have to operate the best value regime in the Greater London authority—how the duty of best value will apply. I want to go a little further and to seek further clarification.

I have received a useful letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), which sets out the Government's thinking on the matter. There is still an issue around the order-making powers that the Bill provides. I seek some clarification from the hon. Gentleman's fellow Under-Secretary on the matter this evening.

The letter, dated 16 March, says in respect of a duty of best value applied by order of the Secretary of State: he could provide for the GLA to be a best value authority in relation to specified functions which are not functions of the Authority, but are functions of another best value authority. That sentence was hard to get to grips with. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to elucidate, because it is not explained later in the letter. Does it mean that the mayor can effectively act as the best value authority for a London borough? Does it mean that the mayor can act as the best value authority for other bodies from which he takes over functions? The Greater London Authority Bill provides for him to exercise other agencies' powers if they do not take them up themselves. We need to be clear what that means in respect of the application of best value.

In Committee, the Minister of State expressed concern that an amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on the application of best value corporately to the Greater London authority would blur the lines of accountability. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will explain a little further how he thinks the lines of accountability will be blurred by applying corporately to the Greater London authority a duty to secure best value.

Over time, that would be the better way to do it. If it is not possible to do that, it gives rise to the question whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is responsible for drafting both the Local Government Bill and the Greater London Authority Bill, failed to exercise joined-up thinking in producing both Bills. It would have been easy to apply best value corporately if the drafting of the Greater London Authority Bill had allowed that to happen. However, it appears from the way in which the Bill has been put together that elaborate powers are needed, with the Secretary of State making things up as we go along.

Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some further explanation of how the best value regime will apply to the Greater London authority. I hope that it is clear, consistent and readily understandable to elected members, the mayor and officials who will have to operate the system

. Other amendments deal with the police service. Again, I have had the opportunity to study the exchanges in the Standing Committee, which seemed to boil down to whether a police authority or the police force were responsible for discharging the duty of best value. Provided that the Bill applies a duty of best value on police authorities—from my reading of the Bill, that is what it does—Liberal Democrats do not have a problem in supporting the Government policy. However, the official Opposition are right to raise the concern that it might jeopardise operational matters. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could repeat the assurances that were given by the Minister of State during the deliberations in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)

I welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I know how much he cares about the police force and policing methods. As a Nottinghamshire Member, I am aware of his activities in that regard over a long time in the east midlands.

I shall deal first with the amendments that have implications for police functions: amendments Nos. 54, 55, 58, 72 and 73.

Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would exclude from the best value provisions certain functions over which police authorities have oversight. The amendments are similar to one which Conservative Members tabled in Committee. It may be helpful if I reiterate what was said then—that the amendments would not be consistent with our objectives for the police service under best value, which are to ensure that the police are delivering high-quality services across the range of their activities.

Matters of national security and operational effectiveness will always be key priorities for police authorities and chief constables, as they are for the Government. I reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings again that nothing in the best value provisions will affect the ability of the police to discharge those functions.

The checks and balances that exist now to protect sensitive areas of police work, such as that of the special branch and the anti-terrorist branch, will continue to exist under best value. It will be the responsibility of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary which, with the Audit Commission, will have a joint role in the inspection and audit of police authorities under best value, to ensure, as they do now, that details of such matters are exempt from publication. However, we do not believe that the provision of those services where expenditure can be high should be exempt from best value rigours. any more than should the other services provided by the police.

New subsection (4A)(c) would exclude from best value any function that is the statutory duty of a police force. That fails to recognise the shared responsibilities for policing within the tripartite structure, which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. It is the statutory duty of the police authority to maintain an efficient and effective police force for its area. The chief constable is responsible for the day-to-day direction and control of the force. To disapply best value from those duties would not be consistent with the objective to secure year-on-year improvements in services. However, as we recognised in last year's local government White Paper, it would not be appropriate to expose to competition certain core statutory activities that are carried out by the police.

I am assuming that the reference in the amendment to "support services" means services such as administration, information technology and training. We see no valid argument for exempting any police support services from best value, whether they are provided nationally, or on a force-by-force basis. Indeed, such services, like others, should be critically reviewed and inspected regularly, so that we can be sure that they are being provided as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are both undesirable and unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw amendment No. 54 at the appropriate moment.

Amendment No. 58 would provide that nothing in the manner in which the duty of best value impacts on police authorities shall have effect on the functions of chief constables. Amendment No. 72 would require police authorities to have regard to section 8 of the Police Act 1996 in preparing a best value performance plan. Amendment No. 73 would put responsibility on the chief constable to draft the local performance plan for the police authority's agreement.

Those amendments cover territory that has already been the subject of interesting debate in Committee. I hope that they have been tabled, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings indicated, to obtain reassurance, rather than to reopen old arguments.

The Bill is very explicit about how it will impact on police. The duty of best value will apply to police authorities, but will not apply to police forces. As such, the Bill does not affect the tripartite structure of policing. However, that said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is anxious that no opportunity should be missed to ensure that police forces are run as efficiently and effectively as possible. In achieving that end, close co-operation between chief constables and police authorities is very important.

The Bill will strengthen that process of co-operation by virtue of the provision in clause 23(1)—which requires that the local policing plan, as provided for by section 8 of the Police Act 1996, shall give particulars of any action proposed for the purposes of complying with best value. As a matter of law, responsibility for production of the local policing plan is that of the police authority.

In practice, however, the chief constable prepares the first draft of the policing plan. In doing so, he is thus required to have regard to the authority's statutory duties under best value, without being subject to a statutory obligation to achieve best value himself.

Section 10 of the 1996 Act is entirely consistent with that approach. It provides that the chief constable, in discharging his functions, is to have regard to section 8—which I have just described—but does not apply the statutory duty of best value to the chief constable; nor is it the Government's intention to create such a duty. We believe that that is the best way of ensuring an integrated approach between police authorities and police forces under best value. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities—both of which have been consulted about the amendment to the 1996 Act—fully support that approach.

I therefore ask the Opposition Members who tabled amendments Nos. 58, 72 and 73 not to press them.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

I am not entirely clear on the matter, not having had the benefit of participating directly in the debates in Committee. However, as I understand it, the Association of Police Authorities took the view that it would be better if the best value aspects of police authorities' role were assessed by the Audit Commission rather than by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The Minister seemed to be saying that the Government are proposing that HMIC should undertake the best value scrutiny of police authorities. Did I misunderstand him, or is he saying that the Association of Police Authorities is happy with all the provisions, including the one with which he is now dealing?

Mr. Meale

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention that point. However, I am assured that I was right in what I said about the consultation process. Possibly the advice and information that he has received was misjudged.

Amendment No. 26 would have the effect of subjecting all the functions of the Greater London authority to the general duty of best value, and not only those corporate functions exercised through the mayor.

In Committee, we discussed at some length application to the Greater London authority of the duty of best value. Indeed, amendment No. 26 is identical to an amendment that was considered in Committee—as the Official Report will show, at columns 31–34 of the Standing Committee debates. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who is not in the Chamber—was not a member of the Committee that considered this Bill. I am therefore prepared to explain—if not to him, to his colleagues—why the Bill was drafted as was. Subsequently—if the right hon. Gentleman comes into the Chamber by the end of the debate—I hope that he will not press his amendment.

As I have said before, the Government believe that the Greater London authority should be subjected to the duty of best value. However, the way in which that duty is applied to the authority will have to be flexibly drawn to take account of the different ways in which the GLA itself exercises its functions and its relationship with the four functional bodies that will deliver the main Londonwide services—the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

The Government believe that the Bill has to be sufficiently flexible to cater for different internal working arrangements, to ensure that as much of the GLA's normal work as possible is subjected to the duty of best value. Clause 2(4) will achieve that, by allowing the Secretary of State to provide, by order, for the duty of best value to be applied to any functions that the GLA exercises other than through the mayor, and to any role it plays in respect of functions of other best value authorities, such as setting a strategy for Transport for London.

6.45 pm

Our approach to creating a duty of best value for the GLA takes specific account of the range of different responsibilities that will exist between its constituent parts, and will ensure, as far as possible, that accountability for delivering best value will be attached to the bodies that are responsible for performing its various functions.

Mr. Swayne

I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I am also not sure that I am following the Minister's logic. Although he is stressing the importance of flexibility in dealing with the Greater London authority, he seemed to rule out such flexibility earlier in the debate, when he dismissed the flexibility that would have been afforded to police authorities by amendment No. 55.

Mr. Meale

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our using the Bill to allow the GLA to usurp the functions of any other body when it does not have a statutory basis for doing so. I assure him also that, if he will allow me to finish my speech, I shall answer any questions that he might have on our approach to the amendments. He will have clarity.

A simple application of the duty of best value to the GLA corporately—which is what amendment No. 26 seems to be seeking to achieve—would prevent the objectives that I have described from being achieved satisfactorily. If the application of the duty of best value were not clearly specified, we should run the risk of blurred lines of accountability. The Bill as currently drafted will give us the ability to identify clearly the roles of the mayor, the assembly and the functional bodies. A simple corporate application of the duty would not allow us to do so, and would detract from the transparency that we wish to create.

I hope that that has clarified for the Opposition the position regarding the GLA, and that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will agree not to press amendment No. 26—if he arrives in the Chamber in time to do so.

Mr. Burstow

Although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not in the Chamber, I have raised the same issue as it affects the GLA. I am not the right hon. Gentleman's keeper and cannot account for his absence, but believe that it is an important issue, which my hon. Friends also have raised and are still concerned about.

Mr. Jenkin

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow

I am intervening on the Minister; it would be very difficult to take a further intervention.

Will the confusion on the Government's proposals on local government more generally and on executive mayors require future amendments to the legislation?

Ms Armstrong

That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Meale

The simple answer to that—as my right hon. Friend the Minister is saying—is that the Bill does not deal with those proposals, which will be debated when they are proposed.

Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant bodies before making an order disapplying a best-value duty in specified authorities.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for his apparent concern over the way in which the power to disapply a best value duty might be exercised by the Secretary of State. His amendment has at least given the Government an opportunity to state our views. He will be aware—as he has followed the debate in Committee—that we recognise that the duty of best value could be onerous if applied in full to smaller town and parish councils. In recognition of that possibility, clause 2(5) will allow us to vary the duty as appropriate. If he gets around to listening to me, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who led for the Opposition in Committee. In particular, he emphasised the need for a more sensible approach to town and parish councils.

We also recognise the need for proper scrutiny of the exercise of the power. That is why clause 2(6) requires an order made under this provision to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.

I am sure that I do not need to remind Opposition Members that it is simply a matter of good government to ensure that the views of interested parties are taken on board before proceeding with legislation. My Department has already had discussions with representatives of town and parish councils, as well as the Audit Commission, about the application of best value to those authorities.

I am sure that Opposition Members cannot seriously believe that the Government would be so neglectful as to submit an order for parliamentary approval without first having had regard to the views of interested parties.

Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State only to consult relevant bodies and not to have regard to their views. It would not guarantee the quality, depth or extent of that consultation. Indeed, for the purposes of the amendment, consultation could be so meagre as to be worthless. Therefore, if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gets here on time, I shall ask him not to press the amendment.

Mr. Hayes

I shall not delay the House long, but I should like to pick up a couple of the points that the Minister made. He claimed that the tripartite system for the governance of the police remained intact. The tripartite system is essentially a separation of powers. Historically, the arrangements for accountability and inspection have similarly been separate. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has typically dealt with managing, inspecting and holding to account the operational functions of the police force. The notion that it will now have power to inspect police authorities is certainly contentious. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, there is clearly some disagreement about the attitude of the Association of Police Authorities in that regard. I have a document from the APA saying: The Association is vigorously opposed to the proposal that HMIC, the professional adviser to the Home Secretary, should play any part in inspecting how police authorities go about fulfilling their best value duties. So at the very least there is some doubt as to the position of the APA. It may have changed its mind following further discussion. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

Mr. Meale

I should like to make two points. First, on the different views on the matter, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have expressed the views that resulted from consultations conducted by officials in the Department. Secondly, I did not give the hon. Gentleman a complete answer on the effect of performance indicators on the style of policing. I understand his concern, bearing in mind his many years of involvement in these matters. Local authorities and police authorities will be free to put the national indicators into a local context. Auditors and inspectors will take full account of that.

Mr. Hayes

I am grateful for the Minister's kind words, particularly the hyperbole about my service in Nottinghamshire. I give credit for prompting him to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) who served with me for a number of years, and I am grateful. However, it seems to me that there is at least a question mark about the role of HMIC and the Audit Commission in terms of their particular responsibilities for ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the police forces. I shall not make further comment about the APA's view, but it is certainly my view that HMIC inspectors are not the best people to perform that function, whereas they clearly are the best people to carry out their current functions effectively.

In respect of the style of policing, if we move to a system of comparable targets, there will have to be a degree of uniformity. Particularly if the funding mechanisms are based on that system, it will encourage a style of policing that is straightforward and easily measured. That is already occurring to some degree and it is why, for example, police forces find it hard to fund and implement a style of policing which, although it may be popular with the public, is hard to measure in tangible terms.

Mr. Meale

I do not think that that affects the duty of best value. One reason why I paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman is that for a long time I have had sympathy with the views that he has expressed in the county that I represent. Those views are widely known. I take some comfort from the fact that such views are being expressed about policing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the police in my constituency of Mansfield have adopted that style.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. I shall attempt to assist the Minister by reminding him that interventions must be brief.

Mr. Meale

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the duty of best value will upset the process of decision making by local police.

Mr. Hayes

I said that I would be brief, but I am hesitant to draw the debate to a close, because if it continues any longer the Minister may say even nicer things about me, and the more of those that are recorded in Hansard, the better.

Mr. Swayne

I followed the Minister's logic when he appealed for flexibility in dismissing amendment No. 26, but it seemed to me that he was also dismissing that very flexibility in respect of police authorities when he dismissed amendment No.55. Am I alone in spotting that contradiction?

Mr. Hayes

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As hon. Members will know, I am renowned for my generosity, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is more hardhearted and never wastes an opportunity to draw attention to contradictions in a Minister's speech. There is certainly a fundamental issue of flexibility and independence of police forces that concerns the Opposition.

Having said that, I am anxious to ensure that the House has the maximum time to discuss the other faults and failures of the Bill, so I shall not prolong matters further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.