The Police Service

HL Deb 26 May 1993 vol 546 cc313-54

Debate resumed.

5 p.m.

The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham

My Lords, I wish to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, on his admirable maiden speech. As I rise to speak in this debate I must declare an interest as I am the representative in your Lordships' House of the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales. I must also pray for the indulgence of the House as I am getting over rather a bad cold.

There has been a great deal of media coverage and public debate recently on our beleaguered police service and whither its future. Indeed, we all await the delayed publication of the Sheehy inquiry into the future of the police service with keen anticipation, not least police officers themselves. The contents of this report are the subject of much speculation, uncertainty and concern among police officers, which is having an adverse affect on morale. The fact that the report has been further delayed compounds this effect and lowers morale even further.

Noble Lords cannot have failed to notice the tone of the recent conference in Blackpool of the Police Federation. The mood there was a mixture of anger, despair and disbelief at some of the dottier proposals put forward by the Home Secretary in his Statement to the other place on 23rd March. Among other things he was accused of being an arrogant, rude social snob with no concept of the problems of policing. He also stands accused of having sinister designs on the police due to his plans to introduce new disciplinary procedures which would make it easier to sack officers on the word of criminals without bothering about such expensive inconveniences as the burden of proof of misconduct. In other words, the police would undoubtedly be much more vulnerable to malicious complaints being made against them than they are now.

It is not just rank and file police officers who are most concerned and worried over Mr. Clarke's proposals. Their concerns are shared and mirrored by the Association of County Councils. Indeed my own county of Somerset has expressed to me in no uncertain terms its grave and serious objections to the Home Secretary's plans. They and the ACC feel that there has been little, if any, prior consideration given to the subject before the publication of the Statement on 23rd March. The proposals contained in it, they say, raise important constitutional issues which should have been widely canvassed before any public Statement was made. They regard his plans with deep suspicion and mistrust and see them as further positive proof of this Government's determination to undermine local democracy by removing as many of its functions as possible in order to reduce its power and influence and increase that of Whitehall. One has to look no further for proof of that than to the 23rd March Statement in which Mr. Clarke clearly states his intentions to take as his right the nominations of 50 per cent. of police authority membership including the nomination of the Chair. That seems to me a decidedly curious way of devolving more responsibilities to local managers. In fact I believe it is irreconcilable with another part of the same Statement where he states that he proposes to strengthen local police authorities, give them greater autonomy, ensure that policing responds to "local needs and concerns", and to consult local people in setting "the local policing agenda". Surely that will be rather difficult to achieve from Whitehall and Queen Anne's Gate?

Although we have seen big increases in police pay since the recommendations contained in the Edmund Davis report—quite right too when one considers the difficult and often dangerous duties we expect them to perform on our behalf—we have also seen considerable obstacles placed in their path, albeit unwittingly. Nevertheless those obstacles often hamper their given and expected roles and duties. Those obstacles could have been avoided with a little more mind-jerking and a little less knee-jerking from Westminster.

I find it a bit rich to say the least for this Government to claim to be the great preserver of law and order, thereby insinuating that other parties are against law and order, when the same Government have presided over the worst set of crime figures in our history, and have been responsible for placing those same obstacles in the path of the police. I accept that it was not done on purpose, or with any malicious intent; nevertheless it was done, despite the Government having available to them the very best information and advice. The sooner the Government recognise this sorry state of affairs, admit to it, and take steps to rectify the mistakes made as a matter of considerable urgency, the better it will be for our struggling and demoralised police service.

I will mention but a few of the obstacles I have referred to. Probably the largest of these is the enormous increase in paperwork that has taken place since the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill became the Act in 1984. I include in the term paperwork the cascade of forms that are required to be filled in for every arrest made, and the transcribing of audio taped interviews conducted by police officers at the time of the arrest into written statements. That process consumes vast amounts of valuable and expensive police time. This veritable rain forest of paperwork-demands indicates that it is the modus operandi of the Crown Prosecution Service that has been the largest single factor in removing police officers from the streets of our cities and towns.

For example, I refer to a simple case of shoplifting, pre-Police and Criminal Evidence Act, where the shoplifter was caught red-handed and confessed the crime to the shop and to the police. The person was charged, all details were noted in the officer's note book, the case went to court the next morning, a fine or whatever was imposed, and that was that. The officer who was called to the incident was most likely off the street for 60 minutes or less, plus the time needed for him to make a brief court appearance.

Now under PACE, and with the various demands made by the Crown Prosecution Service, a simple case of shoplifting is anything but simple even when the same conditions of being caught red-handed, followed by a ready confession apply. All must be recorded on audio tape with the arresting officer doing the interview in the presence of a solicitor. Then a transcript of that tape must be made by the same officer and sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. This officer is not a trained audio typist and that task alone can take him up to five or six hours to perform, often on an antiquated, semi-derelict typewriter. I know that is the case as I have seen those typewriters. That is quite simply ludicrous.

Another problem we have to consider is that of a police officer being injured in the course of her or his duties. I agree that this has always been a problem. Indeed it is an accepted hazard of the job. However, while it used to be possible to find either a desk job, or to put an officer who had sustained injuries which left him or her in some way incapacitated and unable to carry out full operational duties onto light duties, now a period of recuperative duties is the order of the day for a period of time considered to be reasonably flexible. If after this period of around six months or so the medical officer's opinion is such that the police officer will never be able to return to full duties, that officer will be asked to leave the service. It goes without saying that the chances of an officer being injured have increased enormously in recent years.

Officers need to carry adequate protection against assaults made on them. The present truncheon is pathetic and totally inadequate. What I find encouraging, and quite remarkable when one takes into account the numbers of assaults made on police officers every year and the often extremely vicious nature of those assaults which tragically frequently result in serious injury to the officers concerned, is that in all my travels around England and Wales where I have listened to what police men and police women have had to tell me, I have not heard one demand for the police to be armed with guns. I am sure there are those who make those demands but they must be in a very considerable minority. In fact, I have frequently heard the reverse: "We don't want guns. They don't solve anything. They just encourage more and more guns until you finish up with a deplorable situation such as that which exists in the USA which no one can now do anything about". What I am told though is that they urgently need something other than the present truncheon which in the face of a knife attack is virtually useless. No doubt your Lordships will be interested to know that here at the Palace of Westminster the number of knives that are taken away from ordinary visitors to this place is quite staggering, so many people seem to be carrying them these days.

So what can we do about removing some of these obstructions that we have placed in the way of the police without making them less accountable to the public they try to serve? I believe that there are some relatively simple remedies available to us that would certainly be cost-effective. One of them would be to allow civilian audio typists to do the transcriptions from the audio interview tapes to the written statement. Often such civilian personnel already work at the police station and it is only the insistence of the Crown Prosecution Service that prohibits this from taking place. I understand its reasoning for insisting that the police officer does this work as it says that only he or she would be capable of putting the correct emphasis on words, sentences or phrases. But surely that would be done by the police officer when reading the written statement that the audio typist had transcribed. At least to allow this to happen would make one contribution towards achieving what everyone wants; namely, to see more uniformed police officers out on our streets. They cannot be in two places at once: out on the streets keeping the Queen's peace, giving advice and assistance, communicating with the general public, preventing crime just by being there, arresting criminals and apprehending ne'er-do-wells and at the police station coping with mountains of paper and going mad in the process.

Another thing that we could do is to hand out much stiffer sentences to those who are convicted of assaulting a police officer; often these people get away with it altogether or else are fined piffling amounts, which gives the impression to the assaulted officer that the system favours the criminal rather than the victim. It is not just assaulted police officers who feel this. The general, law-abiding public feel exactly the same way, which is what prompted the comment from the Police Federation in Blackpool which queried this Government's priorities of putting carpets in prisons and cardboard boxes on the streets.

Perhaps I may close by suggesting that an early end is brought to all this uncertainty surrounding the police service. Many of the changes that have taken place since the Brixton riots have been welcomed by the public and the police alike. Many have not and I have mentioned a few this afternoon. What I think is vitally important for the future health of our police service is that we stop tinkering with it and that much more consideration and consultation take place before changes are initiated rather than after, when it is often too late. I also think it is high time that the views of all serving police officers are sought and listened to, as it is they who are out there dealing with the day-to-day grimy and hazardous business of keeping law and order as best they can given the operational strait-jackets which we have issued them with.

The public are anxious for the police to succeed but they will be able to do so only if they are supported by the government of the day rather than undermined by them. Public support for the police, although still high, is slipping. And who can blame the public when the system forces the police to reveal the names of those who are to give evidence for the prosecution, thereby subjecting them to intimidation, threats of physical violence and worse, while the criminals brought to trial often get away with it completely, leaving their victims with nothing except the bitter memory of the police telling them that there is nothing they can do? Victims of crime do not need that; they need support, like the police. I think that it is more than time we gave that support.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I wish to identify a couple of problems related to the control and management of the police, to give three examples which emanate from those problems and to identify the emergence of some good practice. I wish finally to comment on the Government's proposals and to suggest an alternative structure.

Before I begin my contribution today it is worth pointing out that I have arrived at my views as a result of listening to professionals in the field and my experience as a member of the local community watching what is happening. When I say "listening to professionals" I do not mean only those professionals who are currently in the job and who, therefore, may have an axe to grind in terms of their own advancement. I am sure that we need to listen to professionals who have retired from their positions and in doing so to listen and say, "Yes, that is a considered professional view, but from what point of view does it come? Is it held to substantiate their previous existence or professional expertise or does it come from their knowledge and experience?"

One of the most significant pieces of advice was given to me by a professional during the mid-1970s. I had a conversation with a retired deputy chief constable of the Salford police force. It was shortly after the amalgamation of the Greater Manchester police force, the Salford police force and a number of smaller forces into the Greater Manchester Police. I asked him why we were experiencing the rising crime rate and difficulties with policing. His explanation was two-fold. He said first that we had given all the young policemen panda cars to run around in and that therefore they lost contact with the community. That was perhaps the kind of comment an old policeman would make. However, his second explanation was significant; that we had created large police forces in which the chief constable no longer had any knowledge of the personal capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of individual policemen.

The first problem which we need to address, therefore, is the size of our police forces. Once a force is more than 1,000 strong, the chief constable effectively loses track of the individual strengths and weaknesses of members of his force. Another point is that with an increase in size comes an increase in the geographical area. There then arises the problem of police officers who live in one particular area being called upon to police a totally different area. They have no common bond with the local community.

The second problematical aspect is the lack of accountability of the police force. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees earlier identified the problems that he, as Home Secretary, had with the Chief Constable of Lancashire. Perhaps I may explain that I come from Manchester, where we had "God's own cop". Noble Lords will appreciate that our experience was not amenable to the police committee, the chair of the police authority, successive Home Secretaries, or the combined might of the Home Office. Noble Lords will appreciate the reason why I and many citizens in Manchester and across Britain have grave anxieties about the accountability of police forces to the local community.

I cite three examples. They may explain the problems which emanated from the large size and lack of accountability of the police force. The first example arises from the situation that obtained in the mid-1970s in Manchester. James Anderton was fairly recently appointed chief constable. One of his initial activities was to require his officers to seize what was described as pornographic material. So far as I am aware no prosecutions were ever brought but an immense amount of goods was seized from newsagents' shops across the conurbation. That was at the personal whim of the chief constable. So far as I and many other citizens of Manchester could see, it was totally outwith the rule of law. However, because he was waging a campaign against pornography, very little public criticism could be attached to it, and in some quarters it was supported.

He then ordered his officers to raid the working men's clubs. Those are clubs in which local community and working men can drink after hours. Such clubs have membership requirements. The custom and practice was that the membership requirements were not strongly enforced. James Anderton determined, again personally, that such a practice should not be tolerated. His officers raided the working men's clubs and threatened closure of those in which non-members were allowed to drink. Because of the distribution of the Labour Party working men's clubs in Manchester, that was seen to be an attack on working men and on the clubs of the Labour Party. Again, some circles in Manchester almost applauded—until the police began then to raid the Conservative clubs. Those are similar organisations with late night drinking for local Conservatives and other members of the community. Conservative politicians then realised that this was a person who would not just have a go at working men and pornography but who was intent on doing his own thing. They realised that he was out of control.

Viscount Tonypandy

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Is he aware that he is making a personal attack upon an individual outside this House who has no chance to answer him? If he were in another place, he would be made to justify every remark he passes on the honour of a public servant.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Viscount raises. One of the difficulties in dealing with the subject is not to bring personalities into it. I take the advice of the noble Viscount. In my subsequent remarks I shall endeavour not to bring individual personalities into it. The noble Viscount is right.

In the early 1980s, this country was subjected to a fairly vicious recession. Vast swathes of manufacturing industry in particular were laid waste. Mass unemployment resulted, in particular in northern areas and in London. We had riots in Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side. Living only a mile and a half from Moss Side, my experience was that those were not spontaneous riots. Subsequent information is that what started as a smash and grab incident—a shop window being broken and someone reaching in to grab something—developed into generalised criminality because of the lack of police response. It was described as a riot. Subsequent police actions effectively made the situation worse.

Subsequent information is that it was a deliberate act by the police to signify to the local community—local councillors and MPs—that the police were necessary, important and significant public servants. They deliberately did not initially attend the incident for some hours on the basis that the problem would escalate and then the civil authorities would demand that the police take action. The police would take action and the position of the police would be justified.

That attitude equates poorly with the argument on the accountability of the police. Perhaps I may tell noble Lords of my own experience. Standing in my front garden, I saw vanloads of police driving past on their way to Moss Side with officers shouting through the windows and leaning out of the back of the van, saying, "We are off to give them another good hiding". Those are not experiences that I wish ever to see repeated.

My third example refers to the miners' disputes. In 1984–85 many policemen across the country thought that it was Christmas, birthday time and Easter all rolled into one. They were making money hand over fist and seemingly indulging in the exercise that they like best, which is running around in vans and beating people up. Allusion has already been made in the debate to the miners' dispute and the damage that it caused in certain communities.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. On reflection would he like to withdraw the statement that what the police most like to do is to run around and beat people up?

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I am sorry if I was misunderstood. I hoped to explain that that was the impression given to a number of people: that that is what the police like doing. I do not believe that that is true of the vast majority of policemen in this country. Unfortunately it appeared that way to a number of people at that time.

Those three experiences demonstrate to my mind the problems due to the size and the lack of accountability of the police force. It is interesting that over the past few years, the attitudes and views of police forces, police officers and chief constables seem to have shifted. I give an example of what I described earlier as positive good practice. Wythenshawe, in the south of Manchester, has been described as the largest council estate in Europe. It was an overspill, built on the outskirts of Manchester just before and just after the war for slum clearance purposes. It is a homogeneous community; people think of themselves as Wythenshawe people. It has all the characteristics of the inner city, with poverty, unemployment and, until a couple of years ago, a rising crime rate such as has been experienced right across the country.

A few years ago, the police force local boundaries were reorganised within the Greater Manchester police and a particular division came to cover the whole of the local conurbation of Wythenshawe. At the same time, a new chief superintendent took up post with fairly radical ideas on relationships with the community and the public. He engaged in a dialogue with his senior officers, with local councillors and members of the local community. He developed an atmosphere of trust and respect, to a certain extent.

The result has been a reduction in the crime rate in Wythenshawe. It was not terribly significant, but set against the increase in the crime rate nationally, bearing in mind the increase due to the latest recession, with unemployment and poverty, we can see that it has been a considerable achievement. To my mind, that is a positive and significant result of a specific action by the police who related to the local community and became accountable, and were seen to be accountable to the community.

I am sorry I have spoken for so long but we now come to the Government's proposals for the police which seem to take them in completely the opposite direction from the one which our experience and advice, received over the past few years, would suggest. The idea of creating larger and larger police forces, with the Government appointing chairs of police authorities and significant numbers of members of the authorities, runs totally counter to the concept of local accountability which can be so beneficial not only for the crime rate but for the stature and status of the police, and also for aspects of the local community.

I argue that we should go in the other direction. We should not seek to reduce the size of the police force, because that would be misinterpreted. We should increase the number of police forces and improve their accountability to the local community.

5.34 p.m.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, upon his initiative in raising in his Motion and his speech important constitutional issues. I regret that from time to time we have appeared to drift away from the main theme. I have a high regard for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister of State. I know that, for their part, they have a high regard for the police and the service they render to the community.

However, I feel that, while their proposals for reform of the structure of the police authorities are no doubt prompted by the best of intentions, they have unfortunately met with a degree of criticism which might largely have been avoided. Of course, no change, not even change for the better, is accomplished without difficulty. But not all change is for the better and it is certainly unwise to attempt it when one has nothing more than—with due respect to those who occupy such high positions—the blessings of the mandarins in Whitehall. The introduction to the House this afternoon of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, reminded me of what happened after the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as President of the Board of Trade, made his famous observation that, "The gentleman in Whitehall really does know best". That prompted the first Earl of Woolton to coin the slogan, "Town hall, not Whitehall". Like this debate, I believe that the Conservative Party and the Tory Party have drifted away from that original slogan.

The purpose of the Motion is to draw attention in particular: to the proposal that the Government should appoint the chairman and some other members of the police authorities". Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I particularly regret the proposed reduction in the number of locally elected members of the new police authorities and the appointment of the chairman by the Home Secretary. I regard that as yet another regrettable erosion of local accountability.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to continental practices and reminded me of how Professor Hayek, in his famous book The Road to Serfdom, said: You cannot have real, effective democracy without real, effective, local self government". He spoke from his experience of what happened in Germany before the war, when the duly elected mayor of Cologne, Mr. Adenauer, was not thought to represent the people as. well as someone like Mr. Krupp, for example, who had, no doubt, local managerial expertise at his disposal.

I share the view of those who believe that locally elected democratic accountability is fundamental for effective policing by consent. I should like to quote from a letter which Mr. S. J. Day, Chairman of the Police Committee of the Association of County Councils, sent to the Home Secretary on 8th January. It seems to me to summarise the position more effectively than I can: In any reorganisation of the constitution of police authorities there should be no dilution of the scale of responsibilities of democratically elected local authority members, who should predominate in at least the present proportions. Elected members do of course come from all sections of the community, including the business sector, although in their capacity as members of local or police authorities they represent the community as a whole, rather than their particular sectoral interest. Voluntary bodies and local business communities have a legitimate interest in the work of a police authority, and can make a valuable contribution. However, if representatives of those sectors were to be members of police authorities, as such, as distinct from local consultative committees, measures will be necessary to guard against the exercise of self-interest in their decisions. Subject to this qualification, the [Association of County Councils] accepts that such representatives could be included among the non-elected members, together with representatives of the Magistracy. Non-elected members should however be co-opted or appointed locally as is presently the case with magistrate members and not centrally appointed, in order to preserve the local aspect of policing". That is to say nothing of the danger of appointments on a political basis by whatever party may happen to be in power.

There are just one or two other matters which cause me concern. One is taking any action which might anticipate or predict the Local Government Commission's recommendations. For example, any eventual review of force size should not be restricted to possible amalgamations. It should take a broad view of other possibilities such as smaller forces which might better reflect local communities.

The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, made the point that he came from Somerset. I too have been approached by the Somerset authorities, since I now live in that part of the world. Also, because I represented Hexham for some time in the other place, the Northumberland police authority has made much the same points to me. It says that an all-party attitude has been adopted. There is very grave concern about the increase in crime, particularly in rural areas, and the often inequitable sharing of resources between urban and rural areas. That is arguably the case in relation to the Avon and Somerset police authority. Perhaps that authority should be split rather than amalgamated with another body.

I do not want to dwell on the changes to be made in the finances of police authorities, to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred. I have made my views on standard spending assessments and rate capping known on many other occasions. Certainly the finances of police authorities need reform. I took particular note of what the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said in his very powerful speech about the observations of the Audit Commission. I hope that the Home Secretary will take account of the more recent report of the Audit Commission, appropriately entitled Passing the bucks, which finds considerable faults in the standard spending assessment system, which both confuses the public and leads to cosmetic and not very satisfactory accountability.

I noted with considerable satisfaction that the Home Secretary, at the conclusion of his Statement in the other place on 23rd March, indicated that government policy had not been finalised. I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm that again this evening. He went out of his way to ask interested parties to make their views known. I believe that in this case, as in many others, real and effective consultation is vital to the success and the acceptability of any reforms of this nature. I hope that this debate and the other representations that have been made by, among others, the Association of County Councils and individual police authorities will help the Home Secretary to find a satisfactory conclusion to his deliberations of a kind that will command general support.

5.42 p.m.

Viscount Tonypandy

My Lords, it is a very great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, with whom I served in another place. For the first time today I heard the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, speaking in this House. I listened with respect to him in another place, as I have today. I join with noble Lords in expressing deep gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the masterly way in which he introduced this subject today. He had obviously done careful research. All of us have been approached by many bodies about this subject.

I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, who is from North Wales and who made his maiden speech today. It was a speech well worth hearing. Unless I am very much mistaken, one of his distant forebears was once Speaker of the House of Commons. If that is true, it means—if I may digress for just one second—that the House of Commons has had two honourable Members with Welsh constituencies elected to the Chair of the House. The first was the forebear of the noble Lord, Lord Trevor. After the Commons had been meeting for 300 years it decided that it would choose a Welshman. After him it took another 300 years before I had my turn. I listened with pride to the way in which the noble Lord spoke in the House today. I hope that we shall hear him very often.

The first job I had was that of junior Minister at the Home Office. That was 19 years ago. It was a very different world then. When the allocation of duties was shared out among the junior Ministers, I found that I had the general department, immigration and police. That gave me an insight into the problems of our police service.

Secondly, I should inform the House that so far in this debate I am the only former policeman to speak. I had the privilege throughout the war years of serving in the police force. I reached the height of sergeant. We voted on such matters in the Rhondda Valley. That was why I was there. To have worn the uniform and looked at one's community through the eyes of a policeman is very different from sitting here and pronouncing in very serious tones on what policemen are like and what they should do. I say to the noble Lord who was critical of van-loads of police going to where there was trouble, that of course there are policemen who are not of the same high standard as is generally accepted. Not all Members of this House are the same. Our virtues are not the same—and, thank goodness, neither are our vices. The police force is not a matter for party consideration. It would be a dreadful day for Britain if the police force became a party football, or if either side tried to make it appear to be on its side.

It takes a clever man to upset the police force and local government at the same time. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, I do not underestimate the Home Secretary. He has a rare gift—one which is very important in politics—for arousing emotion, as well as for challenging the intellect. There is no doubt at all that throughout England and Wales the police are now anxious. That is bad for the country. It cannot be good. As for consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, reminded us, the White Paper is due in June. We shall be listened to a great deal, I am sure. I wish that the Government would resort once again to Green Papers, whereby they could garner opinions before they finally formed their own. After all, both this House and the other place have accumulated wisdom. We have a contribution to make. Every government department, in my experience, will take more powers to itself if these Houses do not themselves assert an opinion.

I do not want to be at all unfair to the Home Secretary. I might have sounded a bit rough on him. I know that he is well capable of looking after himself, but I do not wish to do him an injustice. But I want him to listen and to move cautiously. In the judgment of the county councils, under the guise of managerial reforms major changes to the British Constitution are proposed. If we weaken local responsibility even further, we shall change the very character of British public and social life. Local government is much older than parliamentary government. There was a Lord Mayor of London 200 years before there was a Speaker of the House of Commons. Today, local government is under fire. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, naturally loyal and kind to his own side, indicated a certain unease about the attitude toward those who carry local responsibility.

The proposed new police authorities will be highly unresponsible bodies. As we have been reminded, they will draw 90 per cent. of their finance from Her Majesty's Government. They can precept the other 10 per cent. and make councillors add it on to the rates that have to be paid.

To whom are they responsible for even a penny? They are responsible only to the Government. All that the local authorities will be able to do is accept their demand—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. They will have to accept the precept which the new police authority will be able to put upon them. That being so, there are bound to be fierce rows and arguments.

When I prepared for this debate, I reminded myself that every bobby has a number on his shoulder. I recall an occasion when a policeman had been helping me on the M.4 motorway. As I was writing down his number, he looked at me and asked, "What are you doing?" I said, "This is a free country. I am writing down your number. You know that your number is for us and not for you. It is for the public to be able to identify the bobby with whom they have been dealing. As a matter of fact I always send a letter of thanks to the chief constable if anybody has helped me. So you will not lose out on it." I hope that he did not.

I know that our democracy depends on the quality and the loyalty of the police force. Without it the bully boys would take over. Democracy is possible only because we have a police force which has the feel of the community. I agree with the noble Lord that it is dangerous beyond measure to play with that. The proposals to which the Home Secretary referred on 23rd March are not little proposals. These are major proposals. I wish that he would delay until further consultation has taken place.

5.56 p.m.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, following that impassioned plea on behalf of the police, I shall obviously have difficulty in rising to such heights of eloquence. I made a speech about this topic only a month ago, on 21st April. Inevitably I shall repeat many of the points that I made then about the democratic deficit and the Home Secretary's plans.

The Home Secretary has declared that the objectives of his proposed reforms are to encourage the devolution of responsibility to local police units and to make force headquarters co-ordinators and supporters, not commanders, of local policing. That devolution of power and decision-making to the local level is a highly desirable objective since it is only at the local level, as has been said by numerous noble Lords, that policing can be responsive to the needs of the local community.

During the past 10 years, since some of the events described by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, considerable progress has been made by the police service in the direction toward greater community policing and greater local accountability. Chief inspectors and superintendents in charge of police divisions have been encouraged to be more autonomous and more flexible in their response to local needs and problems. Most problems occur at the level of community needs on housing estates, in shopping centres or in other urban equivalents of villages. Above that level patterns of crime, traffic or drunken hooliganism become averaged into apparent homogeneity.

Mr. Clarke, however, sets out to achieve his objective of greater devolution through the contradictory mechanism of seizing all power over the police service and transferring it to the centre of government, as the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, said. To place the police service effectively under the control of the Home Office seems to be a totally paradoxical and contradictory way of achieving his objective. It removes all local accountability and democratic communication. I fear that that will be a recipe for either anarchy at local level in the police service—what is known as front line deviation—or dictatorial control from the centre. One cannot determine what is happening locally if' one is as far removed as the Home Office from the local beat or the local community. I therefore fear that Mr. Clarke will set out to achieve dictatorial control but will inevitably produce anarchy within the police service.

To underpin his plans the Home Secretary intends to set national objectives. Those will inevitably be meaningless at local level if they are as bland as, for example, injunctions to reduce crime or to improve the flow of traffic. Objectives set at that sort of level are quite pointless. Only local objectives set within the context of local policing can be effective.

For the past few years Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary have been trying to develop common performance indicators for the police service. What is new about the Home Secretary's plans is that he now proposes to convert those indicators into league tables, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. One would have thought that the problems that occurred in the education system through attempting to introduce league tables for schools might have given him pause for thought; or is it intended that the police force will have to compete for customers, like schools and the gas boards?

In the past there have been problems with the tripartite system of accountability set up by the 1964 Police Act. But at least that system was arrived at after a Royal Commission and has stood the test of time—nearly 30 years. Some police authority chairmen in the past clashed with chief constables on openness and accountability and the limits of operational independence. Some chief constables perhaps resented having to provide information to police authorities. But during the past few years those problems have largely been eliminated. Increasingly effective and fruitful partnerships have developed between police forces and their police authorities, leading to initiatives in the community which have reduced crime and improved the quality of life for local people.

Some police authorities are still too loosely constituted. They meet infrequently and rarely ask for special reports from their chief constables. Some chief constables still have too high an opinion of their own unaided judgment. However, those are problems that could be overcome while retaining the essential principle of local democratic accountability. For example, the Home Secretary could legislate to limit the size of the police authority or allow it to co-opt non-executive members with particular skills of accountancy or personnel management. He could lay down rules about sub-committees and the regularity of meetings. A study made in 1980, for example, found that more than half the police authorities met only four times a year.

I cannot but view the Home Secretary's objectives as being other than part of the present Government's long-standing and vindictive vendetta against local authorities—all the more so, if the report in yesterday's Evening Standard is to be believed, if the Home Secretary has already abandoned his ideas to have local authority representatives on the proposed police authority for London.

For many years I have been an advocate for having some democratic accountability for the Metropolitan Police. When we still had the Greater London Council it was possible to imagine some such body with constituent members from the GLC and the London boroughs. It is much harder, without a strategic authority for the whole of this great city, to imagine a police authority for London. Nevertheless, what the Home Secretary was originally planning seemed to have some small element of local democracy in it. If he is now to have an entirely appointed advisory board of the Metropolitan Police, that is extremely sad. His original plans were welcomed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and I imagine that he will be as disappointed as I am that all that the Home Secretary will do is to reinforce his own hand and not to increase democracy for the people of London.

I believe also that the Home Secretary's attack on the police service and on police authorities is largely intended as a smokescreen to divert the attention of the public from the real underlying cause of crime, which is the encouragement of greed and selfish self-centredness that have become the national ethos over the past 14 years.

In outlining his plans to police representatives, I was amused to notice the Home Secretary's tactics. When addressing chief constables he stresses the measures he will take to eliminate lazy and incompetent constables, implying that crime levels are so high because they have failed to catch the criminals. When addressing constables and sergeants at the Police Federation conference last week, however, he suggested that the problem was the dead weight of ineffective and democratic management that was inhibiting their crime-fighting abilities. When addressing the nation at large he suggests that the whole police service needs reorganising.

When I spoke last month of the Home Secretary's plans, my chief concern was the loss of democratic accountability of the police authority through his appointment of five out of the 16 members and of his choice of the paid chairman. Since then I have realised the extent to which his plans would also undermine the position and operational independence of chief constables, thus transferring even more power to the Home Office.

Chief constables will be undermined in the following ways. First, it is proposed that they will be appointed on short-term contracts which will be renewable on the say-so of the police authorities—not exactly a recipe for independence of thought or action, especially when the chairman is a paid Home Office appointee. Secondly, there will undoubtedly be regular meetings between the Home Secretary and the 22 or so paid police authority chairmen if the proposed amalgamations go ahead. That will exclude chief constables from real influence and strategic decision-making. Thirdly, if for some reason the chief constable and the police authority chairman disagree, the Home Office will no longer be able to act as a neutral referee and will undoubtedly support the Home Secretary's appointee.

At present the relationship between the chief constable and his police authority chairman is crucial. If it breaks down, the chief constable can appeal to the Home Office or to Her Majesty's inspectorate for support. That would no longer apply, and chief constables, who may have more regard than politicians or businessmen for the rule of law and the practicalities of policing, will be in a greatly weakened position.

The proposed police authorities may also work to the disadvantage of the public in other ways. Combined police authorities—presumably there will be more of those if amalgamations take place—already experience stresses and strains due to competing demands. Curiously enough, it is Avon and Somerset with which I have most contact, as has already been mentioned by previous speakers. I know that Somerset County would like to have its own police force again because its officers are continually being removed to deal with crises in the policing of Bristol, such as riots, murders or football matches. Force headquarters and their police authorities tend to be based in large conurbations and therefore see the problems of urban policing as more important than those of policing the countryside. That imbalance would be exacerbated in larger forces.

Rarely have I seen such unified opposition to a Home Secretary's plans for the police service—not just the municipal authorities but also the county councils. The Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Constables are united in their condemnation of this seizure of power by the centre. Perhaps I may quote from the paper issued by the chief constables after their spring conference this year. It states: it is vital that … great care is taken to retain those important elements which underpin the constitutional position of policing in this country—which enables the police to be of the people, not of the state … the relationship between policing and the community, made legitimate through the authority's accountability to the local electorate, must not be lost". It is that relationship which is being jeopardised by the Home Secretary's plans. I ask the noble Earl when he replies to say how he expects that degree of local democracy and accountability to be retained.

6.5 p.m.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, I shall resist with difficulty the temptation to answer some of the highly politicised remarks of the noble Baroness. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, made me extremely sad. I am a quarter Welsh and it seems that perhaps I should not have taken the voluntary decision to leave the other place; I might have stood a chance of being the third part-Welsh Speaker in that House. But he put an idea into my mind and I am grateful to him.

Like many other noble Lords, I have had close contact with the police since I first became a member of Hampstead Borough Council in 1949. Many rising stars passed through Hampstead; for example, Richard Wells, who is now the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Another was Alison Halford, whose career was sadly cut short by some small-minded vicious people in the Merseyside area. The police service sadly misses someone of her calibre.

I too received the briefing paper from the AMA. I do not see the proposals of Mr. Kenneth Clarke with quite the degree of horror that it does. For example, it says that: The Home Secretary will appoint and pay a member to chair each force, who will as a consequence be accountable to him rather than to the authority". I was deputy chairman of the old AMC. Any chairman of an authority will act under statute, not under the direction of a specific Minister. I believe that that is a degree of unnecessary scaremongering and does not do credit to the AMA.

That is one reason why I do not object to many of the proposals in Mr. Kenneth Clarke's suggestions to reduce the number of local authority representatives.

However, I positively welcome his apparent change of plans regarding who will control the Metropolitan Police. Those of us who have spent a lifetime in local government in London recognise that the prospect of some form of elected body to run the Metropolitan Police would be anathema. I held that view long before the rise of the Lambeth phenomenon. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be able to say that the rumour in the Evening Standard is correct. It will be welcomed by the vast majority of Londoners. Those who believe that Londoners sadly miss an elected body ought to know that in the marginal constituency that I represented over the years I received only seven letters from people objecting to the disappearance of the GLC.

I want to concentrate for a moment on one specific aspect, the City of London. I do not believe that it would be right for me not to mention to my noble friend that I hope that, for the sake of tidiness, no one is going to suggest abolishing or amalgamating the City of London Police. That would be a grave mistake. I remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission in 1962 said this: The City of London has an importance and position out of all relation to its size. In the field of policing, its problems arc unique and specialised. It has to contend with a daily influx of three-quarters of a million people; it has to protect some of the most valuable property in the world; and it has been forced to develop in a very high degree means of combating crime in technical fields, such as company fraud". I believe that one needs just to look for a moment to see how far that should go. Besides reasons of tradition, there are many practical reasons why the City of London Police should not be touched. First, there is the question of uniqueness. It has to carry out many difficult tasks. It has special protection responsibilities, a point mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. Events of immense international prestige attract members of royalty, overseas leaders and many other people. All of these events have security implications which require rigorous pre-planning.

Furthermore, because of the high degree of tension over many trials-2,000 of them in 1992—the Old Bailey requires special police protection, and on the occasion of trials involving terrorism, additional policing is required. The force has to combat terrorism. Anyone who watched the City police after the Bishopsgate bomb would have nothing but the highest admiration for what they did. Perhaps I may say, incidentally, that I hope that the events that followed the Bishopsgate bomb will kill any idea of not leaving Bart's with a 24-hour accident and emergency service.

There is also the problem of fraud, which centres, obviously, on the City. Here again the City police have responded with immense sophistication to combating fraud. Whether one looks at the success rate they have had in actual numbers or whether one looks at what they have achieved, I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to know that money lost or at risk from fraud in the City in 1992 amounted to some £514 million, of which, thanks to the efforts of the City police, £493 million was actually recovered.

Is the force effective? The Inspector of Constabulary in 1991 referred to a very busy force, with far wider operational commitments than the casual observer would actually anticipate. I believe that the case for retaining the City of London police as a separate force is made out over and over again, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will go a little further than the Home Secretary has gone. The Home Secretary has not actually said that he completely rejects any idea of amalgamating the City police. Precedents exist for special legislation covering the City of London. I believe that it should be possible for my noble friend to give some comfort to me on this issue.

Other occasions will arise when one can talk about the interaction of local government and the police force in various parts of the country. There have been examples of very good co-operation; there have been examples of very bad co-operation. I need only mention Derbyshire to point to your Lordships that it is not always a good thing to have a majority of local authority representatives on a police authority. In the City one has the ideal combination that the Home Secretary is asking for. I believe it is important to have that kind of mix available when one is considering a new police authority.

Of course, it is always better to wait to see a White Paper. I agree with those who have said that perhaps a Green Paper would have been even more helpful. The trouble nowadays is that Green Papers take a long time to prepare. They require an even longer time for consultation. A White Paper, therefore, has some advantages if one is looking for a sensible way of changing the police structure. Changing the police structure does not, in my judgment, involve tampering with the Constitution. Those who say so have not, I believe, examined Dicey or any other expert on the British unwritten Constitution. No one has suggested the creation of a national police force.

Of course it would be ideal if the various police authorities were able to concentrate on some of the most important issues. For that reason meetings between the Home Secretary and the new chairmen of police authorities must be invaluable. As a former health Minister, I found meetings with health authority chairmen extremely valuable, but it was not laying down for them a national policy that they had to follow. It was pointing out the strategy that was acceptable in the field of the resources being allocated to that service. There is no reason why the Home Secretary should not have meetings similar to those he has now with chief constables, so that one gets the interplay of the professional and, as it were, the political, with a small "p", chairmen of authorities. I have no doubt at all that those chairmen will be selected on the basis of their merit

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Finsberg:—and of a wide cross-section of political opinion.

Perhaps I may say to those on the other side of the House that when I became the junior environment Minister, one of my tasks was to look at appointments to various bodies. I took one chunk and found that in that chunk there were three times as many known Labour supporters as Conservative supporters. I do not remember any abject apologies from the party opposite on that point. I have enough faith in this Government, and in the next Conservative Government which I hope will follow them, that they will select people on their abilities to be good chairmen of police authorities.

One message must go out from this House. It is that we are all united in believing that the police in this country, an unarmed force, do a first-class job. They deserve our full support and I believe that the public would want us to give that message of support.

6.16 p.m.

The Earl of Carnarvon

My Lords, one advantage of being low down in the batting order is that one can have one hit and can be brief. That I shall attempt to do. I think that the hit might be against the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, because I disagreed with virtually everything he said.

I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on bringing this debate to the House, and it was wonderful to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Rippon, speak from three sides, united in their views.

I was vice-chairman of the police committee of the County Council Association and at one time I was on the Police Council. My main claim to fame was getting the boot allowance incorporated into the wages structure. In Hampshire the police authority has 24 elected members; 20 from Hampshire and four from the Isle of Wight; and there are four magistrates; eight from Hampshire and two from the Isle of Wight. The chairman is always a member of Hampshire County Council; the deputy chairman is from the Isle of Wight; and the vice-chairman is from Hampshire. Not only the police authority itself but also the Association of Chief Police Officers remain committed to being accountable locally and to being an integral part of the local government system.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept the concept of co-opting a small number of members but this should be done by the authority itself. They should not be nominated by the Home Secretary. Local accountability, however, can be assured only if elected members continue to form the majority of the authority's membership. I believe that it is very important—underline "very important"—that the chairman be appointed from among the elected members and not by the Home Secretary. I hope very much that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will give us some indication as to whether he sympathises with the view expressed pretty well unanimously all round the House today.

6.20 p.m.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for introducing this debate. There was only one slightly discordant note which jarred on me because he made reference to the Government giving in to pressure from a few MPs in the other place. I must say that as a former Whip I do find that rather deplorable. I draw your Lordships' attention to the latest edition of the House of Commons Weekly Information Bulletin which, being the 500th edition, takes a little trip down memory lane. On page 5 it gives the state of the parties in the House of Commons on 2nd November 1978. Out of a total of 635 Members there were only 308 Labour MPs. But we still formed the Government and we still kept going. I certainly did not allow my colleagues to give in to the pressure of a few Members of Parliament. So I hope that that will stiffen up the Government's arm.

Like so many others who have spoken, I too have been approached by the Avon and Somerset police. I am very glad to lend my support to them, particularly as I live in the area and I need to keep in good standing with them. But they say that they support the general remarks made by the Association of County Councils. I shall not weary your Lordships by going over a number of points which have already been made more than adequately. But, clearly, the question of more local control is going to enhance confidence. Although I am not well versed in financial matters, I understand that local financial control is also to be welcomed because it is possible to have the money disposed to the best advantage.

One thing which I am not so sure about is the question of league tables of performance because it seems to me to be a two-edged sword. If it is seen in one particular authority that there is a fairly low clear-up rate of crime, then surely there will be a migration of criminals to that area because they will know that they will stand a much better chance of getting away with it. It is almost like the pre-war days when I was told as a boy that tramps and other mendicants going around well-heeled areas used to put signs on gateposts indicating information for others of their kind either that there was a vicious dog on the premises or that the people were a soft touch and always good for a cup of tea and a wad. As my noble friend Lady Hilton said, it is a very great difficulty to equate one area with another because inner city problems cannot be put on a par with those in rural areas.

I would like to reinforce the plea for the retention of a number of locally elected councillors on these authorities because I believe that it is very important that this link is maintained. I do not know whether it is generally known, but from conversations with Members on my own side and with others on the Government side of the House, I understand there is much more difficulty now in getting people to go onto panels of potential candidates for local government service. I shall not go into the possible reasons for that, but I believe that to be a fact. Anything which tends to devalue the contribution of the locally-elected councillors is to be resisted very strongly.

Other noble Lords have dealt with the difficulties of more central control and the possible threat to the service. I wish to dwell for a moment on the question of the police as a whole. If the police are not seen to be involved with the local community the effects can be disastrous. I am told that in the United States—in Los Angeles, for example—the police are not involved so much with local affairs and therefore the opinion of the police is very much more moulded by the sort of incidents that we see on television and the accusations which are made against them.

The burden on the police is very much increased by such incidents. In a sense they have been used as a tool by the extreme Left and the extreme Right in recent years because we know that in industrial disputes, where there has been perfectly legitimate picketing, members of extremist groups such as the Workers' Revolutionary Party and various Trotskyite splinter groups have gone along deliberately to try to cause trouble and involve the police in unpleasant incidents. Similarly, I showed a map to the then Minister of Sport in the other place some time ago showing that there was a direct correlation between the football ground in London where there had been serious trouble and the votes obtained by National Front and British National Party candidates in the adjoining constituencies. So we have to realise that the police have a very difficult job.

When we talk about the police we are not actually talking about an amorphous mass, or just an anonymous body which can be pushed and prodded into whatever shape we fancy. We are actually talking about some 180,000 men and women who have consciously and deliberately taken the decision to join the force and to render service to the community. We have to ask ourselves whether we are going to go on getting people who are prepared to give that kind of service to the community if the current tendencies in society become worse.

I am told that regularly on television in the United States in the commercial breaks advertisements already appear, from law firms, that are particularly directed against the medical community. Those advertisements say—and I have been given this as a quotation: If you or a loved one think that you may have been the victims of medical negligence or wrongdoing, give us a call". There is then mention of a particular firm. We will fight for you until you have been awarded everything that you deserve in a court of law". This tide of litigation against professional people and those who are making a conscientious decision on the basis of the best available knowledge is a very serious threat to the structure of our community services. I believe that the police are no exception to that danger.

Already there is difficulty in recruiting people to go into the specialism of gynaecology. There are other branches of medicine where increasing litigation is occurring. I am told that in the United States, and to some extent in Canada, some professional consultants now have to pay out something like one-third of their income in order to get insurance to cover possible medical claims. That cannot be a healthy state of affairs. Nobody wishes to deny the right of redress to someone who has suffered a wrong, but that can be carried too far and become a positive deterrent to people entering a service such as the police. The medical profession, the social services, and all other services where there is a sense of vocation and purpose, are in jeopardy because of this increasing litigation.

Personal litigation is on a micro-scale—I have to be careful with these technical terms. On a macro-scale I believe that we are beginning to get more use of people forcing public inquiries and using all kinds of objections to hold up economic developments in various parts of the country. The irony is that the people who organise these things are usually prosperous upper or middle class people who have already reached a good standard of living by economic developments elsewhere in the country.

We must always bear in mind that the police are individuals: they have taken the decision to join the force. We must make sure that they are not the victims of persecution by various elements in society, but if there are to be changes in their conditions and organisation we must make sure that it is done with the fullest consultation with them and, wherever possible, with their fullest consent.

6.28 p.m.

Viscount Tenby

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for instigating this most important debate today concerning an area in which he has great experience. As a fellow Welshman and JP, and a fellow member of a police authority, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, on an excellent maiden speech.

This is such a fundamental issue that when it was powerfully brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, in the debate on local democracy in April, I, like many others, was surprised and disappointed when the Minister involved failed to touch on the topic at all in his summing up. After today, I believe that there will be no doubt in the Minister's mind of the importance that the House attaches to the subject.

I should make my position clear at the outset. As I said, I am currently a member of a large police authority and, as a magistrate, a non-elected member—which your Lordships may feel is not entirely a new experience for a Member of this House. However, I hope that it is not just through feelings of guilt that I oppose so vigorously the concept that the control of such authorities should in future lie in the hands of non-elected members, answerable only to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

I propose tonight to confine my remarks to the proposals concerning police authorities. I am aware that, coming as I do at the end of an innings, most of the plums have already been pulled out of the pie, but important facts sometimes bear repetition. The practice of policing with the support and consent of local communities has a long and honourable tradition behind it in this country. As has been said, it is also almost certainly the chief reason why, despite some latterday hiccups, the police continue to be held in such high esteem. If that were to be removed in the misguided belief that it would increase efficiency, something very precious would be removed with it. I need hardly add that at a time of continuing high levels of crime in both urban and rural areas, that would be a considerable misjudgment on the part of the Government.

There were, it is true, some helpful initiatives in the Home Secretary's Statement in March, but one of them has been removed. There was the greater freedom of chief constables to establish their priorities rather than the Home Office doing it for them; there was the monitoring of performance against objectives. It was also a considerable relief to see the importance of the operational independence of chief constables emphasised, but there, I am afraid, the plaudits peter out.

What is being proposed is, in effect, the removal of police authorities from the area of local government—nothing more, nothing less. First, authorities are to become autonomous—that is, as far as their former county council parents are concerned. To the Government's credit, no attempt is made to disguise the fact that in future all strings will be pulled in the Home Office. It is yet another example of deadening central control where once there was healthy local independence.

Secondly, 91 per cent. of the authorities' money —and I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Tonypandy because I really do think that the figure is 91 per cent..—will come from central funds, with only 9 per cent. coming by way of council precepts.

Thirdly, finally and most devastatingly, local, democratically elected members will be reduced to a parity with non-elected ministerial appointees. Of course, elected councillors can be an irritant at times and in certain places. I have experienced what I may perhaps call "erratic behaviour". Somewhere, in this country of ours, at any one time, there is the "Ridiculous Right" as well as the "Loony Left". But that is the price that we pay—albeit through gritted teeth—for democracy.

Perhaps I may deal with the point about elected councillors in more detail. The Secretary of State said in another place of authorities: Their job will be to ensure that policing responds to local needs and concerns".—[Official Report, Commons. 23/3/93; col. 766.] In my own county of Hampshire, the proposals will entail a reduction from 24 elected members to eight. That means that a member who currently represents the equivalent of 60,000 people will in future have to represent some 200,000 people—that is, three times the present number or, if one prefers, three times what might be regarded as the size of the electorate of an average parliamentary seat. Some response, some feedback!

Perhaps I may now turn to the appointees: five businessmen/managerial experts and true. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not mind when I say that this Government appear to have something of an obsession about businessmen and businesswomen. Supermen and Superwomen all, they can provide all the answers whether they serve on police authorities or magistrates' courts committees. Banish the thought that they might be better employed sorting out the problems of their own companies, many of them, it must be said, brought about by this very Government. No, their country needs them in foreign fields and, for many of them, they will undoubtedly be very foreign fields indeed. Like all good obsessions, however, it ignores fact. Not all magistrates are antediluvian buffers. The House must not take me as an example. Some actually are businessmen and women—and quite good ones at that. As for police authorities, I can speak only for my own. Almost 50 per cent. of its members are drawn from the business world—not a good enough reason surely for removing democratic control from its proceedings.

The Government are also proposing that the chairman of an authority should in future be appointed by the Secretary of State. The chairman will have a casting vote on all but fiscal matters, thus ensuring endless problems between policy and resources. He will be answerable to the Secretary of State for the efficiency of the local force, but, quite rightly, must leave all operational responsibility to the chief constable. And to cap it all—rather an appropriate word in the circumstances-9l per cent. of its funding will come from central government. In any case, however, the chairman will not be able to vote on the 9 per cent. precept from local sources. As we are dealing with chairmen who are businessmen first and foremost, perhaps I should say that any businessman who accepted such a job in the hard-headed world of commerce—a job not of power without responsibility, but rather of responsibility without power—might well be thought a candidate for what is euphemistically known as the "funny farm".

We are told that these are only proposals and that a White Paper will follow. It is to be hoped that before then some of the following questions will be answered. Indeed, the noble Earl the Minister may, with his customary courtesy, of which I have had much experience, even supply some of the answers in the course of his summing up of the debate. Have the powers-that-be taken into account the funding implications of depriving authorities of the back-up services currently provided by county councils? Are appointed members to be reimbursed for their trouble and, if so, by whom? How are the authorities' reserves, critical in meeting the peaks and troughs of expenditure which are always a fact of life in the police service, to be built up? That is a particular concern in Hampshire because of the problems with New Age travellers. What new formula will be devised to set the standard spending assessment fairly, so that authorities such as my own, which have historically underspent, are not penalised? What are the legal implications of putting ownership of the police estate and the increasingly important employment of civilians under the chief constables? Those are just a few of the questions.

The debate has underlined two of the Government's most dominant characteristics. The first is their inherent belief that Whitehall knows best, and not the people on the ground. I really believe—and it pains me to say this—that this is the most centrist government of my lifetime. Secondly, this Government have surely developed patronage to a fine art. Let us, by our reasoned irrefutable arguments today, ensure that on the question of the future of the police authorities, the tide will be rolled back and local democracy preserved.

6.40 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords—

Lord Rennell

My Lords, I apologise for speaking unannounced. I missed the inclusion limit by two minutes, and I shall be brief. The greatest worry and fear in our society today is the threat of violence to our families and the threat to the security of our possessions and our homes. I therefore welcome the proposal of my right honourable friend the Minister to reform the police service. My heart bleeds for the bobby on the beat. It seems to me that he is abused from every angle. He can expect it from hardened criminals, young and old, but why should he face that abuse from so many other quarters: New Age Travellers, football hooligans, political extremists, and even from households where it is assumed that the policeman is the enemy and not the friend?

Whenever dirty, unpleasant, unexpected and dangerous situations occur, it is the police who are called in. They do a wonderful job, and deserve every penny we can give them. Furthermore, they deserve and welcome the reforms which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be proposing. A policeman spends 70 per cent. of his time on duties not directly connected with crime and the fighting of it. Police training costs are, and so they should be, high. It is absurd that, after all their training, only 30 per cent. of their time is spent fulfilling their proper role. That type of problem will be tackled.

Many of your Lordships have expressed concern over plans for the composition of the new police authorities. One wonders from where the five or so members of the local community will come, and how competent they will be. On the other hand, the de-politicising of the police authority can be no bad thing. It will give a broader representation of the local community. I read nothing sinister into the fact that the Secretary of State should nominate the five local people and the chairman of the police authority. The Government have, after all, been elected to govern. Indeed, in the event, in the distant future, of a change of government I am sure that noble Lords opposite, or wherever, will be delighted to take over a strong health service, a flourishing education system, and a modern and effective police service.

6.42 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, for rising to my feet at the same time as he did. One is usually informed if someone is going to speak in the gap. Something must have gone wrong with the machinery.

Speaking after the gap is usually a nice job. One has an opportunity to pick up what one's opponents have said, and to contradict it. But in this debate we have had virtual agreement, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, whose arguments were slightly flawed since the only authority that he wanted to keep democratic in London was that of the City of London. The rest of it was not to be kept democratic. I did not see the logic of that argument or that the chairmen would not be biased by having been appointed by the Home Secretary, because they would have been appointed under statute. The problem is whether they would be re-appointed if they differed from the Home Secretary. There was not too much in that argument that I need to answer.

Those of your Lordships who know Dickens's Our Mutual Friend will remember the character Sloppy. His great virtue was, as his guardian said: He do the police in different voices". It was a remark taken up by T. S. Eliot, and used later in, I believe, Sweeney Agonistes. It comes originally from Dickens. It is one of the problems we face when we are dealing with the tricky system of the police. The police are seen by people to be speaking in different voices. It is not that they do, but that they are seen to do so. When I was last arrested some 10 years ago, the officer arresting me assured me, in front of witnesses, that he was not arresting me. He took me to the police station and made me surrender the contents of my pockets and put me in a cell. I was already a Member of your Lordships' House. I had, therefore, some self confidence. My criminal record was relatively minor. (The first time I went to jail I was bailed by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre. The second time I went to jail I was defended successfully by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson.) I did not have a great criminal record. On this occasion I was innocent of any offence. Indeed, the police were unable to find any offence with which to charge me. What happened was that I was responsible for collecting evidence which is now being examined by your Lordships' Select Committee on Medical Ethics. That was considered to be a dangerous operation.

Yet, although I knew that I was innocent; I knew that I had only a minor criminal record; I knew that I was a Member of your Lordships' House; and I knew that I was an ordained member of the clergy of the Church of England, I was frightened. I imagine that if any of your Lordships had been arrested in a similar way you would also have been frightened. The police seem suddenly menacing. If I, with my advantages, was frightened, what about other people?

The police are seen by the general public to be speaking with different voices. One voice is that of nanny: helpful, moral and protective. Another, probably irrationally, is seen to be rather more frightening. The relationship of ordinary citizens to the people who govern them (to us, to the police, to whoever it may be) is always subject to traumas caused by the awareness of those different voices. The ordinary man in the street, on the whole, trusts members of the Cabinet, although he may disagree strongly with what they do, and hate the laws they pass. Nevertheless, he does not think of them as terrible villains. The reason that he does not is that we have a chain of connections through society so that we all know someone who knows someone who knows someone who says, "Despite what you say, Norman Lamont is not a villain from outer space. He is really quite a nice man and he is kind to his dog". It is upon that that democracy depends. It is all the more important that it depends upon that when one is dealing with the police, because the police are seen as rather more threatening than Mr. Lamont. One therefore has to have the connection of being in touch with whoever knows the police and whoever is in charge of them.

That is the basic importance of the democratic control of the police authority. Everyone in the House, with two possible exceptions, has talked in favour of that democratic control. The proposals which have been put forward, and are being put forward, touch upon that sensitive area. The proposals are dangerous. Such changes should go forward only after a depth of examination similar to that which was given in 1964. They are not to be thrown off at the tail end of a decaying government when something must be seen to be done and no one can quite think what. The case for the suggested changes are unproven. I suffer from the disadvantage that I have not yet heard from the noble Earl and I am sure that he will produce a manful defence of some kind. However, like many noble Lords, I cannot visualise what such a defence may be.

One case which is sometimes put forward is that local government is subject to extremism. I believe that that was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, as regards London; namely, that there may be extremists in charge. That might be so. As one of my noble friends has just remarked, that may be the price that one must pay. However, that price need not be paid because a small matter of electoral reform in local government would make certain that extremists were never in charge of any local government. (Perhaps I may say in passing that it would make certain also that Conservatives are properly represented on a number of local authorities. An example of that is Richmond, where only three out of 60 councillors are Conservative although the Conservatives have 47 per cent. of the vote. Conservatives might consider that such a measure would be to their benefit.) More importantly, it would be a safeguard against the only objection advanced against community control of the police force.

We should trust the people and the community. It is a system which has worked over a long period of time and, as I say, there are methods of making it work better. It should not be overturned at very short notice at the drop of a hat in an ill-considered measure.

6.52 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I believe that at one or two stages of the debate I detected a hint of criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for introducing this Motion at this time. If that were so, I am bound to say that I believe that his initiative for bringing forward the Motion has been amply justified, not only in the timing but also in the subsequent content of the debate. As has been pointed out, only the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, gave any comfort whatever to the Government. I do not refer to the noble Lord who spoke in the gap because he did not give any notice that he was going to speak and I do not believe that that is in accordance with the customs of the House.

It is not only that there has been no active support for the Government in the debate but also that the opposition to the Government's proposals has come from all parts of the House. I refer in particular to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trevor. His seemed to be the authentic voice of conservatism in the community. He made a very valuable contribution and did so in only four minutes. I suggest to the noble Lord that he has an oratorical credit in his cheque book and that if he cares to use up the remainder of his account, that would be extremely welcome.

Rather than criticise the timing of the debate, it is more appropriate to look at the timing of the Government's White Paper and the way in which it was trailed in the Commons Statement in March of this year. As I understand it, the Government are now proposing to issue a White Paper—not a Green Paper: there is no element of consultation involved—in the middle of June. The Sheehy Report into the organisation of the police force is to be published in late June and the report of the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice on 30th June. Therefore the Government are expressing their opinions on those extremely important matters before the public have had an opportunity to see the conclusions either of the lengthy and detailed Sheehy Report on the way the police is to be organised or—and I suggest that this is equally germane—the views of the first Royal Commission which we have had for many years on criminal justice. That seems an extraordinary piece of timing. That the Government are prepared to act in that way shows a considerable degree of contempt for public opinion.

The Motion before us concentrates on the organisation of police authorities and their political control. I shall devote most of my attention to that because it is important that we should not be diverted. At the same time, that cannot be done without referring to some extent to the way in which an effective and accountable police force can be achieved.

I am always rather suspicious of those who say about any issue with which they are concerned that it should be a above party. I believe that that is an excuse for saying, "My view should prevail regardless of whatever anybody else thinks". But my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees is right to say that it would be wrong for any political party to claim to be the party of law and order. Crime has been rising in this country since the war. It has risen under Labour and Conservative governments—I dare to think that it might even rise under a Liberal Democrat government—because the causes are social and too fundamental to be addressed readily by government action.

However, that does not mean that there are not ways in which the Government can help to improve the efficiency of the police force and help to secure that the police force devotes its efforts to matters which will enable it most effectively to combat crime. I say that not because I propose to embark on a debate on the efficiency of the police force but because the Government are proposing a particular measure; namely, a reduction in the number of police forces.

It is not just that smaller police forces cannot be shown to be less efficient than larger police forces. I rather believe that the reverse is the case. My noble friend Lord Monkswell and the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, argued effectively for smaller and more locally accountable police forces rather than larger police forces.

It is also the case (is it not?) that the nature of the argument for larger police forces is distinctly fallacious. The Home Secretary applies what he calls the "helicopter test". He says that a police force should be of the size that when it has a helicopter, it does not spend most of its time sitting on the ground. The use of a helicopter is determined by the number of occasions on which it must be used, which will vary from one part of the country to another, and the distances which it must travel. There is a trade off between those two which has nothing to do with the size of the police force. If a police force is either too restricted, too small geographically or too peaceful to have a helicopter of its own, it can share it with another police force. That is what happens as regards the RAF air-sea rescue. That is what happens with most uses of complicated equipment. Many of the examples which have been given—notably that of the regional crime squads—show that it is possible to have that co-operation without allowing the size of the police force to be a determining factor. I am afraid that the helicopter test, as applied by the Home Secretary, is simply a vulgar error in argument.

We have had a lot of discussion about the structure and financing of police forces. It has always been my experience in local government that those who start to talk about structure before they start to talk about functions have it the wrong way round. It has always been my experience that until you have determined what is the job of any organisation—a local authority, a police force or a health authority—and the limits of its responsibilities, it is irrelevant to talk about structure. The Audit Commission's comments on the tripartite system, which I take seriously, as I take seriously all the views of the Audit Commission, simply do not address the issue, as I suggest they would normally do, in that way.

So we come to the most important issue of the debate; namely, the issue of the political control of the police force. Of course, there were good elements in what the Home Secretary said in March. My noble friend Lady Hilton referred to the proposals for delegation as being sound in objective. But the financing of a police force—and this is critical to the nature of the composition of the police authorities—is not the financing of a well controllable organisation.

By its nature, a police force has to be reactive. For example, there may be hugely expensive activities, such as the disturbances at the time of the miners' strike, the IRA bomb in Warrington or that in the City of London or, indeed—I know that some of my noble friends would not care for this to be said in the same breath—at large football matches, which cannot be isolated or anticipated. Yet, we have the curious situation proposed where the Home Secretary appoints a considerable part of the police authority. As has been said, he is responsible for 91 per cent. of the expenditure of the police authority on the police service. He appoints a paid chairman to the police authority. The police authority, now out of the control of the local authority, sets its budget for the year. That budget goes into the local authorities' budgets for the area. If it exceeds the standard spending assessment, the Secretary of State for the Environment starts to take action and to cap the expenditure of the local authority, including the expenditure of the police authority.

Can we not cut out the middle man? Can it not just be done in a direct confrontation between Mr. Clarke and Mr. Howard? Do we need to have local people involved in the matter? The whole idea of having a paid chairman of a police authority, appointed by the Home Secretary, confronting, as my noble friend Lady Hilton rightly said, a chief constable—that is, if we expect the Sheehy recommendations on contract to be adopted—is inconceivable to me. It is inconceivable that there will not be the kind of conflict between policy and resources to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred. That is even if we assume, as we were invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, that those appointments will be made without regard to politics. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, described himself as a political innocent. The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, is certainly not politically innocent. If he believes that there will be anything other than Conservative Party members as chairmen of police authorities, he has another think coming.

There was a nice little article in The Times on Saturday in which a senior Minister was asked the question, "How will these chairmen of police authorities be appointed?" He replied, "No problem. He will go round to the Whips' Office, as we all do". That is exactly what will happen. It happens now with the training and enterprise councils; it happens with the health authorities, both regional and district; and it happens with all government appointments. We shall see it happening again. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was not exaggerating when he referred to the situation in Germany before the war when Konrad Adenauer was not acceptable as mayor of Cologne whereas Herr Krupp was considered acceptable.

The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, made an effective plea for the chairman of the police authority to be appointed from among the councillors. I am afraid that that does not go far enough. Under a Conservative Home Secretary—if there is one—the danger is that there would be a Conservative councillor from County Durham or from Northumberland appointed there as chairman of the police authority, or in South Wales if that were possible. I fear that under a Labour Home Secretary there might be the same temptation. I hope that it would be resisted, but I do not think that anyone can be sure.

The debate goes to the heart of the relationship between central and local government. A number of speakers quoted the words of the joint declaration by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (Labour led) and the Association of County Councils (then Conservative led) in February of this year. The local authority associations said that policing had to be carried out with the involvement and consent of the community. I put it to your Lordships that, under the conditions proposed, the chairmen of the police authorities will be appointed centrally. They will have an enormous degree of authority over contract chief constables, and they will be able to rely on a considerable number of members appointed centrally from among local residents to represent the business community. Under those conditions there can be no involvement and consent of the community in the sense that the local authority would wish.

In a very effective speech, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the fear of extremists in local authorities. I have at least as good a reason—in fact, probably greater reason than he has—to know about extremists in local authorities. But I know where the extremists are now: they are in Queen Anne's Gate and they are attempting to take away democratic responsibility from a critical part of our national life.

In the years immediately after the war, the communist parties in Eastern Europe, where they had control, and in Western Europe, where they had participation in government, were very clear about their priorities. Where they were in government, they made sure, wherever possible, that they took control over the Ministry of Justice and over the Ministry of the Interior. That is exactly what this Government are proposing to do to what has been an independent police service. It must be resisted.

7.7 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it is not surprising that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, worked himself up into a lather at the end of his speech and came to totally the wrong conclusion. He knows perfectly well that there is no thought or consideration of politicising or taking control of the police force. If that is the conclusion which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has drawn, it just shows the lack of depth with which he has considered the problem. However, I shall try to put him right in due course.

The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for providing us with the opportunity to debate such an important matter as the future of the police service. Your Lordships expressed many views which will be especially helpful to the Government and which we shall take into account. The debate was notable for the speech made by my noble friend Lord Trevor who, if I may say so, made a remarkable maiden speech. It is always the maxim that maiden speeches should be brief, knowledgeable and non-controversial. I believe that my noble friend scored 10 out of 10 for being brief, 10 out of 10 for being knowledgeable and eight-and-a-half out of 10 for being non-controversial. But, after all, as he has taken 43 years to make his maiden speech I think that he is entitled to express his views with a little force. I only hope that we do not have to wait so long before hearing him again. I am really sorry that it was the matter of the police that stimulated my noble friend to break his vow of silence. Nevertheless, I am glad that he did so.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, enlightened the House on his experiences as a priest in Holy Orders and the various occasions when he was arrested by the police. Speaking for myself, I am bound to say that it put my imagination into overdrive. But I am quite certain that, in both capacities, the noble Lord is well equipped to speak from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on police matters.

The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, also enlightened the House by telling us that he had been a policeman but that he only reached the position of sergeant. That is a very elevated rank. I am glad that he achieved that position. I can only say that he went slightly higher up on what one might describe as the Richter scale in another place, where he eventually achieved the position of Speaker of the House, than he did in the police service. I am not quite sure whether that is a reflection on the noble Viscount's ability as a policeman or whether it is a reflection on the ability of the police to determine what one might describe as nascent ability when they see it.

I admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. He made a broad and thoughtful speech which was non-partisan. That is what one would expect from an ex-Home Secretary. The noble Lord was right to say that no governments can be blamed for crime. Crime is a matter that every government has to deal with. That applies in this country and throughout the world. It is not an easy matter to tackle. I was sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, with all her knowledge, succeeded in making a highly controversial political speech.

As your Lordships will be aware, the Government will set out their proposals for the future of policing in detail in a White Paper. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said he would have liked a Green Paper. I can assure the noble Viscount that the paper will have green edges. It will contain plenty of matters that can be discussed. The Government have not made up their mind on many issues. Anyone would imagine, after having listened to noble Lords speaking this afternoon, that the Government had made up their mind on this matter. The Government are open to people's views. Sometimes noble Lords say the Government should listen to people. We must listen, but it is important that the Government should set out some proposals for the public upon which there should be discussion. This matter has been considered for a long time. People from every quarter, and the police, have given their views about what steps should be taken. The Government must produce some proposals, set them out in a White Paper and then leave that open for discussion. I believe that to be the right procedure.

As this debate is being held before the White Paper has been issued I am in a somewhat difficult position as regards being able to reply to all the points that have been made in the debate. However, I shall do my best to reply to those points. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, festooned me with questions. One moment he accused the Government of being centralist and not listening and the next moment he asked what we were going to do. As I said, it is difficult to provide answers before the White Paper is published. I am sure the noble Viscount will find some of the answers to his questions when the White Paper is published. No doubt if there are still worries about this issue there will be opportunities to consider it further.

I know that some of these matters are considered to be controversial. It may be helpful if I set out briefly the role which we envisage for each of the three parties to the so-called tripartite structure on which policing is based and the reasoning behind the changes which we propose. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that it would be quite appalling if the police were to become a political football. I believe those were his words. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who referred to political control of the police. The Government have no intention of assuming political control of the police.

In the 30 years that have passed since the previous police Act became law the old tripartite structure, which consisted of police authorities, chief constables and the Home Secretary, has provided an effective police service which can still truthfully be described as being not only the best in the world but also the envy of the world. However, society has changed beyond recognition in that time. The structure of the police service must now be changed to reflect the demands of today. I wish to make it perfectly clear that this is not a criticism of police officers or of policing. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, paid tribute to the police and I agree with that tribute. I, for one, have an almost boundless admiration and respect for our police officers and for what they do and how they do it. Of course, from time to time things go wrong. I suppose that is inevitable in any large organisation, even if it is not excusable. When things go wrong they become subject to what one might describe as the "heavy metal" of the media.

However, I have no hesitation in saying that we—in the current jargon we are the customers of the police—owe a great debt of gratitude to the work, the loyalty and indeed the bravery of the police who are sometimes subjected to the most appalling violence. I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, when he said that much of the success of the country has depended on the loyalty and the quality of the police. I am sure he is right.

We consider, however—this has been a common expectation, even within the police service—that the time has now come to bring up to date the structures within which the police operate. Many people have said that the structure needs reforming. There seems to be a unanimity of view on that, but there is no agreement on how that should be done. As soon as the Government suggest a course of action everyone says, "You cannot possibly do that". Inevitably, change is controversial. It is bound to be controversial. Everyone is apprehensive of the unknown. My noble friend Lord Rippon made a most helpful speech. I agreed with him when he said that no change is possible without upheaval. Those might not have been his exact words but I believe that was what he inferred.

The Home Secretary, chief constables and police authorities all have different roles to play in achieving good policing. What we are proposing to do is to adjust the roles of all three to meet the changed circumstances of today. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, said the Government were taking all power over the police and local authorities and that the police would be under the control of the Government. If that were the case, I would be the first to say it would be a disaster. I do not believe that is the right thing to do and I do not believe that it will be the effect of what we are going to do. The basic underlying principle of these reforms is to release some of the power which is at present in the hands of the Home Secretary and to give it to the police authorities and to local chief constables whose business it is to provide proper policing for their local communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said our proposals are the biggest piece of centralisation he has seen for ages. I am sorry the noble Lord feels that way as that is the reverse of our intention. We are devolving much of the power which the Home Secretary has to localities where that power will be used. I can assure your Lordships that we do not wish to centralise the control of the police. We intend to do the opposite. We do not intend to impose control by central government of local policing. What we want to do is to strengthen the role of police authorities so that local people clearly know who is responsible for policing in their area. We also want chief constables to have greater freedom to manage their resources to meet their own local needs.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that police authorities must be local. He was right to say that. I do not believe there is anyone who is better placed than local police officers and local people to know best what kind of policing is required in their local area. However, if the Government are to provide 90 per cent. of the funds for the police authorities, amounting to some £6,000 million a year, and if the Home Secretary is to release much of his control over how that money is spent, it is not unreasonable that he should have some assurance—as should the public—that that money is being spent wisely. To achieve that we are proposing that the Government should set a small number of key objectives for policing. These will be national objectives and they will highlight those areas of police performance which the Government consider are crucial to the provision of a good police service.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was worried about that matter. Establishing key performance indicators will assist in focusing police efforts on fighting crime. The detail of the indicators will need to take account of the points which the noble Lord raised and due weight will need to be given to the more serious offences. The publication of results will be considered on the basis of comparisons between similar police forces and similar areas. The success which the police have in meeting these objectives will be published. That will enable people to see how their force is performing and how it compares with other forces. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. did not like that proposal. However, I do not understand why people should not be able to see how their local force is performing. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said that that would encourage criminals to go to the areas of worst clear-up rates. I thought that that was slightly fanciful but, if it is so, that is exactly the kind of pressure that will be put upon chief constables to ensure that it does not happen.

The new police authorities which we are proposing for the provinces will therefore play a very important part in local policing. The existing police authorities often have a large membership and, as a consequence, they can be unwieldy and unbusinesslike. Often they have prolific and complex structures and therefore the Government believe that they need to be smaller and more workable. They need to have clear tasks that they are required to perform, to have the right people to perform them and to have a local voice.

A number of your Lordships were anxious about the smaller authorities and the appointing of the chairmen. The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Trevor, the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, and my noble friend Lord Rippon were anxious about that. I am not surprised to hear that noble Lords have been lobbied by local police authorities. Of course they have, because they are about to be changed and no one likes change. Therefore, it is understandable that those who are about to be changed should lobby some of your Lordships and obviously they have done so effectively.

My right honourable friend is proposing that the new authorities should have a maximum of 16 members. The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, was wrong about that because he said that the Home Secretary would nominate 50 per cent. of the membership. That is not so; half the members will be local councillors and half will consist of a mixture of local people, who will be appointed by the Home Secretary, and of magistrates—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House who will appoint the magistrates?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will wait until the White Paper he will see—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Oh dear!

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, there is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saying, "Oh dear". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked many questions which will be answered in the White Paper. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the White Paper. That is the kind of issue about which the Government have no particular fixed views—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, forgive me, but the Minister was attempting to respond to the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. He was denying that 50 per cent of the members of the police authorities would be appointed by the Home Secretary. In order to give substance to that denial the Minister will have to deny that the magistrates will be appointed by the Home Secretary.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the people who will be appointed by the Home Secretary are the five to whom I referred. The way in which the magistrates become members of the authority has yet to be decided either by—it is difficult to reply when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pouts. He asked me many questions. The debate has arisen before the publication of the White Paper but the noble Lord expects me to answer all the questions. The Government are accused of railroading the whole lot but as soon as I say that there is an area in which we should welcome people's views the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, becomes sour. He will have to wait a little longer.

In an admirably brief speech, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, asked about the appointment of the chairman. He will be appointed by the Home Secretary from the overall membership of the authority and it is intended that he should receive a suitable remuneration for his responsibility. The chairman will have the key role in leading the authority and in maintaining the effective working relationship with the chief constable. I do not assume that the chairman will have his office in the police headquarters. He will probably be busy enough dealing with the running of the police authority and it is right that he should be properly renumerated for that work. One must remember that the chairman runs the police authority and the chief constable runs the police force.

My noble friend Lord Finsberg was right in saying that it would not be difficult for the chairman to operate in such a way because he will operate under statute and not as an appointee of the Home Secretary. Many noble Lords have said that the appointment of the chairmen by my noble friend could be seen as being controversial. I accept that that is the case but the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, claimed that my right honourable friend is seen to be taking power for himself rather than relinquishing it. Therefore, it is essential to understand the reason behind the decision.

Of course some people say that the Government's nominees for the police authorities will be under the patronage of the Home Secretary of the day and that party politics will be the deciding factor in making the appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, interestingly informed the House that when he was Home Secretary—and a privileged position it was—he appointed the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as chairman of the Parole Board. In those days the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was a member of the Labour Party, which happened to be the same party as that of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. Since then the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has moved around the political arena and now graces another party. However, I am certain that when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was chairman of the Parole Board he never considered that he was a lackey of the then Home Secretary and that he was not free to run the Parole Board in the best way he thought possible.

That will be the case with chairmen of the police authorities of the future. It is certainly not the intention of my right honourable friend that chairmen should be appointed on a political basis. I am bound to say that I was horrified to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say, "Oh, we know how this is done. We just go round to the Whip's office and ask for names". If that is a reflection of the way in which the party of which he is a distinguished member carries out its business it is a revelation, but it is not the attitude which we take. I do not believe that it is the attitude that any responsible government would take.

My right honourable friend believes that it is necessary that police authorities should have a different relationship with local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said that it was a vindictive vendetta of Her Majesty's Government against local authorities and that it was a smoke screen to divert the public's attention away from crime. I thought that that was an excessive description of the problem. Of course one does not deflect the public's views and worries about crime by making alterations. That is not the reason for making alterations. The reason for making them is in order to try to deal with crime even better in the future than we have in the past and in order to take account of future problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was concerned about the level of funding for the police authorities. The Government propose to retain a system of joint local and central funding. The central government contribution will be cash limited. As the noble Lord said, a new mechanism will be needed to distribute it to police authorities and work will begin shortly to develop a distribution formula. Under the new funding arrangements which we have proposed local government will continue to make a contribution to the funding of the police service.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, were anxious about the precepts. The idea is that the full authority will vote on the budget. Special arrangements will apply in any vote to determine the size of the precept so that if the eight council members of the authority unanimously take a different view to the other eight members the local councillors will have the deciding vote. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, was also worried about the police authorities' reserves. The new police authorities, as free-standing bodies, will be able to build and hold financial reserves to deal with contingencies. The noble Viscount also asked me a number of other questions but I am afraid that I do not have time to answer them.

In future, all police authorities will be independent of local councils. They will be separated wholly from local authorities. They will be organisations with the power to run their own affairs and they will be able to set their own budget. The police authorities will have a number of new tasks to perform. They will be involved in setting the budget and in publishing costed plans for local policing. They will have to know the requirements of policing their areas, to consult local people about them and to ensure that the police force meets those requirements.

If part of the job of police authority members is to act as a means of communication between the police and the local community it follow that the members must be active in the community. They must also have the skills necessary to enable them to discharge the functions which the new police authorities will be performing. My right honourable friend is anxious, therefore, to be able to tap all the ability and talent in the area and not to have it confined only to that which is found in those who have been elected to the local authority or who are magistrates.

Some noble Lords have described it as "appointing business people". The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, did so. The noble Viscount seemed obsessed with businessmen. It is not so. In some areas many local councillors and many magistrates are business people, as the noble Viscount said. In other areas that may not be so. By appointing some members of police authorities we aim to build on the existing skills and to draw in a wide range of other experiences.

Suggestions from organisations or individuals who think that a particular person would bring something of value to the police authority in their area will be welcomed. Such people might be a teacher, a vet, a farmer, a member of Victim Support, a member of the Samaritans, or whoever. It would be bizarre to suggest that only people who run local businesses or who have been elected to a local council have the skills which police authorities need.

My noble friend Lord Finsberg was right when he stated how he understood that the system would work. He was chivvied for supporting the Government. I advise him not to be worried about that. It was Shakespeare who said, the fewer men, the greater share of honour". My noble friend is in that happy position today.

The direct appointment of some members of the police authority is, of course, as I readily recognise, an innovation. The principle which underlines the role and the composition of police authorities will remain exactly the same as that which was set out by the Royal Commission on the police in 1962. The Royal Commission said that the police authority should, …constitute a body of citizens concerned with the local standing and well-being of the police, interested in the maintenance of law and order, and able to give advice and guidance to chief constables about local problems. That is a principle which we have no intention of changing. It is one upon which our proposals will have no effect. I have tried to emphasise the importance which the Government attach to the local voice in policing. That is the cornerstone on which good policing is built, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said.

Because the Home Secretary will be loosening his own direct control, the new police authorities will have an important task. The Government are determined to help them to perform their task as effectively as possible. The chairman must have good leadership qualities and be someone in whom the Home Secretary can have complete confidence. It is just as likely that the chairman will be one of the local councillors or magistrates as one of the Home Secretary's nominees. He or she will he chosen simply as being the best person for the job. That is what my noble friend Lord Finsberg said.

By setting objectives, and by publishing the results, the Government will be giving local people a yardstick by which to judge whether their needs are being addressed. If they are not, then the buck will stop firmly with the chairman of the police authority, and with the authority itself.

To the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others who are concerned about the future of the Metropolitan Police, I say this. London is a special case. It is huge. It is the capital city. Its problems are often unique. The Metropolitan Police has a number of special responsibilities and functions which are not seen in any other force. I refer to royal and diplomatic protection, the national counter-terrorist work, war crimes and record-keeping functions. Policing in London is not simply the clear-cut, local matter which it is in the provinces. Of course, Metropolitan Police officers catch London's criminals. They walk the streets of Tottenham in just the same way as their counterparts walk the streets of Taunton. However, policing London also involves special responsibilities which arise because London is the capital city. I refer, for example, to the policing of demonstrations and the need to protect Parliament.

Even so, the Government intend that, so far as is possible, London will benefit from the reforms which we are proposing as in a similar way will the remainder of the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and my noble friend Lord Finsberg referred to newspaper articles. I can only say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be publishing a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals for police reforms next month. That will set out the detailed plans for London. It will take full account of the national and exceptional responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police.

Contrary to what some newspapers have suggested in a blaze of publicity, my right honourable friend has given no specific undertakings as to the membership of the police authority for London. At present the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police district. The day-to-day work of the police authority is carried out by his officials. However, my right honourable friend intends in future that there should be a police authority for London outside the Home Office and he will delegate to that authority many of his existing responsibilities. Our detailed proposals for London will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper. They will take account of the national and other exceptional responsibilities which the Metropolitan Police has.

The overall aim of the Government's proposals is to improve the structure of policing. It needs to be adjusted to take account of the vast changes which have occurred since the last police Act. All those changes require changes to the structure of policing. However, they do not need a change to the principles of policing. Those are to fight crime and to see that the law is upheld by a constable whose authority comes from Her Majesty.

7.35 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, first may I express my thanks to all who have participated in the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, on his maiden speech. I agreed with everything that he said, and indeed with the other two Members of this House, both members of police authorities, who took precisely the same view as the noble Lord—namely, in flat opposition to everything that the Home Secretary suggested in the Statement at the end of March.

I do not propose to go over the arguments again. That would be unduly wearisome. However, perhaps I may make one or two brief comments; first, on the policing of London. Last night we were presented with a story in the Evening Standard which has not been denied by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Perhaps we may recall what was said at the end of March in the Home Secretary's Statement. It was stated that the character of the police authority in London would be exactly the same as in the remainder of the country. Last night the Evening Standard said that that had been dropped. What is significant is that the noble Earl has not denied the truth of that report. We can therefore draw our own conclusions—

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, perhaps I may‐

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I shall finish the sentence. I think that the House will draw its own conclusions as to what the Home Secretary has decided. The noble Earl wishes to intervene.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, but when he misquotes my right honourable friend I think it right to put the record straight. My right honourable friend said: I propose to establish for the first time a police authority for the Metropolitan police on the new national model separate from the Home Office and with essentially the same tasks as police authorities elsewhere".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 23/3/93; col. 766.]

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, the noble Earl has confirmed the accuracy of what I said. That is exactly what the Home Secretary said.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, perhaps I may just finish. Perhaps the noble Earl will contain himself for a moment. All I say to the noble Earl is that last night the Evening Standard announced, and it is confirmed in this morning's newspapers on the basis clearly of guidance from his own department's press officers, that there has been a major change of policy by the Home Secretary. The point that I put to the noble Earl, I hope in a most agreeable way, is this. The fact that he has not denied the truth of what was said last night and what is said in every morning newspaper today, is in itself highly significant.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord kindly gives way. I took issue with the noble Lord because he used the word "exactly" and I do not believe that that word was used. He stated also that what appeared in last night's papers and today's papers must therefore be right. I know that the noble Lord is an avid reader of newspapers, but he is wrong to suggest that any substance of that must necessarily come from the press office in the Home Office. Newspapers have their own sources. They are not always accurate. I leave it at that.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I do not propose to pursue the noble Earl. He and I have both been Ministers in the Home Office. He and I know perfectly well that if a totally inaccurate statement appears in newspapers one gives instructions to the press department to deny it in the most emphatic terms. That has not been done. We now know perfectly well that the Home Secretary has retreated within a period of eight weeks from a fundamental position on the policing of London; and we have to wait for the Evening Standard to tell us the truth of the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, undertook the heroic responsibility of being the one Member of your Lordships' House who was apparently in favour of what the Government have decided upon. He spoke eloquently about the quality of policing in the City of London. He appeared to be satisfied, as my noble friend Lord Beaumont indicated, about the fact that the City of London police authority consisting exclusively of elected members was wholly acceptable. However, he added that any form of elected authority in the rest of London would be wholly objectionable and would be opposed passionately by the entire citizenry of London. That seems to me a slightly exaggerated point, if he will forgive me saying so.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because I have known him for many years. For the sake of brevity, I must say that I did not go on to explain that the composition of the City has all the elements for which the Home Secretary is looking: local government, business and others. That is why it is different.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I am glad to have that explanation because until the noble Lord produced it I had not followed the full subtlety of his argument. All I say to him is this. As I tried to indicate in my speech, there are a substantial number of business people on police authorities throughout the country. The idea, therefore, that for the first time ever a benevolent Home Secretary will appoint business people to police authorities is a little far from the truth.

The only other point I wish to make was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, with whom I very much agree. This is one of the most ominous proposals in the Home Secretary's policy announcement. Given that there will be national government appointees as chairmen of police authorities, those new creatures will have substantial influence in every police force area. They will be divorced from local government, as the noble Earl pointed out. They will operate entirely either within a police headquarters or a building immediately adjacent to police headquarters. Both the chairman and the other nationally appointed members will be the Home Secretary's representatives.

This is being considered at the same time as it is suggested that, for the first time, chief officers will be on short-term contracts. In other words, the police authority—the chairman and members—will decide whether to renew a contract. All I put to the House and to the noble Earl, if the Government are seriously prepared to look at matters again, as I hope they will, is the dangers involved in such a situation. It is all very well for a chief officer to say—as I am sure the overwhelming majority would if asked to do something which they regard as unacceptable by one of the new nationally appointed chairmen—"Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot contemplate doing that. It is an operational matter for which I must take responsiblity". However, is there not a possibility that if, six months later, that chief officer's contract is coming up for renewal, one or two might in the future be tempted to give a rather different answer to the chairman of the police authority? The difficulty with this set of proposals is that they have not been carefully thought through. There has been no departmental inquiry, no Royal Commission. The department is making it up as it goes along, without realising the full implications of what it proposes.

We shall clearly spend many months arguing over the contents of the police Bill, when it appears in the next Session of Parliament. I close by saying that I agree very much with what the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said in his striking speech. It will be dreadful if the police service in this country is dragged into a major political confrontation. The noble Earl knows the position as well as the rest of us. He is opposed by a united police service: the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents' Association, the Police Federation and by many of the most prominent members of his own party who are members of police authorities. It seems to me that the Government should now consider their position extremely carefully before proceeding with highly divisive legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.