Police Service: New Governance Structure
Lord Prescott Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Prescott
My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. She a said a great deal with which I agreed. They were the arguments that I used when I voted against this legislation, but, of course, the Government persevered with it, very much at the pressing of the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman—I shall come to that in a few minutes—resulting in the policy that we have today. However, I have to admit my interest as I will be fighting in this election in two weeks’ time to become a commissioner and I admit to being a white male candidate—probably old as well—but I hope that I shall be able to put the case.
My case is about whether the new police governance structure which the Motion before us today is about, and the policy that the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, was critical of, are satisfactory for us. It cannot possibly be that there was a failure in the policy that the Government inherited. In fact, that was not the case; if anything, as the noble Baroness pointed out, it was a very successful policy. It is 20 years ago that Tony Blair announced that he would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. His emphasis on the causes of crime was quite important, but it was laughed at at the time. But if we look at the analysis 10 years on, we find that the rate of criminal offences that have taken place has reduced dramatically. It is not just in my own area of Humberside, where it has gone down by 40%; in every area of England and Wales, crime fell by around 40%. Whatever the judgment in this House is and whether it is a democratic one or not, I assume that it is really about reducing the incidence of crime. Then there is also the participation of the social mechanisms involved in it; the criminal side and the police and social causes are two sides of the same coin in any successful policy—and that clearly came about.
So it cannot be that the policy is failing. I think that it is because the Government think—and there are a number of reasons given for it—that it is costing a lot more than it should. That is a fair point to make; the Government have an argument. Policing in austerity, as Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary said, will have an effect. That is probably true, but is the choice then to cut about 20% in resources and get rid of 15,000 police? If anyone believes for a moment that that will improve the situation or help the decline in crime to continue, they are living in another world. Indeed, it is obvious that, whatever crime statistics you take, if you take away the resources and reduce the scale of policing, there will be an increase in crime. So you have to make the judgment whether the priority is to save the resources or to keep the community safe with an active police and social policy in this area. That is a judgment that we can all make. Certainly, this new policy of reducing on such a scale will have that effect. So I need to look at other reasons.
I can understand the argument on austerity, although I am bound to say that Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary made it clear that these cuts were at twice the rate that they needed to be. In my area that makes quite a difference—and I think that that is so in every area. So while not rejecting the idea of austerity, we must ask whether it has to be so deep and quick as it is at the moment. I as a commissioner would be expected to produce a five-year plan within five weeks. I do not know what the extent of the cuts will be, and we still have the public expenditure review to come. We will have £23 million in cuts and I do not think that that is the end of it. They have already cut £500,000 from the community safety management programme, so we have not stopped the cuts. Presumably, whatever the circumstances, these cuts will continue.
You have to ask yourself why this is happening, in those circumstances. To a certain extent, the public expenditure cuts are one reason—then there is decentralisation. This Government talk about decentralising and taking policing away from the Home Office, but if you look at the proposals that have just come out the very opposite is happening. The policy concentrates more and more power in the hands of the Home Secretary. The proposals are to abolish ACPO; there will now be another council of chief constables, which will presumably report to the Home Office. The proposals are to replace the Inspector of Constabulary with Mr Winsor, and the report basically threatens the confidence of the police. The National Crime Agency is a body that can overrule the chief constable and it is related to who? To the Home Secretary. That concentrates power not in the local area but in the Home Office.
Then there is the abolition of police authorities, which is supposed to give greater democratic accountability. The noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, is a great force in democracy. Looking at his background, I do not think that he ever took part in an election. He is a great civil servant, great scientist and a great adviser on both sides of the Atlantic, but absolutely useless in understanding the democratic process. Of course, he is entitled to speak as an individual—but do not give us the quote of experience, because he has got none of it. The noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, has been one of the biggest gurus in the development—is he going to get up?
Lord Prescott
I presume that was to stop me in my flow. I hope that that will be taken into account when it comes to the eight minutes.
On the democratic accountability and the election of the PCCs, November is the worst time to hold an election—everybody agrees on that—with a voting system that does not necessarily mean that you need 50%. You can have a very low proportion of the vote and still be a commissioner. No doubt there will be a question about the legitimacy of someone being a commissioner on such a low vote. No money is being given for the election candidates, or information about the candidates. Do we really accept that this Government are interested in democratic accountability? It is a load of nonsense—they never have been. To that extent, we will get a low turnout.
The PCCs have been given the opportunity to provide a plan. They have to do that in five weeks—it is already ready and agreed with the Home Office. It just gets handed to us. I will not do that; I will not accept that kind of analysis. It is not fair. It is certainly not politically accountable because it is the Home Office telling us what we do with the plan when we should be asking the people in our area what should be the priorities in the plan. We are not doing anything about that and the chance to do so is denied to us because of resources. In all these areas we are finding a loss. In Humberside it is £23 million. We have the difficulty of cutting too fast and face a basically bleak future, with crime increased.
Why did we pursue this policy? I will finish on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, is one of the gurus—I have read more about him: this guru has been over to America and come back here, and he is an adviser to the Home Office and to the Prime Minister. God help him, he does not seem to be getting many answers right but let us leave that aside. He has given that advice and yet he refuses to appear before the Select Committee in the House of Commons to answer what this new IT company will be doing. I understand that he will be chairman of this new IT company, which recommends £500,000 be paid to the chairman—three times the amount given to a Prime Minister. Is the noble Lord going to be chairman? I hoped he would speak after me but I notice that the organisation shoved him in front so I cannot ask him that. But I will tell you what this IT company will do: it will privatise the intelligence and technology. All this is about creating space in the police force for privatisation.
We saw that the Home Office is still trying to advocate privatisation, though Surrey and Midlands have rejected that so far. In my area, Lincolnshire already has G4S in. God help them. We saw what happened at the Olympics but G4S is already in on contract. This is about privatisation.
Lord Prescott
The noble Earl must be fair: he got up before. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman: you are advocating democracy. You are adding more accountability. I read in one of his speeches that Lords should encourage people to vote. Why did he then sign an article saying that I should not be the commissioner in Humberside? Quite frankly, who the heck is he to say that and appeal to my electorate not to vote for me? I say to him: come up to my area, debate with the people as to who has the right to make that decision—advisers like him who will not speak openly, or politicians, who are accountable. I am a politician. I am accountable. Come up and debate with us instead of hiding behind your position.
Olympic Games: Security
Lord Prescott Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I share with my noble friend the warm words of tribute he paid to our Armed Forces. I agree with him that the sight of our Armed Forces in London during the Olympic Games, the work that they will do, and that they will be part of the security effort for the Games—it has always been planned that they would be—will mean they are an important element of the welcoming tone, nature and discipline and the kind of effort and efficiency that are necessary.
On my noble friend’s points about the Home Office, of course I will relay back to the department his comments about the need for improved communication. There is always room for people to improve in that area. However, as I have said before, this is a contract between LOCOG and G4S. LOCOG is the commissioning body with regard to the contract. The Home Office has been very closely monitoring the way in which it has progressed and, because we have been doing that and liaising closely with other government departments, we have been able to act, taking the necessary decision that was made yesterday.
On the effectiveness of those who have been recruited, G4S has rigorous selection processes. My noble friend is absolutely right that everybody needs the right skills to do the job. If they are in a role that has contact with the public, they must be able to communicate with them, which of course requires them to speak English.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, it is complete nonsense for the Government to suggest that they discovered this problem two days ago. It was two years ago that they realised the deficiencies in the security at the Olympics and transferred private contracts to LOCOG to develop the personnel for security. I have raised in the House of Lords this matter of the deficiencies in contracts and the inability to provide sufficiently trained and well-paid people to do the job. I wrote to the Home Secretary protesting about this matter five weeks ago and asking her to investigate it. She referred me to LOCOG as the body with the responsibility. I wrote to LOCOG in July and it told me that the criterion for contracts is value for money. There was nothing about security or safety, only value for money.
Will the Minister recognise that it is not only G4S that has failed? Other companies at the moment are failing to fulfil their contracts. Will she now review those contracts that exist with LOCOG and see what they contribute? During that review, will she reconsider this whole idea of outsourcing public security to private companies? However eminent they look with their boards of chief constables, eminent people and Members of this House, that does not guarantee that there will be security or safety for the public. It only guarantees the prime responsibility of those companies: to make profits. That is the essential difference here. That is what the Minister needs to look at if she is really concerned about the security of the Games.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as I have already said, the arrangements for security at the Games involve a combination of different participants—the police, the military and the commercial provider, G4S. The noble Lord talks as if only G4S had been commissioned to provide security. That is not the case. As I said, the approach involves the police and the military. That has always been the case.
On the point he made about the other company, about which he wrote to the Home Secretary following the Jubilee weekend, that is a separate matter. The people he referred to in that contract are not part of the security arrangements.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
But they are not part of the security arrangements. I restate what I have already said because it is important: the Home Office has been reviewing the way in which things have developed. As issues started to develop over the past couple of weeks that made it necessary for us to be ready to act, we took the necessary steps so that we could act. We acted yesterday. The security of our Olympic Games is not compromised because of that.
Marine Navigation Aids Bill [HL]
Lord Prescott Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Prescott
My Lords, I start with an apology; I did not realise that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was before the House until I came in, switched on my television and heard him speaking. I declare an interest having spent 10 years as a merchant seaman and having been a Minister for merchant shipping in the previous Government.
Having heard the argument’s today, I should say that ship owners have always been concerned about cutting costs. But we are talking here about a very small part of their operating cost. Whether right or wrong, whether it should be paid by the taxpayer or the user, it has been subject to the user principle. As the Minister for shipping, I constantly had to deal with the problem that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised, of how to deal with the Irish and how to get a proper agreement between us. I am pleased to hear that agreement apparently has been reached. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is trying to bring greater efficiency and effectiveness into this operation and the payment of navigational aids. I am not too sure whether that is the right approach, but there is certainly a problem.
I want to address my remarks to whether the user cost, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is a disincentive to British shipping. The facts are clear: more tonnage is coming into Britain by ship than ever before. We are roaring in trade. That is true not only in Britain but in most countries; it is the nature of the global economy. So I do not think that they have been put off by the cost in those circumstances. I have been concerned about the cost of the crews, however, to which the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, referred. Over the past few decades, the reduction of crews on ships has led to a reduction in navigational skills and the loss of ships. Crews have been reduced by more than 25 per cent. That is a real saving—there is no doubt about it. Most of our shipping was flagged out to what we call the flag-of-convenience countries, such as Liberia and Panama, which sold their flag. The ship owners, many of them British, were very happy to take advantage, because it was a reduction in costs. It was also a reduction in skills and navigational abilities. Having achieved that real advantage, they now talk about the costs of navigational aids.
I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that what happened to containers happened years ago. A decision was made on whether Britain was going to be the area for container centralisation and distribution to Europe. We lost it. The tidal advantages to Rotterdam and other places gave them an advantage. Therefore, there was a great deal of redistribution from Rotterdam and to the British ports. Nevertheless, the container trade has been considerable; there has been massive growth, even in the UK.
I shall return to the point about user tax. Is this a disincentive to the British industry? Does it wish to reduce its costs and have an advantage? Of course it does—I understand that—but should they be paid by the taxpayer or met in user payments? When I was Minister for shipping, I was faced with a decline, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, must know. The British navy as registered under the Red Ensign was 30 million tonnes in 1970; when I came in in 1997, it was down to 2 million tonnes, and it had flagged out to other countries. I introduced the tonnage tax, which was a user payment and a means by which the ship owner could have greater control over his costs and profits by paying a known tonnage tax rather than a profit tax, which might be changed by various Governments. By using the tonnage tax we had a transfer back to the British fleet, and from 2 million tonnes in 1997, we now have 17 million tonnes under the Red Ensign. I am delighted about that, although I do not think enough jobs came out of it.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I remind the noble Lord that speakers in the gap should restrict their comments to four minutes and he is now in his fifth minute.
Lord Prescott
I bow to the noble Baroness’s knowledge, and I am sorry about that. I shall finish on this one point. User tax did not discourage the fleet—it actually encouraged it. So I am not convinced that the small amount of tax that we are talking about would be a disincentive to the British ship owner.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for once again bringing forward his Bill. As he has said, this is the second time that he has done so but he has initiated a very good debate. The noble Lord will know that it is normal practice for the Government not to support or oppose Private Members’ Bills and I do not propose to break with this convention. I do, however, hope to demonstrate that the need for the main thrust of his Bill has been overtaken by events, as many noble Lords pointed out. I am grateful for their contributions.
Since the noble Lord first introduced his Bill, the report by the Atkins consultancy, entitled Assessment of the Provision of Marine Aids to Navigation around the United Kingdom & Ireland, has been published. It is a particularly well researched and well received document, which has provided us with a blueprint on the governance of the general lighthouse authorities and the provision of marine aids to navigation around the UK and Ireland, without the need for immediate legislation to enable the implementation of its recommendations.
I recognise that many of the clauses in the noble Lord’s Bill are consistent with those contained in the previous Government’s draft Marine Navigation Aids Bill. I shall comment on some of those clauses. Clauses 1 to 5 provide for the creation of the commission and its regulator. As I stated in my speech in February 2010, I do not see the need for either. Indeed, the Atkins assessment did not see fit to recommend the creation of either of these two organisations which, if the noble Lord’s Bill were to progress, would effectively replace two existing bodies with two more.
I applaud the noble Lord for his versatility and ingenuity in attempting to achieve his aims, and note that he is seeking to achieve some of his goals by means of amendments to the Public Bodies Bill as well. However, I draw his attention to page 245 of the Atkins assessment, which concluded that there was “a weak case for” amalgamating the two UK-only lighthouse authorities into a single organisation such as the noble Lord’s Marine Navigation Aids Commission, because the estimated costs of doing so were likely to outweigh the potential benefits generated. Indeed, I addressed the matter of the illusory benefits of such a merger at last February’s Second Reading of his previous Bill.
Atkins did recommend the creation of a general lighthouse authority Joint Strategic Board, responsible for identifying synergies and driving through efficiencies. Last summer, with the Shipping Minister’s endorsement, such a Joint Strategic Board was set up at no cost to the General Lighthouse Fund. The board has since worked closely with the Department for Transport and the three GLAs to identify efficiency measures and drive down running costs—several noble Lords referred to that work. The Joint Strategic Board is still at an early stage of development but is achieving positive results. I believe that this continued, gradual evolution of integrated working, driven by the Joint Strategic Board, is far preferable to any of the radical, rapid and uncosted changes in marine aids to navigation provision that the noble Lord’s Bill would effect.
The General Lighthouse Authorities co-operate in the provision of marine aids to navigation around the UK and Ireland. Each authority carries out largely similar tasks; however, the regional skills and knowledge that each employs reflects a localism in the service delivered. The Commissioners of the Irish Lights have continued as an all-Ireland body since the establishment of the Republic of Ireland. However, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is less concerned with the commissioners’ history than with their present funding. In his opening comments, the noble Lord mentioned that my honourable friend Mr Mike Penning, the Shipping Minister, has been in discussion with his Irish counterpart on the matter. It is to my honourable friend’s credit that he has reached an early understanding with the Irish Government on self-financing, which will nevertheless preserve the tri-GLA structure and the historic links of marine aids to navigation provision across both countries.
The stated goal of both the UK and Irish Governments is now that the Commissioners of the Irish Lights will become self-financing in their work in the Republic of Ireland by 2015-16, as relayed in my Written Ministerial Statement of 18 January. I hope that this understanding will go some way to reassuring the noble Lord that no undue financial burden will in future be borne by UK shipping, and that the continued cross-border co-operation of the UK and Ireland on this safety service is desirable and should therefore continue. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who touched on this point, called it a government subsidy to the Irish lights. It is of course not a government subsidy but a shipping industry subsidy, as many noble Lords mentioned. I am sure that was just a slip of the tongue by the noble Lord.
On Clause 7, the measure to clarify the extent of jurisdiction up to the outer limit of the pollution control zone will help to assist the providers of aids to navigation in operating an efficient safety regime in the seas around this country. That provision is therefore welcome. As I said last February, Clause 8 meets an important need, as the General Lighthouse Authorities are currently restricted in their ability to undertake commercial activities. For instance, those authorities may in some circumstances be unable to purchase the necessary tooling to carry out some evolutions that the industry might require.
The generation of income from commercial activities that maximises the utilisation of assets and resources is without doubt desirable and can only be of benefit to light-dues payers. It is inevitable that there has to be some spare capacity in a system that needs to be capable of rapid response to emergencies. However, it is important that the commercial activities of public sector bodies should not unduly impede the commercial activities and structure of the market.
Turning to Clause 9, the UK has many local marine aids to navigation in addition to those required for general navigation. The General Lighthouse Authorities seek to ensure local aids to navigation are established and maintained to internationally recognised standards through the discharge of their functions of superintendence and management, including their aids to navigation inspection regimes. Indeed, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, the General Lighthouse Authorities may direct a local port or harbour to provide such aids to navigation as are appropriate. This alone is normally sufficient to ensure the appropriate provision of local aids to navigation, particularly when backed up by existing safety-related legislation.
On Clause 10, the noble Lord believes that as many users as possible of marine aids to navigation should pay for them, including the Royal Navy. However, I set out my position robustly in the debate on this Bill last year, and do not intend to do so again; my position has not changed on this matter.
On Clause 12, in the past, the General Lighthouse Authorities employed many more staff than they do now. The automation and de-manning of lighthouses and other technical advances have reduced staff levels substantially. Nevertheless, there remains a large number of former GLA employees who are now pensioners drawing their entitlement. This is not an unusual situation. Many other public bodies that have downsized due to efficiencies have exactly the same problem. The General Lighthouse Authorities’ pension liabilities are far from unique. As we are all aware, such legacies are not limited to the public sector, with many private organisations in a similar position. That said, as part of the Government’s wider public sector pension reform, we expect the General Lighthouse Authorities to review and modernise their pension arrangements, to keep them on a sustainable footing.
My noble friend Lord Caithness, in his well thought out contribution to the debate, dealt with the issue of GLA efficiencies far better than I could have done. I did not know that he was concerned about the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am bound to say that I agree with everything that he said. He has certainly saved me much work.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market made a number of points in her excellent speech. She made her case very well, as usual, particularly when she queries our principle of light dues. However, in common with other transport modes in the UK, the Government believe that transport providers and not the general taxpayer should pay for the essential safety services needed for reliable operations. It would also be unfair for the Treasury to pay for the GLAs directly, as the majority of commercial shipping services calling at UK ports are owned by companies based outside the UK where beneficial tax regimes for those industries exist. Like any other form of revenue-raising activity, light dues remain unpopular with those asked to pay, regardless of how much they benefit. Many noble Lords have made that point.
The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, also made an interesting and well delivered speech. Yet again, I find myself in strong agreement with the Benches opposite. I hope that this trend persists. The noble Lord talked about the vulnerability of GPS navigation systems. Last year, I attended the GPS jamming trials organised by Trinity House and my handheld GPS gave me some most peculiar results, telling me that I was somewhere in central Europe.
My noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree talked in the gap and touched upon the loss of trade to British ports. I have just explained the logic of the light dues policy. We were also joined by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, and I was shocked to find myself in agreement with him as well.
Earl Attlee
We had strong contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. This is a great example of the House showing itself to be a source of expertise. I strongly agree with everything that both noble Lords said. On the query of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about the Wreck Removal Convention Bill, we of course support that piece of legislation.
I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and his contributions from the Front Bench. I am grateful for his whole approach to this matter.
When my noble friend Lady Garden intervened, she did so only to remind the House that it is customary to allow the mover of a Bill to lay out his stall without constant interruption. That is a much better way for the House to proceed.
I have already touched on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, about the Irish Lights.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I have found them to be very helpful. I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring the noble Lord of the fitness for purpose of the General Lighthouse Authorities and the Department of Transport’s administration and governance of them in my comments today. I hope that the noble Lord will consider substantially scaling back should the Bill proceed into Committee. The noble Lord could also consider drafting a new Bill, as suggested by many noble Lords.
Climate Change: Cancun
Lord Prescott Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marland
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that. Unfortunately, I do not have my charts in front of me, but I would be happy to provide him with some of the analysis to answer that question. I thank the Church of England for the example that it has set through step change in driving the church towards nil carbon emissions in the near future. Again, that is leading by example.
Lord Prescott
I attended the Kyoto conference and those at Cancun and Copenhagen. The atmosphere and organisation was fundamentally different, for which we offer our congratulations to the Mexican Government. However, the Minister may recall that in a debate in this House on climate change I put forward my concerns that the Prime Minister had said that he wanted a legal agreement at Cancun. I did not think that that was possible and announced the five or six principles that I thought were important to finding agreement based on a voluntary agreement and not the legal framework. I must say that the Government have achieved that and, perhaps for the first time in my life, I offer a little congratulation to the Government and the Secretary of State, Mr Huhne, to whom I explained my plan on the aeroplane.
However, I am a little concerned about the Statement when it talks about ambition and cuts of 30 per cent et cetera in carbon. Ambition can be the defeat of the good. I worry about the Durban conference and that we may make the mistake that we made at Copenhagen; namely, that we get far too ambitious in our demands. Therefore, for the South African conference, I fear that 12 months will not be sufficient to deal with all these detailed negotiations that took four years after Kyoto. Will the Minister consider and express within the European Union the view that we are thinking of stopping the clock on the 2012 date set for Kyoto in order that South Africa and Durban does not appear to be a failure as occurred at Copenhagen?
Lord Marland
No one has done more for these conferences than the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. In fact, the Secretary of State has told me of the pleasant fireside chat that he had with the noble Lord in Cancun. I do not think that “fireside” is the right word—perhaps it should be “poolside”. The noble Lord is absolutely right to send a note of caution. He has been at the forefront of negotiations for a long time. He has understood that this has to be slowly, slowly, despite the fact that we want to go quickly. However, I go back to what I said. We must set high standards for ourselves if others are to follow. I do not think that he would disagree with that.