Police National Computer

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I say to my noble friend that they can run them now. On the recovery timescale, as I said, the analysis should be complete by close of play today, and the work will be done to remediate the system as soon as possible after that.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is not just 175,000 arrest records of people arrested and released without charge, is it? My noble friend Lord Paddick told us just how many offence and person records have also gone missing. Can the Minister tell us how many of these were under live investigation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

These were “no further action” records—but, as I say, the further analysis of this will be completed, and I am sure I will be able to explain this to the House in more detail in due course.

Fireworks: Damage

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, police being attacked by fireworks might be police being attacked by something else on a different night. There are restrictions on anti-social and nuisance behaviour through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the police and local authorities of course have powers under that Act to tackle anti-social and nuisance behaviour. Of course, the noble Lord points out something that is extremely dangerous if people decide that they will behave in this way.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I live at the end of the Yorkshire Dales, and while the irresponsible use of fireworks is reprehensible, sky lanterns there are causing incredible damage to animals ingesting wires and are starting fires in the countryside. Richmondshire District Council is considering banning the use of these flares, which have as much destructive ability as fireworks. Will the Government consider doing the same for these sky lanterns?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have to confess to the noble Baroness that my knowledge of sky lanterns is very limited. However, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. That does not quite answer her point, but where there is evidence that an animal is suffering because of such things as sky lanterns, then local authorities will have the powers to enforce on this.

Randox and Trimega Laboratories

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord points out, because this is an ongoing investigation the full lessons of what went on here cannot be appreciated yet. However, the Government have, of course, taken steps since January 2017, when we found out about this alleged manipulation. We supported the police’s initial response to the news of manipulation, including officials advising of the impact on the marketplace and the regulatory impact. The Home Office advised the NPCC in the creation of the silver groups working on the operating protocol for forces, the forensic service providers and the CPS. We facilitated the agreement of commercial terms between Randox and the independent testing companies and sat on the technical advisory group of forensic experts which advised the gold group on the retesting strategy.

As the Statement said, the DfE has liaised with local authorities in England to review their records and will consider what action needs to be taken from there. The MoJ, together with the DfE and HMCTS, has worked closely with the police to identify family and civil court cases where a toxicology test was undertaken by Trimega. We have advised the NPCC gold group and the team that is working with the CPS to ensure that the appropriate disclosure is made. We have asked all forensic toxicology suppliers to review their practices and have asked the Forensic Science Advisory Council to consider a number of measures to strengthen provisions to reduce the risk of malpractice and to help rapid detection. We are supporting the UKAS internal review and have briefed the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Family Division of the High Court. We have done a lot since we found out about this.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, a number of years ago, I visited the College of Policing’s Harperley Hall site in County Durham, which led on forensic science at the time for the college and did an absolutely extraordinary job. Will the Government look at how that was run and seek to emulate it in the future?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is right that at times like this it is absolutely essential that we look at places and areas of best practice to see what we can learn. Of course, the full extent of that learning will not be forthcoming until a full investigation has been undertaken. However, I totally take her point that best practice has to be emulated.

Police: Pension Rights

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his Question, for the way in which he has always constructively engaged with me, and for coming to see me this morning. I pay tribute to him as Parliament’s only PCC. Without talking about individual cases, I say that it is absolutely tragic that police officers are killed in the line of public duty. When it happens, we should honour the officers’ memory and sacrifice. That is why this Government have changed the rules so that all survivors of police officers who die on duty do not now face the prospect of losing their pension on remarriage. That is a change that no previous Government have felt able to make. However, we must continue to have regard to the wider implications of a change to public service pensions. It is the duty of government to ensure that any policy changes are legally and financially sound. I do not pretend that the judgment is always easy but it is one that we must make. Successive Governments have maintained a general presumption against retrospective changes to public service pensions, and I am afraid that that remains in place.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary member of the National Association of Retired Police Officers, which has been instrumental in championing this campaign. Should the Government not recognise the principle that the widows and widowers of police officers who have given their lives in service to the community should receive pensions for life no matter when their partners were killed?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the Government recognise the principle and that is why we made these changes back in 2016, to be applied from 2015. But as I have said, the retrospective judgment is not one that is made across the public service.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

108A: Clause 61, page 77, line 34, leave out “of 28 days” and insert “specified by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above (and not exceeding 28 days), ”

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, before I move my amendments, some of which are also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, I remind your Lordships of my policing interests, which are addressed in the register. Through these amendments —108A, 108B, 109, 112A, 112B, 113, 113A, 113B and 114—which all address the same issue, I seek to encourage the Government to accept the arguments put forward in Committee to extend the time limit for the duration of bail from 28 days to not exceeding 56 days.

The Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales, through its vice-president, Chief Super- intendent Paul Griffiths, has persuaded me that its professional opinion and that of the College of Policing and, without doubt, the academic work undertaken by professors Hucklesby and Zander, ought properly to be taken into account in this matter. Notwithstanding the helpful, but discouraging, letter from the Minister, for which I thank her, I believe that their concerns are rather more convincing than those of a senior civil servant in her department, however well intentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point, and there are in fact other reasons outside the police’s control why 28 days might prove difficult. It is for that reason that we will not only keep it under review but look at any blockages to the 28 days being fulfilled that are outside the police’s control.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments. I guarantee to the Government that the exercise of this will be far more burdensome than they expect and that we will come back to this. These ideas will haunt the Government, because—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, may I be completely rude and intervene on the noble Baroness? I completely forgot to speak to government Amendment 116. Will she indulge me, while I outline that amendment very briefly?

Amendment 116 responds to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford in Committee, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, alluded, when he argued that written notification should be given in all cases where the police decide to take no further action. Amendment 116 complements Clauses 65 and 66, ensuring that notification of a decision to take no further action is always given, whatever the circumstances of a case. I commend the government amendment to the House and apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, it is quite all right.

I want to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. Have the Government taken into account what will happen if the 28-day period falls over Diwali, Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, the Sabbath, Ramadan, Eid or other religious festivals? This will cause real concern as there is no flexibility to respect these dates.

What about medical appointments, pre-arranged holidays, job interviews, caring responsibilities, academic examinations, funerals? The list is endless. There may be a case for a breach of human rights; certainly it could cause a corrosive relationship between the police and the public because of the length of time and the lack of flexibility. I hope that the Government will look again very closely at what many noble Lords have been proposing. At this stage there does not seem much point in dividing the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 108A withdrawn.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

174: Clause 46, page 68, line 7, leave out “rank of constable” and insert “ranks of constable and superintendent”

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 174 perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of my interests around policing in the register. This amendment seeks to insert the rank of superintendent, and indeed to prescribe it, in legislation. The reason for doing so is to track around the leadership review which the College of Policing has been asked to undertake. It has been looking in part at the ranks structure but has come up against the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It cannot agree to the changes in the ranks structure within policing that the college recommends.

I understand that it had been proposed to introduce a new structure. It was to be a sort of mirror of best practice and management within both the private and public sectors, thus operational level, supervisory level, middle management, senior management and executive level. The NPCC does not rule out the possibility of moving to this model in the future but feels that policing is facing more important issues at the moment than looking at changes in the ranks. It also says that there is no compelling evidence to support them. My contention is that there most definitely is, that it is imperative to modernise the ranks structure now, and that this Bill provides the ideal opportunity to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe we should let the work of Chief Constable Francis Habgood continue and not constrain police leaders in how forces should be organised—which is kind of what noble Lords have been saying. Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the proposals for changes to the rank structure once the College of Policing has made its recommendations, as these will need to be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment, and that noble Lords will join me in supporting the proposition that Clause 46 stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this amendment. I thank the Minister, who gave me time earlier to put my views, and her team. I hope that the Home Office will continue to put pressure on the College of Policing to embed these reforms urgently. It cannot wait much longer just because the NPCC does not like it. Balancing the history, legal powers and organisational role of superintendents, I still feel it is important to enshrine the rank in legislation. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, although I understand it. I will look again at what she said and may come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 174 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Henig]

My Lords, I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour and I will try to be brief. I am particularly grateful for being allowed to move the amendment now because next Wednesday I have some important responsibilities; I am captaining the House of Lords bridge team against the House of Commons, and that is why I cannot be here next week. Again, I am grateful that we are able to take the amendment tonight.

I should say at the outset that I have worked alongside and observed the activities of members of the Police Federation for more than 25 years at both the local and national level. I would say that this experience has given me some expertise in Police Federation matters, but of course expertise currently is not something to boast about or perhaps even to lay claim to.

I am sure that we all know that the chief objective of the federation is to represent the interests of its members, and in my experience the Police Federation does this extremely well at both the local and the national level. Indeed, that support network is very necessary. Police officers do a difficult and often dangerous job. They need and deserve the security of knowing that the Police Federation will always be there to defend them if or when things go wrong, particularly legally, but every now and again in relation to terms of service and powers, and politically as well.

It is of course true that the Police Federation should not operate exclusively on behalf of its members. We the public need to have confidence in police officers, so it is important that members and particularly officers of the federation, in carrying out their functions, maintain high standards of conduct and of transparency. Here I have to observe that their conduct has often left something to be desired. I have myself seen at first hand evidence of bullying and of loutish behaviour. I have seen intimidation and ways of operating that manifestly do not command confidence in the integrity of federation officers. I am not alone. There can be no doubt that in recent years their collective actions and attitudes have on occasion grated on successive Governments, and they have alarmed middle England and the devoted readers of the Daily Mail. In the wake of the fiasco surrounding the clash of who said what and did what in Plebgate, the federation itself resolved to carry through a raft of root-and-branch reforms, It asked Sir David Normington to carry out an examination of the structure of the Police Federation and of its objectives. In his resulting report, Sir David proposed among other changes that in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities for the welfare and efficiency of its members, the Police Federation should,

“act in the public interest”.

The Government are taking on board this recommendation but have modified it somewhat to stipulate that the Police Federation must act to “protect the public interest”. I believe this to be a massive overreaction and a serious mistake.

This is for two principal reasons. The first is that I do not know what “protecting the public interest” means. I have served as a local magistrate for 20 years and I know the importance of having laws that are clearly worded and fully understandable to the general public. Opaque words lead to bad law. I have therefore spent some time asking a number of my legal friends, some of them in this House, what they think is meant by “the public interest”. My learned friends cannot tell me. They do not agree and there is no accepted understanding of the phrase, and indeed there is some disagreement on what it might mean. So what precisely are we asking the Police Federation to do? They and we need clarity, so I would like the Minister to spell out to me, and more importantly to the legal profession, what she believes is meant by “protecting the public interest” as it applies to the Police Federation.

My second concern is that in representing its members, which the Police Federation has a prime duty to do, it could easily be drawn into doing the opposite of protecting the public interest. There may be officers whose cases, once the evidence is heard, could undermine trust and confidence in the police and could suggest that they have behaved in ways that have not protected the public interest, either deliberately or inadvertently. Should the federation not represent such officers? It is not difficult to foresee a conflict between the federation’s duty to look after the interests of its members and the obligation to protect the public interest, however it is defined. My strong view is that the federation is first and foremost a staff association, although I accept that it is a body that needs to act in a way which commands the trust and confidence of the public. So while it certainly should maintain high standards of conduct and high levels of transparency, fear of breaching this clause about protecting the public interest should not be able to inhibit the federation from representing the interests of its members. I believe that that might well be a consequence. It sounds grand to bestow on the federation a public purpose, which some of the more grandiose officers in the federation actually rather like, but to my mind it is a hollow aspiration. It is just words that sound good but have no agreed or clear meaning. I therefore believe that the words in proposed new subsection (1A)(a) in Clause 48 should be removed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, in drafting this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and I spent many happy hours trying to determine what exactly the “public interest” is, as she has said. It can mean a whole lot of different things to different people and its interpretation is interesting in the context in which it is presented in the Bill.

As we have heard, the Police Federation has followed the recommendation—I emphasise “recommendation” —of Sir David Normington’s review into how to improve itself. It decided that it would establish an independent reference group. At Second Reading I gave your Lordships a full account of how that independent reference group, which I chaired, had been treated. After we were set up as a fully functioning group in January this year, the Police Federation decided it did not want to use us to help it realise its stated purpose of reforming. This was in spite of the membership of that group having within it people with more than 100 years’ experience of working with the police, a very senior and highly respected retired civil servant and the first woman to run a fire authority—so not all of us were politicians, to whom the present chair of the Police Federation was vehemently opposed anyway. Yet all of us were committed to helping the Police Federation improve its image. We were, effectively, sacked in May this year, having been unable to do anything meaningful to help.

I am quizzical about just where the “public interest” fits into this scenario. It is bandied about, as the noble Baroness suggested, but nobody can actually pin down what it means. Is the Police Federation in denial of its obligations to the public interest by behaving in the way it has? If so, what is the meaning of the phrase now? Will the public be pleased at how the organisation has conducted itself—in their interest—or will they be as puzzled as we were about the behaviour of the management of the Police Federation arbitrarily to interpret that interest in this particular way? The phrase needs removing from the Bill unless the Minister can convince me that it is at all meaningful. I would be grateful if she could give me some examples.

[Lord Wasserman (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment. It deals with an issue I raised in the Second Reading debate on the Bill in your Lordships’ House. As I said at that time, and repeat for the sake of maintaining the highest standards of conduct and transparency, I was, until a few months ago, an unpaid adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and had been acting in that capacity for the best part of the previous three years.

I hope that I also made clear in that debate that the line I was about to take in respect of Clause 48 had not been prompted by the Police Federation. Indeed, it was not even supported by the leadership of that organisation. That position has not changed. My views on Clause 48 and, in particular, on the four words which this amendment seeks to omit, remain as they were in July—that is, mine and mine alone. Indeed, it is a cause of some regret that not even my noble friends on the Front Bench are likely to agree with me.

I say that this is a cause of some regret because my views stem directly from my experience as an official in the Home Office—an official doing very much the same job as those who prepared the Bill. The rule in the Home Office at that time was that, when preparing legislation, every effort had to be made to avoid giving hostages to fortune, or making rods for one’s own back—or any number of similar clichés. In practice, this meant that one’s seniors and betters were constantly on the lookout for words which they could strike out of draft legislation because they were not absolutely necessary. Every word in every Bill, we were taught, could be used by clever, rapacious lawyers as a stick with which to beat the Government—or at least a stick to beat other clever and rapacious lawyers. For this reason, every word in a piece of draft legislation, particularly primary legislation, had to be justified as being absolutely necessary and not amenable to misinterpretation or exploitation for purposes other than those directly related to the main purpose of the legislation in question.

I regard the words “protect the public interest” in Clause 48, as the noble Baronesses who spoke before me said, as precisely the kind of words that are amenable to misinterpretation and exploitation. They certainly are not necessary to achieve the purposes of this particular part of the Bill. I therefore regard them as prime candidates for omission.

The same problems do not arise with the words in the other two paragraphs. I believe that it is very sensible to place a duty on the federation to maintain high standards of conduct and transparency. Everyone understands what those words mean. More importantly, I believe that they are quite sufficient by themselves to achieve the Government’s aims for the federation. In fact, they are probably more than enough.

All of us who take an interest in policing know very well why the previous Home Secretary felt moved to introduce these words into the Bill. I for one strongly supported her doing so. But the words “protect the public interest” are quite different. The federation is at bottom a staff association and its job is to represent its members. It is clearly in the public interest that it should do so effectively—that is why it was established. And it is clearly in its own interest that it should act, as Sir David Normington said, to maintain exemplary standards of conduct, integrity and professionalism and to retain public confidence.

To require the federation to act to “protect the public interest” is quite another matter. I fear that these words are tantamount to giving the federation a licence to interfere in policing matters well beyond its expertise. For example, I see the federation deciding that it is in the public interest that it should monitor and make recommendations on the type of equipment and systems which police forces purchase and deploy; on the leadership qualities of candidates for chief constable rank and other operational matters; or on issues of police governance such as the size and composition of police and crime panels.

Of course, individual members of the federation will have views on all these matters and on many more besides. But what we would be doing by including the words “support the public interest” in this Bill is to give the leaders of the federation grounds for spending their money on studying these matters and publicly advocating for changes in them. Indeed, I believe that these words would permit the federation to extend its remit almost indefinitely and to employ clever, rapacious lawyers to justify this on the grounds that it has a statutory duty to protect the public interest.

The federation has more than enough on its plate in carrying out its core mission. Placing on the federation a duty to “support the public interest” may sound good, as the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, said, but it does not pass the test of being essential to the purposes of the Bill. In fact, I believe that it falls squarely into the category of words which could come back to bite the Government in very unpleasant ways.

That is why I strongly support this amendment and urge the Minister to agree with me that omitting these four words would in no way weaken the motivation of the federation to operate in the public interest but would minimise the opportunity for it to make trouble for itself and others in due course.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my policing interests, all of which are in the register. There are a number of parts of the Bill with which I agree, some which will need examining thoroughly as we go through Committee and others on which I seek much further assurance.

Policing has gone through some enormous changes in the past six years. During the previous Government, Parliament passed the Bill introducing police and crime commissioners. I profoundly disagree with it and must tell the noble and learned Lord that up and down the country, people are still asking me why it was agreed. They feel that PCCs generally have not made the significant difference we were told they would and, in some cases, as Members of your Lordships’ House will recall that we anticipated, they have been very poor indeed. I of course do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, whom I congratulate on his appointment, will ever fall into that category. Were he in his place, I am sure he would appreciate those words. Not enough scrutiny of their role or the ability to get rid of poorly performing PCCs was written into the Bill, and the new one does nothing to improve that situation. That is a seriously missed opportunity and I very much regret it.

The Bill invokes collaboration as a new concept. Collaboration is a word that has been used around policing for a very long time. Even when I was chairing one of those awful bodies called a police authority for many years, we worked in collaboration with a number of other agencies. Most forces now operate very effectively with those other agencies and good practice can be seen everywhere.

I was recently invited to Durham Constabulary, where good practice in policing is recognised as being the best in the country. I was deeply impressed by a number of the programmes dealing with serious and organised crime groups through offender management, where working with Public Health England is producing amazing results in reducing reoffending and enhancing life chances. I will talk more of those initiatives as we go through the Bill. The constabulary also told me about its safeguarding unit, which has used drama to illustrate the graphic problems of domestic abuse. I commend Durham Constabulary on the exciting, innovative work it is doing with others.

When I spoke with the superintendents’ association, it highlighted its concerns about deferred prosecutions. Its view, which I share, is that it may be possible to collaborate in back-office functions with the fire service, as proposed in the Bill, but it would prefer to do that more meaningfully with social services, local authorities and health bodies, which share general responsibilities with the police for care of the individual. It is felt that the fire service has a rather different remit. Of course, if it sees that it would be of benefit to the public, it would certainly integrate services, but there must be clear joint outcomes from that collaboration. What are the exact proposals for collaboration with the fire service, other than the possible leadership role as explained in the Bill?

Multi-agency working is preferable to writing into legislation collaboration with just one agency. They come from different cultures, and the difficulties of handling that must not be overlooked. Reforming the police complaints and disciplinary systems is essential. I remember years ago asking for something to be written into one of the first police Bills I dealt with on behalf of these Benches, to little avail. It has been done piecemeal over many previous Bills, so I am pleased that at last it seems to be taking traction.

Protection for police whistleblowers is long overdue and is to be warmly welcomed, but perhaps the definition needs clarifying. Will the Minister look to amend this as we move through the Bill—perhaps to apply to police officers and police staff who wish to raise a new concern and not one that is an ongoing investigation? Good officers’ lives have been ruined by the way they have been dealt with, having complained about internal workings of their organisation. The length of time taken to conduct an inquiry has brought untold harm to both the officers and their families, and we must do all that we can to minimise their suffering. I can only hope that the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the IPCC, will be able to complete its investigations much more speedily, even as it takes on the new system of super-complaints.

While I am on the IPCC, can the Minister tell me why the word “independent” has been missed out of the proposed new name for it—that of “Office for Police Conduct”? It looks very much to me, and I guess it will look the same to a disinterested member of the public, as though it could well be yet another branch of the police deciding how to police itself. Certainly, let us have the new name, but we must underline its independence by calling it the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

I am less sanguine about the intention of allowing chief constables to confer further and greater powers on police civilian staff and especially volunteers. I will have much more to say on this in Committee. I was always very sceptical of what PCSOs were being used for, and anticipated that it was rather the thin end of the wedge, and that their duties would escalate, as of course they have. But to use volunteers in the same breath as PCSOs, who have at least a modicum of training and accountability, is going three steps too far, in my opinion.

I am easy about freedom of information being applied to the Police Federation of England and Wales—although, of course, it is not. I shall have more to say in Committee about the Police Federation. I also ask, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who is not in his place, why the rank of superintendent should not be prescribed in legislation. After all, superintendents perform difficult and serious management roles and need to be recognised.

I turn to the section that deals with mental health, a huge and sensitive problem for all police forces, which will require places of safety to be found in order to detain someone without their consent. This part of the Bill raised a very important debate in the other place, and I expect that it will do so here. Police custody is simply not a suitable place to keep someone who is suffering from mental ill-health.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley is not able to take part in this Second Reading but has asked me to put on record that she feels that although the Bill is moving in the right direction, there are still concerns about mental health provision and she will be tabling some amendments in Committee about the provisions for people with mental health needs. We have had a number of other briefings on this most important subject, notably from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which also hopes the Government will ensure that there are appropriate services in place to make the changes in law a reality on the ground.

Part 4, which looks at bail conditions, will also be raised in Committee. Does the Minister believe that forensic examinations can always be completed within the 28-day timescale envisaged in the Bill? The investigation of high-tech crime and communications-gathering can take an enormous amount of time and cannot be solved quickly. I ask simply because I believe the IPCC can have up to 56 days to deal with these many serious issues. If it can have that much extra time, why can provision not be made for an extension for the police if it is necessary and requested?

The Bill will need a lot of scrutiny—and, I hope, amendments—before we pass it into law. The other place did a good job in raising some major issues but it is now up to us to sharpen and hone its work. That is our role. That is our duty.

Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

That this House regrets that the Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015 prevent the federation from being properly funded in order to represent its members (SI 2015/630).

Relevant document: 33rd Report, Session 2014–15, from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my registered interests and, particularly, that I chair the interim independent reference group of the Police Federation of England and Wales. In the debate on the gracious Speech, I intimated that I would be putting down a prayer to seek to overturn Statutory Instrument 630, which was made on 9 March this year and came into force on 2 April. Unfortunately, I was unable to do this because of a misunderstanding of timings following the dissolution of Parliament. I am grateful to the Chief Whip for giving me time to express my deep concerns about this SI in the only way that I am able—through a Motion to Regret.

I believe this legislation to be very heavy handed; it represents, I believe, a fundamental attack on the rights of police officers by imposing draconian measures on their representative organisation. The statutory instrument refers to the membership of the Police Federation of England and Wales. Prior to the amendment regulations, the position was that membership of the federation was automatic for police officers in ranks from constable to chief inspector inclusive but that payment for that membership was voluntary. Now, membership ceases to be automatic and, in relation to subscriptions, various additional requirements have been made on the federation to inform police officers that payment of subscriptions is voluntary and to give members who choose not to pay contributions various rights. I will say a little more on that later.

As many of your Lordships will know, the Police Federation is in the process of implementing in full the recommendations of the independent review by Sir David Normington into its organisation. It set out 36 recommendations for a comprehensive organisational overhaul to deliver a more efficient, effective and transparent Police Federation of England and Wales. Given its compliance with the Home Secretary’s demands regarding the implementation of Normington, I also question the necessity of such legislation and whether it is appropriate for the Government to interfere in arrangements between the federation and its members.

The police service already has severe strictures on its industrial rights and now the Home Secretary has imposed further conditions on this member-led and member-funded federation through statutory instruments. I fear that this can only serve to further weaken an organisation which has already lost a great deal of its strength over the past few years, not least from the huge fall of nearly 35,000 front-line police officers and staff, who have been lost across both England and Wales through government cuts to the police service.

As I said in my speech, this is the first time I can remember that law and order was hardly on the agenda during the general election. It was almost a footnote in manifestos focusing more on the NHS, education and immigration. However, we should not pander to the media or the politically prescribed flavour of the day as we would be failing to serve the public good. If we are to believe that police reported crime is down, why is it that the Government are continuing to compromise the very apparatus that has brought this about? It is counterintuitive. Cuts to policing have led to fractures appearing up and down the country to the very foundations of the police service.

Figures from the Independent Police Complaints Commission show that levels of complaints against the police in England and Wales have reached a record high, with a clear rise in the majority of police forces. The number of cases was 34,863, including a rise of 98% in one force, with the majority of complaints stating that the police are intolerant, rude and dismissive of the victims of crime. The fact is that this dramatic rise in complaints does not reflect a change in the determination and commitment of police officers. It comes down to a simple equation which shows ever-increasing response times and less time spent with victims of crime. The factor causing these results is a huge reduction in the resources available to the police service, and the outcome is a growing detachment and alienation from the communities of England and Wales.

The Peelian principles now present an almost impossible challenge for today’s police service. Principle 2 of the nine principles asserts:

“To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect”.

Further cuts can lead only to greater public discontent. If police numbers keep falling, the last resort will become the first response. Is this what the public want for the future of their police service? Is this what the Government want? If so, we need the police forces of England and Wales to revise and rework both their police charters and their victims’ charters. If the public do not have revised expectations, given the cuts, the reputation of the police service will continue its downward spiral, overwhelmingly and through no fault of its own.

Because the Police Federation has been bogged down with internal restructuring and reorganisation—which may well take another couple of years to fully complete—it has not been able to be as effective as it has been in the past in representing its members to their elected representatives, regionally, nationally or in Parliament. We need this to change if we are to properly understand how crime is changing and where best to direct our focus to make best use of the resources available. A strong Police Federation means a stronger police service, which can only be beneficial to the public.

This statutory instrument will make the job of the Police Federation harder at a time when it has difficulties enough with dwindling subscriptions, because of the huge fall in membership due to the cuts in police numbers. However, if we help the Police Federation, we will help the police service as a whole and in turn help them to serve the communities of England and Wales. This SI enables an officer to demand help from the federation even if he or she has not previously paid any membership fees. How can any organisation operate in this way? It is like saying to an uninsured motorist who has had an accident: “It’s all right. The insurance company will look after you. There was no need to fork out for insurance before you needed it”. That would be ludicrous, and yet that is exactly what this SI does. There is no need for a police officer to become a member of the federation or pay any dues, but that officer can demand help from the federation, which can add up to huge amounts of money in matters of litigation when it is needed.

This is an awful piece of legislation and I deeply regret having to bring it before your Lordships in a Motion to Regret, as I would have preferred us to vote on it. However, I hope that my explanation of its effect will move the House to express its concern and dismay that things have come to such an unhappy place for our police service. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sure that the noble Lord is well versed in what he has just quoted. In terms of confirming what he just said, I will write to him.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not at all satisfied with his remarks. He has quoted extensively from the Police Federation independent review by Sir David Normington, which I shall also refer to. First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Rosser—for their remarks and their strong support. I thought that the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, were particularly apposite.

The report says that the Police Federation,

“was established to represent every constable, sergeant, and inspector (including chief inspectors) in England and Wales. There was also an unspoken understanding that the Federation would receive relatively generous direct and indirect public resources for its representation and access to chief officers and to local and national policy makers”.

Of course the generous indirect public resources have now gone; the Home Secretary decided to take those away.

“Despite many reviews and reorganisations of policing this basic settlement has remained intact for 95 years. In our view it is as important and valid now as it was in 1919”.

This is the view from the chair of the independent review, Sir David Normington.

“Police officers need—and greatly value—an organisation that represents them in individual cases of investigation or discipline; and can give them and their families”—

I stress “their families”—

“wider support when they are under stress. This absolutely necessary protection means that it is desirable for membership to be universal given the widespread risks that individual officers face. That is why membership of the Federation is automatic upon enrolment (although officers can opt out of paying the subscription). This is the most practicable arrangement currently and one which we support”.

Lastly, the Police Federation told me that the amendments relating to subscriptions were unnecessary and not appropriate, as members already had a choice whether or not to pay subscriptions. The federation believes strongly that it should be free to choose what arrangements it reaches with its members in relation to subscriptions, and that it is not for the state to interfere in relation to the rights that late-subscribing members should have to assistance of any kind, from the federation or otherwise. However, as I have indicated to the Government, I do not intend to call for a vote—there would not really be much point at this late hour—so I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my registered interests and, in particular, that I now chair the independent reference group for the Police Federation of England and Wales.

During the last general election, for the first time that I can remember, law and order was hardly on the agenda of the political parties. Indeed, this is the first time I can remember in the 16 years I have been in this House when the gracious Speech has not referred to specific policing changes in a police Bill, although the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has spelt out some of the measures. So I felt it important to mention policing in general terms, and the Police Federation in particular, to ensure that this vital service is clearly recognised as crucial to how our country is governed.

Since 2010 the police service has lost 17,000 officers and 17,000 police staff. That is equivalent to nine entire police forces, or every single police officer in the south-east from Cornwall to Kent. Despite this, we are told that crime is down and more cuts to policing are envisaged. However pleased we should all be about the reduction in crime, it tells only part of the story. Child sexual exploitation is up; counterterrorism incidents are up; the management of sex offenders in the community is up; dealing with people with mental health issues is up; being used as the service of last resort, especially police cells having to be used as places of safety, is up; sickness levels are up; the number of officers owed days off in lieu is massively up; and incidences of violent crime, especially violence directed at police officers, are also up. I could go on.

It is therefore not quite the rosy picture painted for us by the Home Office. “Cuts have consequences” was the mantra at the recent Police Federation Conference, but that was roundly rejected by the Home Secretary, who accused the federation of “crying wolf”. But you simply cannot continue cutting a service that delivers 24/7, 365 days a year to our citizens without reducing its efficiency in so many ways. Neighbourhood policing will disappear as officers are pulled away to attend to serious crime incidents, and cuts in other community services, such as reducing lighting at night and the closure of youth centres, will only exacerbate the pressures on the police—who so often have to pick up where other services fail to deliver.

I have been involved in policing for almost 40 years and I truly do not believe that I have ever known morale in the service to be lower than it is at present. Police officers want to do a good job. They want to protect communities and ensure good order. But because their numbers are now at a critical tipping point, they fear that they will not be able to fulfil their roles for much longer.

I should say a word about the Police Federation as a whole. The organisation is undergoing massive restructuring and is in the process of implementing in full the recommendations of the independent review by Sir David Normington which the federation itself requested even before the Home Secretary berated it so fiercely last year. I want to tell your Lordships that an enormous amount of work is going on at federation headquarters, but it will take time to turn round an organisation that was more or less unchanged in its structure for almost 100 years. I therefore give the Government notice that I will be putting down a prayer to seek to overturn Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 630, which was made on 9 March this year and came into force on 2 April. I will use that debate to explain just why I feel so angry that there is an intention to interfere with internal federation matters which should not be subject to an order by the Home Secretary.

I understand but profoundly disagree with the Government’s eagerness to curtail the so-called powers of unions. However, police officers are subjected to a great many more strictures in their working lives and strictures on their industrial rights. To deprive the Police Federation of its funding by suggesting that officers do not need to be members of the organisation, but that the federation must represent them if an officer requests it, without having paid anything into the federation coffers, is utter madness. How can the Police Federation possibly function on that sort of calculation? Perhaps I am being naive. Perhaps that is just what the Government want: to take away the federation’s power of representation of its members and, hey presto, the police are fragmented into regions and branches. No, it is vital that the police have a strong and well-run organisation to represent them. I and my colleagues will do what we can to help them reform and renew so that they can again be represented with integrity and transparency.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I must first declare interests as a former chair of the Security Industry Authority, and as a current adviser to the British Security Industry Association and a Scottish private security company.

At this stage these are probing amendments to try to find out to what extent the Government are retreating from their commitments to the private security industry, first made three years ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, in this House, and again last autumn by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, at a Security Industry Authority conference, when he pledged that the Government would introduce business licensing of companies in the private security sector along with individual registration by the end of this calendar year—which is to say, in the next three weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, also promised appropriate enforcement powers to back up the new arrangements.

We are in quite a novel situation. An industry is begging the Government to regulate its businesses with a range of proportionate penalties for non-compliance, and despite the promises and the Home Office consultation, which shows that the great majority of representative bodies and companies support that, nothing is happening. How strange, then, that in other arenas the Government are rushing to regulate: trade union activity, to give one example.

In the context of these amendments I must spell out why business licensing of private security companies that work alongside the police and of those that carry out extradition escort duties is so necessary and so important. It is because we need to continue to drive up standards across the industry. That started with individual licensing, which was introduced 10 years ago but which must continue, to protect the public and to win both their confidence and that of the strategic partners with whom private security companies work, such as the Government and the police.

We also need to tackle the continuing influence of organised crime gangs in this important sector and to focus regulation on companies while reducing the burden on individuals. The public need to be able to hold companies to account for failures and wrongdoing, not just individuals. Thus far, the Government have proposed only secondary legislation to introduce a form of mandatory approvals for businesses under existing legislation. They have not, they told industry representatives, identified the opportunity for the necessary primary legislation. Given the wide-ranging nature of this Bill, I am surprised that it has not proved possible to insert into it somewhere along the line business licensing for private security companies.

The need for primary legislation is urgent; the benefits that the change would bring are significant for legitimate businesses and for public safety. Furthermore, the uncertainty created by the failure to bring forward this legislation is having an adverse impact on businesses and industry leaders, because they have to cope with continuing lack of information as to how their industry will be regulated, if and when changes will be made, and how much it will cost. My amendments at this stage seek to ensure that companies working alongside the police, and those involved in extradition escorting must be regulated by the Security Industry Authority. My objective is to ensure that all businesses providing security services in the areas covered by the Private Security Industry Act are licensed and that there are powers available to the regulator to allow effective and proportionate enforcement of the regime.

The question that I want to put to the Minister and the coalition Government is this. Are you still intending to carry through the changes you promised in 2011 and said were so urgent that they had to be implemented by the end of this year, or have you decided to abandon them? If the latter is the case, can you please tell the industry and the regulator, so that we can decide how to respond? If you are still going ahead, please could you come back at Report with some appropriate amendments? If you are not able to do that, I and colleagues will be happy to draft some new clauses for you to adopt. But please make up your minds on this issue, which is very important, not just for the industry but for public protection. I beg to move.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

I have added my name to this amendment, and refer Members to my former policing interests in the register. I have long felt that it was important to ensure that adequate training was given to anyone from the private security sector who would be working with the general public and, especially, the police.

Many years ago, when I was a member of my police authority in North Yorkshire, we pioneered doorkeepers, who were specially trained and motivated to work in a range of areas, in particular in nightclubs. Up until that time, it was customary to employ hefty and largely untrained men who would quickly get involved in any scuffles that were going on in the nightclub, or outside it, and who escalated the incident more often than not. Eventually, the police felt that they needed to do something about this and proposed that they trained the doorkeepers. They received a certificate at the end of their training, which became the basis of our having properly trained people dealing with potentially difficult situations, with the help and support of police officers who knew their abilities and limitations.

Fast forward a lot of years to the introduction of the Security Industry Authority, which regulated the private security industry and introduced individual licensing, which has proved to be an enormous success and gained, as we have heard, much support from both the public and police, who saw their registration as being a sign that they had been properly trained and accredited. But it should not end there, and this is the purpose of bringing this probing amendment to your Lordships’ attention. Accountability for actions must not be simply laid at the door of individuals. Companies have a great deal of responsibility in this area and they, too, need to be held accountable if they have been lax about ensuring the proper training and professionalism of their operatives.

We have, I hope, gone long past the time when we saw rogue companies getting away with questionable practices, and unless proper regulation is undertaken we may find ourselves once again in a position of trying to fend off organised crime, which will impact on legitimate businesses. You can be sure that the rogue operators will be looking carefully at what is proposed in the Bill so that they can bypass having to regulate their staff and businesses, especially those who will be working with the police.

However, the words in the briefing note—which was kindly sent to me by the Home Office and I thank it for that—do not really give me much comfort. The consultation proposed,

“a phased transition to a new regulatory regime of business licensing, together with some changes to how individuals are licensed to work within the industry. Following the consultation, the Home Office is enacting reforms in two stages, with provisions that require primary legislation being implemented later, so that the industry can begin to benefit from business regulation introduced by secondary legislation as soon as possible. We are working towards businesses being able to apply for a licence from April 2014”.

In the mean time, what has happened? Businesses do not need to bother ensuring that they will be able to comply with the spirit of regulation. The police need to have confidence in the people they are operating alongside. The public also need to be confident that private security personnel are properly registered and accredited and that companies which make a lot of money out of guarding, escorting and handling extremely important items and persons can be held to account for their actions. This was promised and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, who has an enormous amount of experience in these matters, that the proposals given to this House previously have not been abandoned.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Harris of Richmond. I also remember the promises made to this House by Ministers who preceded the noble Lord. There has been a long history in relation to the private security industry and I declare my interest as chairman of Skills for Security, which does all the training for the private security industry. I have been in that position for some time.

The history of this goes way back. The police service has had grave concerns over the past 10 to 15 years about rogue companies in the private security industry, with some issues that were very much into the criminal arena of behaviour. It surely makes sense for there to be an approach that follows the promises made to this House and talks about the responsibility not just of individuals but of companies. Large companies in this country have a responsibility. They do a very good and important job in the private security industry. It makes sense for these companies to be held accountable as an identity rather than individuals within the company. It follows government policy in terms of making companies responsible for the negligent and highly negligent actions of their employees. It would ensure that companies can be held to account and investigated by the IPCC, something we talked about earlier in this House. It would also address the continuing uncertainty that is impacting on business planning, which some of us involved in this area have identified with other people also talking to us about their concerns.

Everyone in this House will know about the increase in organised crime. A number of organised crime gangs operate in this area. Some of them infiltrate companies and some are part and parcel of companies. It makes sense, if that is the case, that companies in general should be held accountable. The other area which is important—and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond talked about it—is training. It is something I know a little about, having borne that responsibility for some time. It is essential that when training is done it is done with certainty. That means that if there is accountability, it is there for those people in the company as a whole, whether it be big companies such as G4S or the smaller companies that some of us are involved in.

If this amendment were taken up—it is a probing amendment, of course—it would add to public confidence. The police service in general would know where it stood and government agencies also would know exactly what they were working with and exactly how to tackle some of the difficulties that sometimes happen in the private security industry.