I think people will be quite surprised to learn that the home secretary has responsibility for ensuring consistent policing across the country, but no power to implement it

David Blunkett Home Secretary

Peers argued the proposal would rob local police chiefs of a say in important decisions and centralise control in Whitehall.

Ministers have insisted that the legislation would only be used as a last resort to tackle "failing" police forces and now they will reintroduce the plans in the House of Commons.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the Lords defeat was "always predictable".

Compromise urged

Government should be able to give the police general direction but should not be allowed to "intervene specifically", said Mr Hughes.

There are jobs that central government can and should do and there are jobs which they cannot

Lord Dixon-Smith, Conservative home affairs spokesman

But Mr Blunkett insisted: "I think people will be quite surprised to learn that the home secretary has responsibility for ensuring consistent policing across the country, but no power to implement it.

"If we can sack chief constables, as we can for lack of probity, for fiddling, then we ought to be in a position to ensure we can obtain their removal for gross incompetence."

The home secretary told Today that intervention would only be used if the new police standards unit provided "the upfront, transparent advice that people will be able to see is fair".

Former home office minister Mike O'Brien, who has advised the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association on the issue, said Mr Blunkett faced a key choice.

The Lib Dems continue to press for changes

"What he can do is reinsert the clause into the bill when it comes back to the Commons; push it through the Commons and then see if the Lords will accept that the bill needs that clause," he told Today.

"The alternative is to seek a compromise and I certainly would hope he would consider that."

Such a deal, suggested Mr O'Brien, could include new safeguards so the home secretary would have to show a chief constable was not performing his duty properly before removing him.

The government has already put extra safeguards into the bill and is unlikely to want to go further.

Tory peers joined forces with Liberal Democrats to defeat the government proposal, which is one of a raft of measures contained in the Police (Reform) Bill.

Local powers

Tory home affairs spokesman Lord Dixon-Smith said: "We happen to think that this is wrong. We think that there are jobs that central government can and should do and there are jobs which they cannot."

Blunkett says he needs powers to improve forces nationwide

Home Office Minister Lord Rooker put forward a package of amendments which he said answered peers' concerns about interference from above.

He said: "It will mean the home secretary cannot act on a whim, because we are told that all home secretaries in future may not be as nice as the present one."

Lord Rooker said the powers would be used as a "last resort" when everything else had been seen to fail.

But his words failed to impress opposition peers who rejected the amendments by 205 to 131 a majority of 74.

Ministers may now find it difficult to force the plans through Parliament because the police bill was first introduced in the House of Lords, where the government has no majority.

That means ministers cannot use the Parliament Act to push the reform package through the House of Lords, as it has done with other controversial pieces of legislation.