Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I shall support this amendment simply by reflecting on my own experience. I will be very brief. I served at a senior level, although not as commissioner, in the Metropolitan Police when there was no police authority. I also served when there was a police authority. With respect to the noble Lords who served on that police authority, some of whom are present, I did not always agree with them. However, in terms of strategic principle, to have a senior police officer—as the director-general will be—running a large, complex and controversial law enforcement organisation with no statutory advice from any outside body around him or her is dangerous in the modern age. As the noble Baroness has just said, it is not just dangerous for the director-general; it is dangerous for the Secretary of State.

Let us assume for a moment that the investigation which came to be known as “cash for honours” had occurred at a time when no police authority existed in London. As commissioner, while my service was investigating what had or had not happened inside No. 10 Downing Street—presided over by a Labour Prime Minister—I would have been reporting direct to a Labour Home Secretary, rather than to a more variegated body. The difficulties, temptations, pressures and politics of what that would, or could, have been like are pretty obvious and unpleasant to contemplate. What this amendment is suggesting is not a police authority. I am not at all precious about the detail of some of the appointments laid out in the different clauses; I just believe there is no need to mirror the PCC arrangement so recently announced in this kind of central body.

This amendment is less vital to me than Amendment 14, about counterterrorism functions, to which we will come shortly, but my experience suggests that a board of this sort would be an advantageous addition to the NCA, the director-general and the Secretary of State, and I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. Having been a member of the police authority to which the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, reported, I confirm that we did not always agree with the views that he put to us or the proposals that he made—but that was a healthy tension; there was a healthy process of governance. When I was chair of that authority, on three separate occasions a proposal was brought to the police authority by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, in his previous incarnation, which was rejected each time, and in the end a modified proposal emerged, which I think was better for London.

That was a relationship of dialogue and openness. What the Government are proposing in the Bill will be very different. There will simply be the director-general, who will report to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary will have the powers to set the strategic direction, the general way in which the organisation operates and, of course, have the power to hire and fire. There will be no scrutiny of that, no external validation and no one else sitting round the table—it will be a one-to-one relationship.

One of the fundamental principles of British policing, ever since Sir Robert Peel started the whole process, is that there should not be direct political control of the police service. What we have here is the creation of a potentially incredibly powerful national policing body that will report to a single politician, with no other people sitting around the table when directions and advice are given.

The advantages of my noble friend’s amendment are that it puts a layer between the Home Secretary and the director-general—a governance board—but also that the governance board has several people and interests represented. That does not absolutely prevent political interference because I am sure that the Home Secretary may on occasion phone the director-general and there will be direct dialogue, but it provides a governance structure that is a safeguard against the distortion of operational priorities for political purposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Blair, referred to the difficulties that he might have faced in respect of cash for honours. At the time of that investigation, there was a Labour chair of the police authority—it was not me; that was after my time, although I was still on the police authority—and I know that that Labour chair came under considerable political pressure from Labour Party colleagues about that investigation. Quite properly, he did not intervene on those matters; indeed, he defended the operational decisions of the police. But even had he been minded not to resist that political pressure, he had around him 22 other members of the police authority calling him to account and saying, “Actually, this must be allowed to run its course, right or wrong”. Here, there will just be the Home Secretary relating to the director-general in private, with no one else around the table able to say, “Is this appropriate or not?”.

It is a profoundly dangerous structure. I am sure it is being done for the best of all possible reasons and we will be told how efficient it is. But I have yet to hear anyone say that the SOCA board has been a waste of time, that it has not added value or that it has not improved the governance of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—none of those points has been put.

Instead, we are offered this direct-line relationship between the director-general and the Home Secretary. It is extremely dangerous. Even if the current Home Secretary and her successors have no intention of ever crossing that line and trying to intervene in the operational decision-making of the director-general, they will be open to the allegation that that is precisely what they have done. That weakens the position both of the director-general and of Ministers. For that reason I believe that the Bill’s proposals are profoundly dangerous, and I support my noble friend’s amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and I have Amendment 3 in this group. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was looking at me—I believe he was—when he referred to some people in this Chamber having been members of a police authority at the relevant time. I was not a member, but I questioned him in public, carrying out a role that is not unrelated to the subject of this amendment, which is getting information into the public domain—a hugely important role that someone needs to carry out. I am not sure who that someone might be in this structure.

I am aware that the Government have designed an arrangement under which the director-general is accountable to the Secretary of State, who is in turn accountable to Parliament. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in response to my amendment at the previous stage, told me that a supervisory board, which was how I described it, would muddy the waters. I had taken that proposal for a supervisory board from the arrangements that the Department for Communities and Local Government had in place, as I was easily able to access its arrangements. I said then that I was not seeking to change the architecture of the Bill.

I do not propose a governing board, and I do not go as far as the noble Baroness. However, because of the concern not to change the architecture, I have amended my own amendment to include the words, “Subject to Part 1”. That deals with the respective roles of the Secretary of State and the director-general. I tabled my amendment before seeing the outline framework document, which we are told will cover internal governance. Reading Hansard following Committee, I thought that perhaps “supervision” was regarded at any rate as an indelicate term for the relationship, although I felt at the time that the Government were a little oversensitive to my amendment.

However, I will be even blunter and say that as I read the paragraph in the outline framework document, the word that comes to mind is “cosy”. It might be much less cosy if we knew more from this document about what the governance arrangements would consist of. We are to have a management board, which comes under the heading of “Internal Governance”—it is almost the whole of that paragraph. I do not regard management as being the same as governance. Neither do I regard governance as being the same as administration, although that is the umbrella word used for governance in Schedule 2. It is the term used to introduce the concept of governance.

I have used terms including “strategic and corporate leadership” and “advice” in my amendment. If the management board that we are to expect is not to provide strategic and corporate leadership and advice, what is it going to do? Perhaps the Minister can help us today by fleshing this out a little more.

The framework does not tell us what it will do, and that is clearly important. It says only that there will be a description of the role of the board. Although, as I said, my amendment does not go as far as Amendment 1, the points made hitherto raised extremely important issues about governance in the public and political sector. I ask one further question. I do not want to pre-empt the noble Lord, Lord Condon, because it was his question at the previous stage, but will the board include stakeholders? We know that there are to be some ex-officio members and non-executive members. Again, the House would be interested to know who it is anticipated will fulfil those roles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, my only excuse for intervening is that I was the author of the report on which the Terrorism Act 2000 was based. I was also the first Interception Commissioner and therefore had direct experience of the counterterrorism activities of both the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police.

I have not always agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, has said, but on this occasion I find myself in substantial agreement with him and also with what the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said on the constitutional issues involved. It may be that at some stage it would make very good sense for counter- terrorism functions to be transferred to the new agency, but not now and certainly not by order. I am not as comfortable on these matters as the noble Lord, Lord Dear. If the matter were put to a vote, I would vote with the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, concluded his remarks by advising the Government with the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Of course, that is not quite what the Government are talking about here. The Government’s approach on a number of other issues is, “If it ain’t broke, take it to pieces anyway and see what happens”. However, the problem is that this clause, which my noble friend’s amendment will delete, is saying that if the Government decide that they want to change this, it will go through by the super-affirmative procedure without the full, detailed scrutiny of all the issues involved. That is why the Constitution Committee has highlighted the constitutional issue, and why so many noble Lords are concerned about it. If the Government were to propose this, it would be a very major issue with all sorts of ramifications. It is not something that would lend itself to a one-hour debate at 7.30 pm in your Lordships’ House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Absolutely: I assure the noble and learned Lord that that is exactly the process that we are talking about. It may help noble Lords in this regard if I explain how government policy would be determined by a consultative process before any decision was taken. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for making that point.

Clause 2 provides for an order-making power so that the Secretary of State can modify the NCA in relation to counterterrorism functions, including by conferring or removing functions. The order-making power is limited to changing the functions of the National Crime Agency. It does not provide the power to change the functions of other organisations unrelated to the National Crime Agency or to close down organisations. Given the importance of such a decision in the future, before an order can be made the Home Secretary will be required to consult any bodies that she considers will be affected by the order. The order itself will also be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, which is an extended programme of scrutiny by both Houses and indeed the committees of the House.

As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the Joint Committee on Human Rights yesterday published its report on the Bill and, among other things, raised the question of the mechanism for modifying the functions of the agency. Indeed the report, not unlike the debate today, called for the removal of Clause 2. I can appreciate the concerns of the committee in relation to human rights—these will indeed be important matters for the Government to consider. However, the statutory mechanism for modifying the functions does not diminish the obligations on the Government to give consideration to, and provide assurance on, a whole host of possible implications of a potential future decision. Human rights are only one aspect of a number of consequential effects of any change in policy in this area.

In addition to the Government’s considerations on any future changes, it is important that Parliament can give due time and consideration to any future decisions to modify the agency’s counterterrorism functions. The super-affirmative procedure set out in Schedule 18 will provide Parliament with the appropriate level of scrutiny should an order be made in the future. The House has been reminded of the view of the Constitution Committee on this matter. I will take the opportunity to remind the House of the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In its report on the Bill it made no recommendation in respect of this power but did comment:

“The idea of adding to a statutory body’s functions by subordinate legislation subject to a Parliamentary procedure is well established”.

There is nothing new in this process that offends the traditions of Parliament.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Is there another example of where powers have been added to an existing body that completely distort the functions of that body and increase its activities by 50% or 100%? When the noble Lord answers that point perhaps he can also tell the House why the Government are so desperate to be able to do this by an order-making power rather than by coming back to the House with perhaps a small piece of legislation that has already had the very full consideration that he describes and which could be debated in the normal way.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

A number of noble Lords will remember that in a previous role in this Government I took through the House the Public Bodies Bill where issues such as this occurred. I should emphasise that any bodies affected by any change will be consulted and the whole matter will be a matter of public debate. It is not going to be sprung as a surprise on an unwitting Parliament.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned Northern Ireland and I was grateful for the sensitivity with which she raised this issue. It is complex and I think noble Lords will appreciate that. We will have an opportunity on the ninth group of amendments to discuss it more fully. The order-making power recognises the important and different arrangements in respect of counterterrorism policing in Northern Ireland and the clause is drafted to respect those arrangements. Should an order be made to confer counterterrorism functions on the National Crime Agency in the future then the agency will require the prior agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland before it can undertake activities in Northern Ireland in relation to the prevention and detection of terrorism. This arrangement reflects and preserves how the operational relationships work at the moment in relation to counterterrorism policing in Northern Ireland.

It is critical that in creating the National Crime Agency, we do not limit its ability to respond to the changing threat picture of the future. For this reason, the statutory remit of the agency is broad, yet it provides a clear mandate for the agency. However, the clear remit conferred on the agency by Clause 1 and the flexibility of these arrangements go only so far and would not provide sufficient scope for the agency to take on a counterterrorism role in future. This order-making power affords the necessary flexibility to extend the agency’s functions to encompass counter- terrorism.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way a second time. Would the order-making power enable the Government to change the Police Act 1996 which confers counterterrorism responsibilities on the Metropolitan Police?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The effect of the order-making power would be to make new arrangements for counterterrorism policing in the United Kingdom, if that was the decision that was made. I cannot state the matter more clearly. No decision has been made. I am arguing neither for nor against the change. I speak neither for the status quo nor for the future. I am seeking to provide through the Bill a mechanism by which future government decisions can be reflected after a due process of consultation with all bodies involved and after the parliamentary process.

We expect police and other partners to be fully involved in the review when the time is right. Any decisions should be evidence-based and preserve those features of the current arrangements that work well. No one is going to upset an arrangement that is fully satisfactory unless they can be certain that the alternative arrangement will be an improvement.

We all recognise that counterterrorism policing structures work effectively. It is right and proper that we do not rush decisions in relation to counterterrorism now. Equally we do not want to rule out the possibility of some change in the future. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is to place a duty on the director-general of the National Crime Agency to notify police and crime commissioners before making a request to a chief constable to perform a task under Clause 5. Likewise, a similar duty is placed on a chief constable to notify the police and crime commissioner before making a request of the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task. The amendments also place a duty on the director-general to “make every reasonable effort” to notify the appropriate police and crime commissioner before issuing a direction to the chief constable for that police and crime commissioner’s area.

We had a debate on this issue in Committee when an amendment was moved referring to the director-general consulting the police and crime commissioner responsible for the policing of an area. The amendments today refer to notifying the police and crime commissioner. Without wanting to repeat everything that was said in Committee, one has to go over the argument again to some extent. A police and crime commissioner for a police area has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of the police force for their area, to ensure that the police force is efficient and effective and to hold the chief constable to account for a wide range of duties and responsibilities, including the effectiveness and efficiency of the chief constable’s arrangements for co-operating with other persons in the exercise of the chief constable’s function. The police and crime commissioner will also be responsible for issuing a police and crime plan, which is required by law to set out a number of matters including the policing of the police area which the chief officer of police is to provide. However, it currently appears to be possible, under the terms of the Bill, for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to come to an agreement with the chief officer of a UK police force for that chief officer to perform a task of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance in relation to resources or impact, on behalf of the director-general or, alternatively, for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance on behalf of the chief officer of a UK police force without any apparent duty in either case even to tell the elected police and crime commissioner, despite the significant statutory responsibilities the police and crime commissioner has in relation to their police force.

If the director-general of the National Crime Agency was requesting the chief officer of a UK police force to carry out a task which could well have an impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the police force in question or on their ability to deliver or adhere to the police and crime plan, one would have thought that it was a matter on which the director-general of the National Crime Agency should be required at least to notify the police and crime commissioner. Likewise, if the chief officer of a UK police force found it necessary to request the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task on behalf of or in support of that police force, there should be a duty on the chief officer first to notify—that is what the amendment now calls for—the police and crime commissioner who, after all, might want to satisfy himself or herself that this was not a task that their own police force should be competent and capable of performing and that the request to the director-general was not, in reality, seeking to cover up a weakness in the performance of their police force.

When we debated this issue in Committee, the Government’s response was that we were putting forward amendments that would put at risk the operational independence of chief constables. We said at the time that that seemed a bit rich. Bearing in mind that our amendments state “has first notified”, it would be stretching it a bit if the Minister were to tell us again that we are putting at risk operational independence. Clearly, if directions are being issued to a chief constable by the director-general of the National Crime Agency they could well, under the terms of the Bill, be of a magnitude, size and scope that could call into question the ability of that chief constable to adhere to or deliver the plans and strategic objectives of the police and crime commissioner.

It was also said in Committee that if the director-general of the National Crime Agency had to consult the police and crime commissioner that would cause delay and it might be an emergency. We have sought to address that issue, unlikely though it would be to arise, by once again referring in the amendment to the director-general having to make “every reasonable effort” to notify the police and crime commissioner before issuing a direction to the chief constable for their particular area.

I hope that the Minister’s response will be more helpful than the one we received in Committee. In the wording of the Bill there are no parameters laid down which means that, on the key issue of the director-general of the NCA being able to come to either a voluntary arrangement with or, if he feels it necessary, give a direction to a chief constable, this could be of unlimited scope and have a very considerable impact on the ability of that chief constable to deliver the strategic objectives of the police and crime commissioner for the area. That there is no requirement at all for the director-general even first to notify the police and crime commissioner could, indeed, have an effect on the ability to deliver, for a period of time, effective policing in that area. That is the purpose of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a more sympathetic response than the one we received in Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I have been trying to work out how this Bill was prepared and I can only assume that there was collective amnesia in the part of the Home Office that was preparing it about their other major piece of legislation, which created police and crime commissioners. The mentions of police and crime commissioners in this Bill are few and far between. Had it not been so vigorously resisted by the Minister in Committee, I would have assumed that it was a simple drafting error not to include that the police and crime commissioner should be informed or, better still, consulted—although today’s amendment possibly moves us away from that—about a possible direction or requirement for the use of resources in their area.

Has the Home Office really thought about the practical politics that will arise and the consequences that may flow from failing to put this very simple provision into the Bill? Put yourself into the position of someone who has been elected earlier this month to the position of police and crime commissioner. They sit there with all the majesty of their electoral mandate: many of them have had as much as 4% of the electorate in their areas voting for them, so they know that they have the people behind them. It is clear that they have a substantial, legislative obligation on behalf of the communities they represent, whether it is the 4% or all 100% of them, to hold the chief constable to account for the use of policing resources in that area. That is what the legislation that we spent so many happy hours debating a year or so back was all about. Yet here is a provision in the Bill which enables the director-general of the National Crime Agency to require the use, either by direction or agreement, of police forces in their area.

I can conceive of circumstances in which police and crime commissioners have been elected having said very clearly that their prime focus is going to be on local crime concerns in their particular patch and that they want “zero tolerance”—a number of them did in fact say in their manifestos and websites that they wanted zero tolerance of crime on the streets of their particular area. However, they are suddenly told—or they find out, perhaps because their chief constables tell them, they read it in the newspapers or hear some gossip—that a substantial proportion of the local resources that they thought were going to be devoted to keeping street crime and burglary down in the areas of their mandate is being diverted to some, no doubt very important, serious crime operation. You are likely to then get precisely the sort of row about operational policing that we have said we do not wish to see between police and crime commissioners and chief constables, because police and crime commissioners will suddenly discover that the resources that they thought were being devoted to dealing with crime in their patch are being diverted to another—no doubt very worthy and important—area.

The very simple, practical and political—with a small “p”—way of doing this is to have an obligation on the director-general to at least inform, if not consult, the police and crime commissioner. That might perhaps ensure that, because they hear it first from the National Crime Agency—the people who are making the request—they have an understanding of it. That is much more likely to be acceptable to a police and crime commissioner than their hearing about it from some other source. I wonder why the Home Office, having devoted so much energy, effort and even money into having police and crime commissioners elected, has then excluded them from this part of the Bill. Unless my noble friend’s amendment is passed, you are going to have a situation in which you almost encourage conflict and a reaction from police and crime commissioners saying, “I do not wish the see the resources of my police force area being diverted for those national or other purposes”. You will have created a conflict, because the police and crime commissioner does not have the right to be informed by the National Crime Agency of what is being done.

Maybe the Minister will tell us in a couple of minutes that his expectation is that the chief constable will explain it to the police and crime commissioner. It looks as though that may well be what is in the Minister’s brief. Of course there will be discussion and dialogue, but the common courtesy of the director-general of the National Crime Agency going to the police and crime commissioner to say, “I am about to make this request”, or, “I am asking your chief constable for this”, and, “These are the reasons”, will smooth the passage and make this work better. I cannot understand why, for the sake of a simple telephone call or e-mail, this has been omitted from the legislation. The reality is that it would not delay things, but would make them less liable to create conflict between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable who has accepted the request from the National Crime Agency director-general, with the police and crime commissioner grandstanding about how he or she is fighting for the people of his or her area and about not having police services diverted to other functions because those services are there for the people of his or her community.