Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his careful explanation of the Bill. I would very much like to welcome him to his new portfolio and well deserved promotion, and I look forward to working with him. I echo his tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for her stewardship of the Home Office brief. I very much enjoyed debating the—perhaps I may say—unlamented police Bill as it went through your Lordships’ House. She was a very good debater and listener who will be very much missed from the Front Bench.
The security of this country is of paramount importance and the Official Opposition would always wish, wherever possible, to support Her Majesty’s Government in their counterterrorism policies. The introduction of control orders was controversial because they can impose intrusive restrictions on individuals who in most cases will not have been convicted of a terrorism offence on the basis of closed material. We would always prefer to prosecute terrorist offences through the courts. Control orders are not desirable but I believe that they were necessary to deal with a discrete number of individuals who for one reason or another could not be prosecuted but posed a terrorist threat. The decision to introduce control orders has been vindicated through the way that the public has been protected from the risk of terrorism, but also as evidenced by the vigorous judicial process undertaken in relation to control orders.
The parties opposite, when in opposition, made a great deal of their concerns over control orders. In government, I suspect that the Home Secretary has come up against reality, but still feels obliged to introduce this Bill. It is a flawed Bill, it is a fudged Bill. It seems to owe as much to the needs of the coalition as it does to national security. Just as we see a faultline running between the two governing parties on European human rights legislation, so we see a faultline in the legislation in our debate today. On the one hand, we have the Bill, which the Government say—and the Minister repeated it this afternoon—provides greater safeguards for the civil rights of suspected terrorists. But we also have another Bill—the draft emergency Bill, which the Home Secretary will carry around in a back pocket for the inevitable moment when this Bill is found wanting. The problem with a faultline is that there can often be a gap. I hope that national security will not fall into it.
At the heart of my concern is the fear that the Home Secretary’s powers to deal with the most difficult cases are being weakened. Nowhere is that more evident than in the central issue of relocation without consent. Relocation powers have proved to be extremely useful in disrupting terrorist activity and have been regularly described by the police as one of the most effective powers that they have. How many of the control orders in force have relocation as part of them? In evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne said:
“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 5.]
The Home Secretary clearly thinks so. In May of this year, just five months ago, the Home Secretary argued in the case of CD that he needed to be removed from Greater London to protect the public from a terrorist attack. The judge in that case said:
“I have concluded that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist attack.”
In July of this year, the Home Secretary said in the case of BM that relocation outside London was “fundamental” to preventing terrorist activity. In that case, BM admitted that he was committed to terrorism. The Home Secretary believes that those powers, which were needed three and five months ago, are not needed now. What has really changed in that period?
Ministers claim that they will put more surveillance in place but again, the senior representative of the Metropolitan Police, in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, said this:
“To get the resources we anticipate we need will take more than a year in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 9.]
It is simply not credible that the security environment has changed so substantially in the past three or five months that the powers needed then are not needed now. Are the Government really saying to this House—in Olympic year, of all years—that the powers are needed less in the coming year than they were last year, when the Home Secretary felt that she needed to use them five times?
Of course, Ministers have already conceded that additional powers may be needed, so they have published draft emergency legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, remarked at the end of his speech. That will give the Home Secretary powers to impose what have come to be known as enhanced TPIM notices which make it possible to impose stringent restrictions on individuals, including relocation without consent. We have the rather extraordinary position of the Government saying, “We do not like control orders so we are getting rid of them, but until we do that we are going to go to the courts and argue vigorously for their use, and we will keep emergency legislation just in case this Bill turns out to be inadequate”. The Government want to go further: from a position of apparent opposition to control orders, remarkably, this Bill now contains in Clause 26 a provision that allows the Home Secretary to impose the enhanced TPIM notices which should be the subject of the emergency legislation during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. I suggest that if extraordinary provision such as that is needed, the Home Secretary needs it now and it should be in this Bill.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s point about the absence of a relocation direction, does not the power to exclude a person subject to a TPIM notice from any area as specified provide a great deal of the protection that he wants? That is set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Why, then, my Lords, do the Government need a draft emergency Bill? It is because they consider that there may be circumstances in which the current Bill does not meet the security threat. My argument is that if the Government have to contemplate bringing in emergency legislation, it would be better to actually legislate for those provisions and allow Parliament its proper scrutiny rather than, at the time of an emergency or enhanced threat, seek to rush legislation through.
Lord Goodhart
Does the noble Lord accept that this deals with a particular problem, which is what is to be done during the period when Parliament does not exist? Surely special arrangements have to be made for dealing with that particular period of time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Then why on earth not put it into the Bill and allow the House to scrutinise and debate it thoroughly?
Lord Goodhart
This is something that is supposed to arise during the period when Parliament is dissolved. That is the problem. There is an interval of time, a month or perhaps six weeks, when no Parliament is in existence to deal with these notices. This is a perfectly legitimate provision meant to deal with that situation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord is a very good debater, particularly when he is defending a really impossible situation. The point is this. We have the Government saying, “Here is our Bill. We are so confident that it will meet the circumstances that we are also preparing an emergency Bill. However, we are not going to let Parliament have full scrutiny of that emergency Bill because we are not going to bring it before Parliament, but just in case we do need it because a threat has arisen during the period of the dissolution of Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech following a general election, we are going to provide in this Bill for the Home Secretary to be able to use it simply by executive diktat”.
We see here the confusion at the heart of the Government’s policy. The reality is that, in opposition, the parties opposite did not like control orders. They have come to power, had the advice and now realise that they need them but are stuck. They have produced the Bill as a way of proving that they are getting rid of control orders but they know that they will need the full panoply of the control regime so are going to have this emergency legislation as well.
A number of Select Committees have commented on the dangers of emergency legislation. First, it is bad constitutional practice. Secondly, the amount of information that will be given to Parliament in respect of an individual case will inevitably be very limited but might have an impact if those cases ever came to court. So this is not the right way to go.
There are of course a number of other features in the Bill and I will not detain the House. No doubt, we will come to the “alternative construct” of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, which has been heavily debated by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We will have a great debate on that. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the Joint Committee on what are called the Lord Macdonald amendments, in particular on whether the judiciary has been consulted and whether there is deemed to be a risk of replacing Executive decisions—where, ultimately, the Executive is accountable to Parliament—with judicial decisions. The general view of the judiciary on whether it wishes to be drawn into such decisions would be highly relevant.
I have just one other point. Control orders legislation was heavily criticised but it had to be renewed annually by Parliament. As a result of the changes made in the other place, this legislation will only come to be renewed once every five years. This matter is important. It enables extensive Executive powers to be used. Parliament ought to be able to come to a judgment on this on an annual basis.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to listen to these arguments. Ultimately, this is a bad Bill producing a very fudged situation. I really sympathise with those in the security and police forces who will have to operate in such a difficult and uncertain environment. I hope that the scrutiny that this House will give to the Bill will bring from the Government a willingness to listen, consider and accept constructive amendments. The Bill needs an awful lot of work.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. As I am sure he has already found out, the Home Office poses challenges of an entirely different order from those of other departments. I wish him well in his responsibilities. I join in the tributes paid to my noble friend Lady Browning, who performed her ministerial duties in this House, as she did in the other place, with very great distinction.
It is common ground in all parts of the Chamber that the best thing to do in respect of those who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity is to prosecute them. We would all like that to happen. I welcome the fact that the Government are going some way towards making the process of prosecution easier by introducing post-charge questioning, which is something which I have advocated for some time. My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned at the end of her remarks the possibility of introducing intercept material as evidence in terrorist cases. Later in the debate the House will have the great benefit of hearing the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Although I am not privy to what he is going to say, and I anticipate it at my peril, I should be astonished if he did not make at least some passing reference to the desirability of introducing intercept material as evidence.
I have the dubious privilege of being a member of the advisory committee of privy counsellors charged with overseeing the work being carried out by Home Office officials in an attempt to achieve that objective. I was appointed to that committee by the previous Administration and reappointed by the present Administration. I joined the committee with a strong predisposition to making that evidence admissible. I had read the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, been impressed by them and largely agreed with them. I was extremely keen to see that the law was changed to make this possible. It may still be the case that that goal can be achieved, but I must tell the House that the difficulties in the way of achieving that objective are enormously greater than those that I had appreciated before I joined the advisory committee. Although I hope that we will be able to overcome those difficulties, I cannot pretend that I have enormous confidence that we will be able to do so. Therefore, the question the House has to consider, and the question which gives rise to the Bill, is: what do a Government and a society do in respect of people suspected of being involved in terrorist activity on the basis of material which is not admissible evidence in a court of law? I do not imagine that many people would suggest that that material can be ignored and that that society can be left at risk from those whom that material identifies as posing that risk.
Of course, this is not a dilemma which is particular or special to our country; other countries face it as well. The President of the United States campaigned three years ago on a promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. Those who are detained in Guantanamo Bay are there because they cannot be prosecuted under the ordinary laws of the United States of America. Three years later, Guantanamo Bay has not been closed, not, I am quite certain, because of any lack of good faith on the part of President Obama, or because of any lack of desire on his part to make good his campaign promise, but because of the very real difficulties of the dilemma that I have identified, which, indeed, was posed aptly and eloquently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
Therefore, what every Government have to do in the face of that dilemma is to strike a balance between the need to protect the public from the risk that these people pose while at the same time minimising the extent to which there is any interference with the individual liberty of those who have not been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law, which is the course of action that we would all desire, were it possible. To that question of striking the balance, there is no single absolutely correct answer. It is a question of judgment, and that judgment is always the outcome of discussion, debate and argument.
That is why I was not as impressed as perhaps he would have liked me to be by the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the Bill is in some way to be regarded as less than ideal because it is the product of the coalition Government. The truth is that there will be in any Government—whether they be a single-party Government or a coalition—arguments, debates and discussions between different members of that Government as to where the balance should be struck. I was obviously not privy to the debates and discussions around the Cabinet table that led to the production of this Bill, but I would be very surprised if there were arguments simply between the Conservative members of the coalition on one side and the Liberal Democrat members on the other. I would suspect that there was a difference of view on both sides. That is the way in which our Government work, it is the way in which they should work and decisions emerge as a result of those debates, discussions and arguments. Those decisions are frequently compromises between the different positions, and they are none the worse for that. So there is no merit in the point that the Bill should in any way be criticised because it is the outcome of the debates, discussions and arguments that took place within the coalition.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I cannot resist. The point that I am making is that, as a result of the clear divisions, we have come up with a flawed process of a Bill with emergency legislation as a potential back-up because I am sure that there is an understanding among some members of the Government, and certainly in the security and police forces, that the Bill as it stands may not be sufficient. It is extraordinary legislation that gives the Home Secretary power, during a certain period, to use the enhanced provisions. The problem is the product of those discussions.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Lord is, of course, perfectly entitled to criticise particular provisions in the Bill. What I am saying is that those provisions should be dealt with on their merits. It really should be no part of the argument that the Bill in its present form should be regarded as inferior or unsatisfactory because it is the outcome of the processes that took place within the coalition. As to the emergency provisions to which the noble Lord referred, an emergency gives rise to special needs and special circumstances, and it does not seem entirely unreasonable that the Bill should provide for those circumstances in the way in which it does.
I believe that on balance, and with one important reservation that may give some comfort to the noble Lord, the Government have got the Bill right and have struck the right balance between the various competing needs that have to be considered.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
Of course one recognises that if an investigation, using all the powers available to the investigating authorities, has continued for a period of time and turned up nothing, under this scheme the TPIM will come to an end—but TPIMs are intended to be time-limited in any event. Under the terms of the Bill, TPIMs will come to an end after two years, so we are not talking about an open-ended system of restrictions. My point is that a system of restrictions applied to criminal investigations is not only more likely to be constitutional and develop broader public support than the system that is currently proposed, but such a system would have attached to it conditions that actively encourage and assist investigation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The noble Lord talked about broader public support, but what evidence does he have of major public concern about the use of control orders? Is there not in fact a great deal of public confidence in them because they protect our security?
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
If the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, that is a somewhat complacent view. There is wide public concern. Obviously there are different views around the country and in different communities, but it would be complacent for the noble Lord to come to the conclusion that there is and has been no broader public concern about control orders.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful. If the noble Lord accepts—I hope he does—that the public view on these issues is not determinative, although plainly it is important, we will not differ much, save that I suspect that in some sections of the community there is particularly grave concern about control orders. My concern is that that may well be undermining the extent to which those communities are prepared to co-operate with the police and the prosecution authorities in bringing forward evidence that is vital to secure the conviction of terrorists and information that can be used to implement the administrative process. That is my concern, and it is why I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, that we must not be complacent about these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in opening the debate that it is necessary to have the TPIM regime in those cases where prosecution is not possible. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, eloquently supported that approach. I, of course, understand the force of that point, but we must surely accept that it is nevertheless difficult to reconcile this approach with the rule of law. It is an exception to the rule of law. Because it is an exception—perhaps a justifiable exception—it is vital that we ensure that the detailed implementing provisions in the Bill satisfy the test which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated at the end of his speech, and which I was very pleased to hear from him. As I understood him, the test is that the provisions must go no further than is absolutely necessary. I commend that test to the House as the right one to adopt in testing the provisions of the Bill. That is the first concern.
The second rule of law concern is that the Bill allows for the sanctions—that is what they are—to be imposed by a Minister and not by a court, albeit that the court has a reviewing role. If a TPIM procedure is appropriate outside the criminal process—I understand why it is—the rule of law surely requires that Ministers do not themselves make the initial decision on such matters as who a person may associate with and where they may stay overnight with the court confined, as it is under Clause 6(3), to determining whether the initial decision of the Minister is “obviously flawed”. Surely the role of the Minister should be to make an application to an independent judge. It should be for the Minister to produce the relevant evidence, perhaps in closed session with a special advocate, for the judge to assess. It should be for the court to decide whether the order should be made. In urgent cases, the court could no doubt apply a threshold test. We need to consider this seriously in Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in relation to the point the noble Lord has just made, has he ascertained the view of the senior judiciary about whether they would wish to be drawn into making such decisions? There is a balance here as to whether it is more appropriate for the Home Secretary to make those initial decisions, subject to judicial scrutiny, because ultimately the Home Secretary is responsible for security issues and is accountable to Parliament. Does the noble Lord not think—and I think he is following the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on this—that there is a danger of moving responsibility from the Home Secretary to the courts? I wonder whether the judiciary would want to accept that responsibility.
Lord Pannick
The factual answer to the noble Lord’s question is no. Of course I have not asked the Lord Chief Justice about this matter, but under the Bill, it is, in any event, the responsibility of the judge at the reviewing stage to decide whether the TPIM should be maintained. The Government accept in the Explanatory Notes that that should be akin to an appeal procedure, not just a judicial review test. The judges will have that responsibility at the end of the process. It seems to me that they should have that responsibility from the outset of this process. I would say to the noble Lord and to the judges, with genuine respect, that it really is not for judges to determine what responsibility they should have in relation to this fine balance between the public interest and civil liberties. It is surely for Parliament to decide how the balance should be struck and for us to decide whether it is best struck by the courts having the role that I suggest.
There is a third respect in which the Bill offends against the rule of law. It allows for sanctions to be imposed without any proof of wrongdoing, even proof to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A TPIM notice may be issued by the Secretary of State where she,
“reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.
When he winds up, will the Minister please explain why these sanctions should be imposed on a person if the Secretary of State is unable even to show that it is more likely than not that the wrongdoing has been committed or will be committed by the individual concerned? If the security services, with all their resources, and even with the use of evidence that could not be disclosed in a criminal court, cannot satisfy the judge on the balance of probabilities that the individual is involved in terrorist-related activities, there is surely no justification for taking these legal measures against that person. Of course, surveillance measures may well be appropriate against such persons, but that is not what we are discussing in this Bill.
There is a fourth respect in which the Bill departs from the rule of law: it allows for sanctions to be imposed although the individual has no right to see the material on which the allegation is based. In the AF case in 2009, which has already been mentioned, the Appellate Committee considered how the principle of fairness under the rule of law should apply in the context of control orders. I declare an interest: I represented AF in the Appellate Committee. The Law Lords decided that a control order is invalid unless sufficient of the case against the individual is disclosed to him personally to enable him, if he can, to give instructions to his lawyers to answer the allegations against him, and if the Home Secretary is not prepared to disclose that much, the control order cannot be maintained.
The TPIM, like the control order, involves severe restrictions on the personal liberty of the individual. Therefore, it seems to me that a TPIM will inevitably be unlawful unless the AF principle—you must disclose as much as enables the person to have a proper opportunity to answer the allegations—is satisfied. Does the Minister accept that? If so, does he agree that the Bill should be clarified by stating that point clearly?
I make one final point. Like the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Dubs, I think that it is appropriate, given all the matters that I have mentioned, the sensitivity of the issue and the extent to which matters will develop from year to year, that this House and the other place have the opportunity to consider these important matters every year, not only at the expiry of another five years.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I would have thought that the answer to that question is obvious: under a surveillance regime, a person can live a perfectly ordinary life; under a control order, he cannot. That is the difference.
I have opposed control orders since they were first introduced in 2005 and every year since, and I would certainly oppose them now if I could. But I realise that I would get nowhere. The Official Opposition, which I had hoped might at least still be open to persuasion on this, has said that not only do they support the Bill, but they also actually regard it as being too weak.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I do not support the Bill at all. I think that it is a complete nonsense. What is emerging is an inadequate piece of legislation, something which the Government themselves acknowledge because they are also publishing draft emergency legislation. We have a bizarre situation where twice this year the Home Secretary has argued that control orders are needed. We have yet to get an answer from the Government about how circumstances have changed in the past five months to suggest that the control orders which were used and needed five months ago will, under this Bill, no longer be available. I do not like this Bill at all.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
That is the point that the noble Lord has already made on many occasions during the course of the debate. I fully accept that he opposes the Bill because he would make it stronger. I oppose the Bill because I think that it is already too strong, so obviously I have no hope there.
I will use my remaining minutes to say how the Bill could be improved. That is not difficult to do. The Bill currently provides for an order to be made by the Home Secretary but only after permission by the court and subject to review by the court as soon as is practicable after the order has been served. This is a most unusual and cumbersome procedure. It would surely be better and simpler for the Home Secretary to apply for the order and for the court to make the order in the normal way.
In her response to the excellent 16th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Secretary said that prevention orders of the kind we have before us in the Bill have become an established principle in our legal system. She cites anti-social behaviour orders, serious crime prevention orders and so on as examples. If serious crime prevention orders are to be the model, why does the Home Secretary not follow it through? Under the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Crown makes the application and the High Court or Crown Court makes the order. The same is true of anti-social behaviour orders except that the magistrate makes the order. I know of no case, and the Home Secretary cites none, where the order has been made by the Executive.
The noble Lord may argue that terrorism is different and that in terrorist cases the Home Secretary is in a better position to form a judgment than a court. That argument will not run as the courts have already held, in a case called Home Secretary v MB, that it is for the court to form its own view on the facts whether the individual has been involved in terrorism activity. If the court disagrees with the Home Secretary then it is the duty of the court to quash the order. The Government have accepted that that decision will apply when a review takes place, very shortly after a notice has been served under Clause 9. That being so, and it being accepted that it is the court’s decision that will prevail, what on earth is the point of the Home Secretary making the order in the first place?
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, again—I hope to have better luck this time—there is no need to consult the judiciary about that proposal because the judges are already involved as the control order is currently administered at this stage of reviewing the orders made by the Home Secretary. There is nothing new for the judges in this. The sensible, logical order is for the Home Secretary to make the application—in that sense there will be a role for the Home Secretary—but for the court to make the order.
There is one other point, briefly. Why has the Home Secretary watered down the burden of proof? I agree on this with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Under the Serious Crime Act, which is apparently to be the model, the judge makes the order on the balance of probabilities—which is the normal standard of proof in civil cases. If the Serious Crime Act is the model, why should the same standard of proof not apply here? Once again, the noble Lord may argue that terrorism is in some way different. Once again, that argument will not run. If we want a precedent for the balance of probabilities being the appropriate standard of proof in terrorist cases, one need only look at Section 4 of the very Act that we are now being asked to repeal. In derogation cases, it is the court that makes the order on the application of the Home Secretary. The court decides the matter on the ordinary civil standard of proof. Why has that model not been adopted here?
One gets the same from Section 26 of the Act, which has been referred to, where the test is the balance of probabilities rather than the reasonable belief of the Home Secretary. What is the logic of having one test in Clause 3 and a different test in Section 26? I shall in due course propose amendments very simply to the effect—incidentally, they are quite simple to draft—that the order should be imposed by the court on the application of the Home Secretary and that the decision of the court should, as in all other cases, be the balance of probabilities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That is extremely helpful but, on that basis, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for the commencement order to start on, let us say, 1 January 2013, so that we can get through the Olympic year using the present provisions? Would that not be a more sensible approach?
Lord Henley
I will make no guarantee at this stage. I noted that my noble friend Lord Carlile suggested a delay for the Olympics. We will certainly look at that. It is something that I am sure will be argued in Committee. I give no guarantees but it is something that can be looked at. Obviously, it is important to get these things right.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
My Lords, we all know about the sensitivity of stop and search, and any improvement in the way that it is carried out—as is represented by this remedial order—is all to the good. However, I have one or two questions based upon my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that the searches would not be random. Am I right in thinking that in the code of practice there are references to random searches? The JCHR was anxious that those references be removed and that the code of practice be devised so that the stop could be,
“justified by the precise nature of the intelligence about the threat”.
Rather than the searches being random there would have to be some intelligence because the order would clearly not be applied unless there was some background knowledge of this sort. It would be desirable to remove the word “random” from the code of practice.
In another report of the JCHR, we suggested that the code of practice be modified to:
“Require the authorising officer to have a reasonable basis for his belief as to the necessity of the authorisation and to provide an explanation of those reasons”.
These would not be large changes, but I wonder whether we might urge that the code of practice be looked at again. Police officers need all the guidance that they possibly can have in dealing with very sensitive situations. We all know that certain communities will feel that they are more targeted than others—notwithstanding the experience of the noble Baroness—and I should have thought that we ought to look again at the code of practice to make sure that it reflects exactly what we want it to reflect and gives our police officers on the street the maximum support for the way they behave.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will be glad to know that, unlike in previous debates, he is receiving unanimous support from noble Lords tonight for the remedial order, which I believe to be an entirely reasonable and proportionate response. I echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the timing. Clearly, it is within the due time. I agreed, through the usual channels, that we would have this debate after the Second Reading. On reflection, it is not sensible to have such a debate at this time. Many noble Lords who have spoken on Second Reading would have liked to have taken part in these deliberations as well. We might learn from that for the future—perhaps when we potentially come to annual debates on the previous legislation; we shall see.
I refer the noble Lord back to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the two reports of the Joint Committee. He will know that in the first report, the Select Committee asked the Government to provide Parliament with more detailed evidence of the set of circumstances in which the police have experienced the existence of an operational gap in the absence of a power to stop and search. I thought that that was a reasonable request by the Select Committee. The committee’s second report expresses muted disappointment that the Home Secretary had not accepted any of its recommendations. However, the committee goes on to say that, none the less, it thinks that the Government should find a way to tell Parliament more about the undisclosable reasons for their belief that there is a significant operational gap in the police's counterterrorism powers.
I am not being naive here. I well understand the issue for the Government: there are circumstances where it is difficult to give that information. I hope that, none the less, the noble Lord will see whether it might be possible to provide some information as a follow-up to the debate. The Select Committee has put its finger on an important point.
However, I do not intend to repeat the comments made by other noble Lords in the debate. I very much support them. We support the remedial order and look forward to the noble Lord's response.
Lord Henley
My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I am very glad to see that unity has broken out, not only among the Labour Party but throughout the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am not going to let that go. I had the opportunity to look at the noble Lord’s Benches during the debate. I knew I was on a roll when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was nodding while I was speaking in my opening remarks. The Minister was not able to see that. Then I was struck by the absence behind the Minister. There were plenty of Lib Dems there, but it did not seem to me that he was getting much support.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think I got a reasonable amount of support; I am not sure that the noble Lord got quite as much; but we will leave it there.
I shall just respond to a few points briefly. First, on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as to why it took so long, I understand that we have 120 days to respond. It was explained to me how the 120 days are counted, and I have to say that I could not quite understand it, but I am told that we are within those 120 days by a matter of five days or so. The important thing is that the draft order had to be laid for 60 days to start with, so that is half the time gone, to allow representations to be made. The remaining time was to allow those representations, including the report of the JCHR, to be properly considered. I am also grateful that my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others welcomed the code, but obviously have some concerns about it. I think that my colleague in the Home Office, James Brokenshire, in his response to the JCHR’s second report has made it clear that we will consider whether the code of practice, proposed new Section 47A or the test of its use could be amended through the Protection of Freedoms Bill when we get to it in due course. Obviously this matter can be considered by the department and there will be a chance for the House to consider it when we deal with the Bill.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the code refers only to random searches in the context of specific intelligence-based authorisation. Again, as I said, I am happy to look at the guidance further to ensure that this is clear for the police. My noble friend Lord Carlile stressed that Section 44 had been overused, misused and abused. That is a succinct way of saying what the problem was and I am grateful for the support that I have had from all sides of the House for its removal and replacement with proposed new Section 47A. Obviously we can look at this again during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill.
There was a final question from my noble friend Lady Hamwee on paragraph 8.39 of the report of the independent reviewer of terrorism last July. I have to admit that it is not exactly at my fingertips at the moment and I hope that my noble friend will be happy if I write to her in due course. I promise to do that as soon as possible.
Police: Funding
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the impact of police funding cuts on front-line services.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, when the Government came to power, we were borrowing £1 for every £4 we spent. We must reduce the budget deficit. The police funding settlement is therefore challenging but manageable. The Government are clear that savings need to be made while protecting front-line services, and the most recent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary shows that forces are working hard to do so. It is largely a matter for individual forces how they achieve this, but the Government are playing their part, including through a new package of policies that will cut bureaucracy, which could save up to 2.5 million police hours per year.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I hardly think that the Government are in a position to lecture this House on the state of the economy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Where is the Government’s growth plan, I wonder? Turning to the Question, surely it cannot be the case that a reduction of 16,000 police officers will not have an impact on front-line policing. Will the noble Baroness acknowledge that the cuts already made are already impacting on front-line services, and will she respond to recent research by the London School of Economics showing that the proposed police cuts are likely to undermine forces’ ability to stop crime rising?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the noble Lord should step back from the brink. From where we sit, we are peering into the abyss because what we inherited has made this necessary. As a member of the former Government, he will know only too well from the last Labour Home Secretary that had Labour been re-elected, it too would have been making changes and looking for reductions in police force numbers. We have that on the record.
I have to say that noble Lords will have to get over this and face the reality, which is what we have had to do. Forces are focused on protecting front-line services. I have read many comments from chief officers who, I acknowledge, have a difficult and challenging task, but they are going to put the front line first and are rising to that challenge. The most recent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Adapting to Austerity, sets out a summary of force work plans for the spending review period which states that the number working in front-line roles was expected to fall by, on average, just 2 per cent over the two-year period between March 2010 and March 2012. I have every confidence that chief officers will ensure that the front line is protected.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Baroness quoted that example but could have looked at Glasgow North East in November 2009, which saw a 33 per cent turn out, or West Bromwich West in November 2000, which had 27 per cent. She picked out the highest turnout, but November by-elections generally tend to be very low indeed. That is why, decades ago, local government elections were moved from the autumn to May, because there was concern about the effect of the inclement weather on the people who were campaigning.
Baroness Browning
I picked out Glenrothes because it was the most northerly of all the examples. I could have chosen others, but I was trying to make the point to the House that a 56 per cent turnout in Glenrothes in November is not an insubstantial result. I hope I have made my point—I am sure people in the House understand the point I am trying to make.
Coming back to the more salient point, the additional time gained by holding the elections in November will help to ensure that they benefit from the time that will be given to allow good-quality, independent candidates to come forward and establish themselves. They will have time to properly plan and campaign for the elections. The Government have been clear from the outset that they are keen for as many independents as possible to contest these elections. The November date allows for this. The fact that the first elections for PCCs will not be held at the same time as other local elections sets the tone from the beginning—it allows PCC elections to be established and for the electorate to understand the opportunity they will have to elect somebody who will represent them in being involved in local policing and holding the police to account.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who proposes a royal commission. I have a slight sense of déjà vu because I think he and I have discussed this before. I believe that a royal commission would use time and money that we do not have and that could be better spent elsewhere. Reform cannot wait. All parties agree that reform is needed and, more specifically, that it should be in the form of direct democracy. This is not the context for a lengthy and exploratory royal commission.
Ultimately, we all know and accept that police authorities are not the optimal model for police accountability. This has been stated by the Opposition, although I know there are different views about it within the House. But we do know that only four out of 22 inspected police authorities have been assessed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission as performing well in their most critical functions.
Local accountability must be both visible and accessible, yet only 8 per cent of wards in England and Wales are represented on a police authority, so it is no surprise that only 7 per cent of the public understand that they can approach their police authority if they have issues with policing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, Motion A3 is an amendment to Motion A.
I do not pretend that our police forces are without blemish, nor that we should not always wish to enhance their accountability to the people whom they are there to serve, but we should acknowledge the dramatic fall in crime rates and improved relationships with the public and local communities in recent years. Even more important, the essential characteristic over 150 years of our police forces of political impartiality, fair play and policing by consent is a huge strength and much admired the world over. That strength is now at considerable risk through the potential politicisation of our police forces with elected police commissioners.
The Bill places unprecedented concentration of policing power in the hands of one elected person with hire-and-fire powers in relation to chief constables that will almost inevitably put chief constables under pressure in operational decisions. There is also a risk that elected police chiefs will comment on sensitive operations while they are still under way. I was not enamoured of ministerial comments during the recent disturbances. I think that they have shown the problem that we will see in future. In the Bill, we have a lack of proper checks and balances which will make the problem worse. No one at local or national level can provide serious scrutiny or veto dangerous decisions. The police and crime panels will be toothless. They cannot even veto the firing of a chief constable.
This model comes from the US, but in the US, powerful city halls and district attorneys provide a counterbalance. Even Bill Bratton, much admired by some members of the Government, has criticised the Government's proposals. The nearest we have in this country to an elected police chief is the London mayor, but even he faces checks and balances from the cross-party Metropolitan Police Authority and the Home Secretary, and has many other responsibilities which distract him from second-guessing police operations. Even the Mayor of London in this term of office is now on to his third commissioner. My fear is that that pattern will be repeated up and down the country.
The US experience of an average tenure of police chiefs working to elected police commissioners is a little more than two years. It is easy to see why. The temptation to sack a police chief constable in the run-up to a re-election of the commissioner would become almost irresistible. Think of the instability that that would cause—a length of stay of little more than two years. I suggest that many senior officers will be reluctant to apply to be chief constables in future and that those who do so will be for ever looking over their shoulder for fear of the police commissioner’s shadow.
I have no doubt that the police must be accountable to the public. They have made great strides in recent years. Unlike the Home Secretary, who has chosen to denigrate police authorities, I pay tribute to their work—none more so than mine in the West Midlands. During the recent disturbances, the chairman did not hawk himself from studio to studio or second-guess the chief constable. Instead, he played a pivotal role working with the local community, defusing tension and helping to restore order to the streets of Birmingham.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, I think that this is one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation that this House has ever seen. This country will rue the day when we destroyed—destroyed, my Lords—the essential balance, fairness and impartiality that we have enjoyed from our police forces for so long.
Like the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, my Motion deals with the date of the elections for police commissioners. Once again I put to the House a proposal for a royal commission. I do not do that lightly because I am not always enamoured of the performance of royal commissions. However, I put it to the noble Baroness that currently there are two reviews or inquiries being undertaken in relation to the riots; in relation to the phone-hacking incident there are at least three inquiries. Each of those reviews or inquiries will, I am sure, have some implications for the way our police forces operate. All I am suggesting to the noble Baroness is that there is surely a case for waiting for those reviews and then establishing a royal commission. Like the 1962 Royal Commission on the Police, that would establish a basis for going forward with much greater consensus than we see at the moment.
I believe the Government took all the wrong conclusions from the experience of my Government in those first two years. In fact, the legislation that they are proposing today would be so much better if they had gone through a process of proper debate, consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. They would have been much more likely to have got the kind of consensus that I think is necessary. I hope the House will be sympathetic to my amendment, and in particular that it will support the noble Lord, Lord Condon.
It is quite remarkable that the other place has dismissed the substantive concerns of this House and instead has offered as a concession the wonderful prospect of the first election taking place on 15 November next year. The media, very unkindly, seemed to suggest that this was because the Liberal Democrats feared the consequences of the elections next May and wished to remove the police commissioner elections from them. I am sure that is a very unworthy suggestion. The Minister was heroic in her explanation of why we should have these elections in November. I think the argument was that it enables the police and crime commissioner to take part in budget and planning decisions for the following financial year. This is the first time we have ever heard this argument so it is a new argument. If that is so—if it really is important to have a kind of shadow period—why not accept the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and give the PCC 12 months in which to find their way, discuss the budget and get ready for the new office? In fact, there is a very good argument for a shadow period of one year.
As for the argument that if the elections take place in May party politics will intrude and the media will be much more concerned about politics than the quality of the candidates, if the noble Baroness is concerned about politicisation, as she knows I am, why on earth go down this path in the first place? If the Government really wish to encourage independent candidates, the idea that independent candidates with this huge electorate are going to traipse round the streets in October and November is unrealistic.
Why did we change local elections from the autumn to May many decades ago? It is because the view was taken that the lack of daylight hours and the weather discouraged effective campaigning. The same argument now arises. I echo the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon. If November is such a very good month to hold those elections and to give time for the elected commissioner to go into the issues of planning and budgets, why do we not have them every November? Why are we reverting back to May elections after the first round of elections?
I think that a November election will essentially lead to extra expense. Earlier today during the first Oral Question, the noble Baroness was most concerned about expense. Here, she is flinging away millions of pounds on the extra cost of the election in November because it is a stand-alone election. However, the real risk is that there will be a low turnout. I have no doubt that if the election were held at the same time as local elections, it would slip-stream a higher turnout than will be the case when we are simply asked to vote for elected police commissioners.
The noble Lord, Lord Condon, has put forward a very effective Motion and I, for one, will certainly be supporting him.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, begging the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for the term that I am about to use, I do not think that the choice today is “reform or no reform”. I use that term in the current context; I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. Nor even is it a choice between alternative models of reform, to which I shall come back in a moment.
Given both a free hand and the benefit of the expertise on this subject around this House, which has impressed me increasingly day by day, I do not pretend that I would have designed the model that we have in the Bill, but I have always said that the proposal for directly elected police and crime commissioners is in the coalition’s programme for government, subject to strict checks and balances. Although the Whips may not agree, the scrutiny which this House gave to the checks and balances is what the House is here for. The outcomes of those debates were not always as I would have wished—I argued for several tougher checks and balances, although I acknowledge now, which I did not at the time, that some would have undermined the direct accountability of the police and crime commissioners. But now we know what the elected House wishes, and we know what is before us.
My noble and, if I may say so, good friend Lady Harris of Richmond has pursued her amendment with terrier-like energy. I am sadder than I can say that I cannot support her today, and that is not because I disagree with so many of her arguments. It is an inevitable outcome of our procedures and the way in which we undertake our business that her model is insufficiently developed. That is not her fault. After the surprise vote, she and other noble Lords put enormous effort and ingenuity into consequential amendments—if I may use that term in the widest sense. They were not successful and therefore my noble friend’s model is left without the infrastructure within the Bill that would make it work. That is what I mean by not having a choice of models today.
With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, as has been said, at the root of many of the concerns that have been expressed is the possible politicisation of policing. We do not know whether independent candidates will be tempted to stand for the position. It is hardly possible that under my noble friend Lady Harris’s model independents could stand, because almost the whole of the panel from which she is proposing that a commissioner should come would have been elected on a party-political basis as local councillors would make up that panel.
We do know that the more different sets of elections are aligned, the more the focus on each is distorted, often to the basis of the lowest common denominator. There may be mayoral elections in November 2013, but they would be fairly limited geographically, so that date at least reduces that risk, if I can put it that way. I am thinking now not just of the elections for police and crime commissioners but about the local elections that will take place in May—pretty much every May.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Baroness is making an interesting speech, but if the case is so persuasive for having separate elections—separate from any other elections—why do we not have a proposal to always have these in November?
Baroness Hamwee
I will come to that if the noble Lord can contain his patience.
Local elections should be about local issues and very often they are not. What I wrote down without having to be prompted by the noble Lord is that the first elections for anything tend to set the tone. There could be a debate about having elections every four or six months for different things throughout the year, although that might be going a little far.
This debate has referred quite a lot to the convenience of campaigners. I am sure that many noble Lords have gritted their teeth and hung their canvass sheets on radiators to dry throughout the year. The convenience of campaigners is the least of the factors in this. But decoupling the elections should help avoid the diversion.
Baroness Browning
I have to say to the noble Lord that I observed with horror what happened to small businesses in the riots. I would not in any way dismiss the needs of small businesses. They are individuals; they are husband-and-wife teams running small shops and other small businesses up and down the country. One of the other messages that I received quite clearly at the all-party group last week was that these businesses and business organisations are already making plans to talk to people who want to stand as candidates to be police and crime commissioners, because those businesses want them to have a much clearer understanding of what their needs are in terms of law and order. It is not just about their businesses—whether they have had a shop theft or something such as that—but about the whole community in which they operate. They care about what happens on the pavements outside their businesses. They care about the wider community. These are people. These are voters. They need a voice and this legislation will give them that voice.
These reforms are essential to address that democratic deficit in policing, to end the era of central government’s bureaucratic control, to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour and to drive value for money. Chief constables will be liberated to be crime fighters rather than government managers—free to run their own workforces for the first time ever.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The noble Baroness says that police chief constables will be liberated. How on earth can that be the case when they will come under the direct control of a party politician? Based on US experience, the average length of stay is no more than two years. How can she defend the situation that we already see in London, where in a single term the Mayor of London is now on his third police commissioner? That is not liberation. It is the political control of police chiefs that will be a disaster to our policing.
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord simply does not seem to understand the difference between control and accountability. I notice that the word accountability has not been used by him at all.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, I used the word accountability. I said in my opening speech that I favour enhanced accountability.
Baroness Browning
Enhanced accountability, but not through the public, for the public and by the public. That is the difference between us. Let us make no bones about it, it is now very clear that it is accountability but on certain terms. The terms of the Bill are that the accountability is such that the public will elect the person who on their behalf will hold the police to account in their police area. That is the difference, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having established the fundamental difference between his interpretation of accountability in this matter and what is in the Bill.
Police officers will benefit from a less bureaucratic system where discretion is restored and where the chief constable has a strong interest in driving out waste and prioritising the front line. Local authorities will benefit from a continuing say in the governance of policing, and district councils will have a role for the very first time. The taxpayer will see better value for money as commissioners, who will have responsibility for the precept, focus relentlessly on efficiency in their forces. Local policing will benefit from a strong democratic input, focusing attention on issues of public concern. The Home Office will be focused on its proper role, especially to address national threats and to co-ordinate strategic action and collaboration between forces. Above all, the public will have a voice in how they are policed.
Police and crime commissioners have the mandate to reflect public concern on crime. Democratic accountability in policing is needed and we agree on this. If so, there can be no question as to whether these amendments from the other place should be agreed. I ask that the House not agree to Motions A1, A2, A3 and A4. I agree with Motion A.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
As an amendment to Motion A, leave out “to 6D in lieu” and insert “, 6C and 6D in lieu, do disagree with Amendment 6B in lieu, do propose Amendment 6J in lieu thereof, and do propose Amendment 6K as a consequential amendment to the Bill.”
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
I would like to speak to the government amendments in this group. The intention of Amendment 1 is to bring the provisions of the London Assembly police and crime panel’s scrutiny of the police and crime plan into line with the provision for panels outside the capital. For forces in England and Wales outside London, the PCC must respond to any reports or recommendations made by the panel on the draft plan and publish the response. This amendment will put those provisions into the Bill for London.
Amendment 2 was tabled by the Government at Report and was debated on 4 July. Unfortunately, due to an error this amendment was not moved formally. The Government have sought to resolve this by tabling the amendment again. I hope noble Lords will agree that the substantive issues behind it were fully debated on the previous occasion, and that there is no need to delay the proceedings of the House by going through them again. Noble Lords will recall that the corresponding provision for London was moved and agreed by the House.
Amendments 16 and 17 are minor and technical amendments to ensure that PCCs and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime have the same powers as police authorities. Amendment 16 will give PCCs and the Mayor’s Office the ability, subject to ministerial approval, to compulsorily purchase land, a power police authorities currently have. It was simply an error that this power was not included in the Bill at the outset.
Amendment 17 will exempt the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime from some of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 which require landlords to offer residential premises to their tenants before disposing of them. Police authorities outside London have this exemption at present, and the Bill replaces the reference to police authorities in the 1987 Act with a reference to PCCs. However, when the Metropolitan Police Authority was created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, it was not given this power. It seems that this was an oversight in the legislation. This amendment will correct that anomaly and apply the exemption to both PCCs and the Mayor’s Office. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I welcome the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled. I have an amendment in this group, Amendment 3, to which I would like to speak in particular. I am sure that in the weeks, months, and indeed years ahead the events of the last few days will be analysed and researched, and many conclusions will be drawn from them. These events have shown the risk of the potential politicisation of our police arrangements through the close involvement of politicians in policing matters. That is why I worry about some of the impact of this Bill, and why I think that my amendment is important in seeking to strengthen the amendment of the noble Baroness. Let me say at once that I very much welcome that amendment; I just want to make it a little bit more effective.
I want to go back to something I said in response to the Statement the noble Baroness made two days ago—it seems like years. We have seen some of the potential implications of importing American-style elected police and crime commissioners to the UK. The nearest we have to that is the London mayor, and it does not seem to have prevented a lot of the problems that one can see arising. It is well to remember that the mayor, Boris Johnson, when originally asked about phone-hacking allegations, described them as codswallop. It is worth reflecting on what support the Met would have received from the mayor if they had actually decided to undertake a vigorous operation when questions were asked about reopening these issues a couple of years ago.
My concern is that having an elected mayor or an elected police and crime commissioner inevitably draws those people into making comments about operational policing matters and seeking to influence the chief constable. I do not see how it can be avoided. When a person is elected as police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands, for example, they will be asked questions about running issues which will inevitably go into not only the operational efficiency of the force, but specific operations. My concern is that those elected police and crime commissioners will be drawn into commenting.
In London, the mayor is now going to be on his third commissioner. My concern is that this will be replicated throughout the country. Let us take an elected police and crime commissioner, representing a party that is perhaps not very popular in the public opinion polls and which faces elections in a year’s time. What better way to boost one’s prospects than by picking a fight with the chief constable and essentially requiring them to retire or resign? It is one thing for chief constables to be properly accountable—that is absolutely right—but my concern is that they are going to be very insecure people, and will therefore be more deferential to the elected police and crime commissioner than is healthy for the system.
Noble Lords know that I have a health service background. There was a time when the average length of stay of a chief executive in the NHS was about 2.8 years. The instability that that causes does great harm to public services. I believe we are building in huge instability and real threats of politicisation. I accept that this is the way the Government want to go, but I think it is important that we build in safeguards.
I welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness. I think the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, may have been on the amendment that was not moved on Report, but I would like to go further. It is important that police and crime panels are given support in exercising their functions of scrutiny on behalf of the public. Specifying in the amendment that the functions of the police and crime panel for a police area should be exercised with a view to,
“upholding the integrity, impartiality and effectiveness of the police force for that police”,
would be an important safeguard and provide reassurance. Being in primary legislation, these words would give a very clear message to police and crime commissioners, chief constables and panels that we want a police force that is impartial, has integrity and does right by the public.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has made some valid and important points. I remind the House that the Bill to which we recently gave a formal Third Reading is in fact very different from the one that came from the other place. It is the expectation of most of us that the other place will indicate its dissatisfaction with the major amendment made in Committee by this House. Obviously we must wait and see, but I say this to my noble friend the Minister. The Government will have to look at this Bill again because of that amendment, but because of what has happened over the past three weeks, to which the noble Lord alluded in his speech, surely it is necessary to enact a Bill that truly deals with all the problems, ones that were not foreseen—I blame no one for that—when the Bill was first placed before Parliament. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to come back to us with amendments that recognise that there are areas of policing which are not adequately dealt with in the current Bill. Certain problems have been highlighted in recent days which it is incumbent on Parliament to recognise and adequately to legislate for.
My plea to my noble friend the Minister, who has shown herself to be painstaking, thorough and responsive to the feelings of the House, is that she should talk to the Home Secretary and her other ministerial colleagues with a view to ensuring that when the other place comes back to this House, one would assume either in September or October, we will have before us amendments which deal fully with many of the issues that initially provoked the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, to move her amendment, and that subsequently have built upon that feeling of unease. I do not seek lengthy Divisions this morning, but an assurance that the final shape of the Bill proves to be up to the circumstances that we are now aware of.
Baroness Browning
I understand that point and it is certainly something that we will look at in terms of regulations. At the moment, I cannot say how that will be described.
Perhaps I may come back to my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s point and concerns. I have to say to my noble friend that we feel that the Bill as drafted and amended provides the checks and balances that she is asking for.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am extremely puzzled. In my reading of the Bill as amended on Report, these words already appear. If I turn to page 20—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I think that it has been cleared up. As printed, the Bill contains an error, because the wording of her amendment appears in the Bill. The people who dealt with it anticipated that the noble Baroness would move the amendment on Report. I gather that there is a correcting sheet, which none of us seems to have, pointing that out. I have cleared it up to my own satisfaction, if no one else’s.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will briefly respond to the noble Baroness. She said that the system is not currently working in London, but what I take from the current debacle is the dangerous cocktail of politics and policing being mixed together. She has not answered the specific concern of the current mayor, who is shortly to work with the third commissioner so far in his single term of office. My concern is that in order to deal with an issue of accountability, the architecture of the Bill brings with it many perverse incentives.
Baroness Browning
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; I did not pick up on this point. I would point out that, despite perceptions, the current mayor has not fired anyone and does not currently have the power to do so. It is the Metropolitan Police Authority that has the power to dismiss the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. It was suggested that the mayor was responsible for the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson, but that is definitely not the case, as was said both in his evidence yesterday to the Home Affairs Committee and in other statements.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I did not say that he was responsible. I indicated that he apparently supported the suggestion that Sir Paul Stephenson should resign. From what I understand, the mayor said that he did not oppose the offer to resign by those two people. In the case of Ian Blair it was different.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The House would not want us to go into the details of the resignations of commissioners. What is clear is that the mayor has had an influence. It shows quite clearly the risks of having party politicians so directly involved. The noble Baroness says that there may not be party politicians elected to these posts, and of course that may be true. I suspect, however, that in the 42 police areas that we are concerned about in my amendment, the great majority will have political labels. We would expect them to carry out their duties without fear or favour but many of those people will be seeking re-election. The point is that their activities will be coloured by wishing to seek re-election.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that to be a chief officer of police is a lonely business at any time. While I certainly believe chief constables need to be held to account, they also need support. My concern is that elected police commissioners will not be in a position to give the kind of support that is necessary to officers who have to bear those heady responsibilities.
The noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Newton, made very important points and asked the Government to reflect. It may be that in the Statement to come we will hear a little more about how the Government will reflect. I hope that they do. Ping-pong can be flexible but there are limits. The best way to ensure that the other place and the Government properly consider the issues surrounding the responsibilities of police and crime panels is to send my amendment back to the Commons; it will then put the issue in play.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness that my amendment takes the PCP beyond its current responsibilities into direct intervention. No, it gives strong signals to the police and crime panel about the impartiality and integrity of the police force. They are there to scrutinise through the police and crime commissioner. That would be a very important signal for this House to give. I beg to move.
“( ) The panel may only appoint a person under subsection (1) if that person is—
(a) a member of that police and crime panel; and(b) a member of the relevant local authority.( ) In appointing an acting police and crime commissioner under subsection (1), the relevant police and crime panel must stipulate the maximum length of time that the person may hold that position.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to a matter which has been discussed both in Committee and on Report. This relates to the proposal in the Bill that, if for whatever reason the police and crime commissioner has to give up office or is indisposed, the police and crime panel can appoint an acting police and crime commissioner who shall be a member of the staff of the police and crime commissioner. Noble Lords will know that I have been very concerned about the possibility of a staff member of the police and crime commissioner assuming such great responsibility. The noble Baroness said that she was still considering this matter, and that we could bring it back at Third Reading. I am hopeful that she will be able to accept my amendment, which ensures that the acting police and crime commissioner has to be a member of the panel and an elected politician. This follows on from the amendment that the noble Baroness moved at Report, which allows for independents to be appointed to police and crime panels. I do not think it appropriate for those people to become acting police and crime commissioners, which is why I have drafted the amendment in this way.
If I may say so, this is meant as a helpful amendment, to find a way through. I have detected some considerable support around the House for my view that it is not right for a staff member to assume such great responsibilities, including issues around the hire and fire of chief constables, in my understanding, and the precept. Surely it is better that an elected politician member of a police and crime panel fulfils that role. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of this amendment. I find it completely incomprehensible that anyone would think that it was acceptable to put a politically restricted person in charge of making political decisions, which is the effect of the current proposals relating to deputy and acting PCCs in this Bill. Quite apart from the fact that this would give such a person an impossible technical conundrum to resolve—because a politically restricted person must be politically neutral, and therefore cannot by definition make political decisions—it completely undermines the Government’s own arguments about greater public accountability. It is particularly important that an acting PCC must be able to make decisions as if he or she were the PCC. This includes the key decision about what precept to set if the PCC is absent at that particular time of the year. The PCC’s office cannot not make a decision about this, whether or not the PCC is present, because the police service would be missing up to half its funding the following year if this was so. Not for the first time, I have thought that we were creating an Alice in Wonderland world in this Bill—it is all somehow upside-down.
It is clear to me that an acting PCC cannot be politically restricted. That means that an acting PCC cannot be drawn from the members of the PCC’s staff—which bizarrely now include the deputy PCC, although that is another issue. The obvious place to look is therefore among the members of the police and crime panel, and particularly among the elected members of the panel, if we are serious about a commitment to democracy and accountability. This is exactly what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, stipulates, and I am very happy to support it.
Baroness Browning
The answer is no. I have also been informed that the relevant provision is paragraph 199 of Schedule 16, if the noble Baroness wishes to look at it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I do not claim my amendment is ideal but I am trying to put some safeguards into a Bill that I know to be considerably flawed. The noble Baroness says that it would be wrong to replace one mandate by another, on the basis that if the House accepted my amendment and an acting police and crime commissioner had to be appointed, it would be a local authority member on the police and crime panel, and that person therefore would have a different mandate. However, I have always sought to explore how the circumstance would arise in which an acting police and crime commissioner had to be appointed. I do this because you can then see the absurdity of the Government’s position—and it is an absurd position.
Assume that a police and crime commissioner had to step down because that person was unduly and inappropriately interfering in the operational activities of the police and the chief constable. Are we seriously saying that, in those circumstances, that mandate continues—that a member of that person’s staff should be the acting commissioner, able to set a precept? The credibility of such a person would be shot to pieces. The naivety coming from the Government on this just amazes me. Do they not understand that they are creating a situation where it is almost inevitable that some of these elected police and crime commissioners will act wholly inappropriately in interfering in police activities? If only the Government would just pause to reflect on this. In those circumstances, a member of the police and crime commissioner’s staff would, up to a point, undermine confidence in the police. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness is not going to accept my amendment and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ramsbotham
I speak particularly to subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, which presents a very neat way out of the issues of the British Transport Police and the British Transport Policy Authority that I raised on Report. In doing so, I thank the noble Baroness, not just for the way that she has conducted this Bill through the House, but also with the speed with which she, the Secretary of State for Transport and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, responded to the points that I made and had a meeting to discuss them. In subsection (6), it describes the police protocol as,
“a document which sets out, or otherwise makes provision about, ways in which relevant persons should … exercise, or refrain from exercising, functions so as to … encourage, maintain or improve working relationships (including co-operative working) between relevant persons, or … limit or prevent the overlapping or conflicting exercise of functions”.
That seems to be precisely at the heart of the very long delay—10 years’ delay—in bringing the jurisdiction and powers of British Transport Police constables and the definition of their chief officer’s role together with those of the Home Office police.
At Second Reading, I mentioned that there was a certain urgency in this because the transport police have a key role to play not just in anti terrorism but in the run-up to and progress of the 2012 Olympics. Therefore, as I say, something needs to be done quickly. There is a way out if you accept that the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police authority should be included in the protocol to the extent that the annual police plans, which have to be drawn up by the police and crime commissioners, should include the operations of the British Transport Police. You thus get over all the problems associated with them because they have to be resolved with the measure. For example, the licensing issue, which particularly affects transport hubs and is a matter of concern, and the proper licensing of firearms rather than requiring every constable to get an individual one, would have to be done not as separate issues but as part of a plan in every area. I was disappointed to hear that when the British Transport Police raised this at the meeting with the Secretary of State, officials said that it was inappropriate because the protocol applied only to the Home Office police. That is precisely why it presents the ideal vehicle. I hope very much that the Minister will assure the House that that approach will be followed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward her amendment. We have debated establishing a protocol and giving parliamentary endorsement to it, so that is very welcome. I also echo the remarks of the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Harris, who expertly identified the flaws in the Bill. I very much support my noble friend’s amendment. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said. He made a very good point. I hope that the noble Baroness will respond to him.
I have a very modest amendment in this group—Amendment 12. The noble Baroness’s amendment contains an order-making power. Essentially, the order-making power applies to the issuing, varying or replacing of a policing protocol. My reading is that that will be a negative SI. I think that it ought to be an affirmative SI. I refer the noble Baroness to the guidance given by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It states:
“A supplementary memorandum must be submitted when any Government amendment is tabled which introduces a significant new delegated power”.
I checked last night and I know that her department issued a supplementary memorandum in relation to amendments to Clause 59(2)(c), and that a two-page memorandum has been produced. However, I have not discovered a memorandum issued in relation to this amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will clarify whether such a supplementary memorandum has been issued.
However, the real point is the following. From all the comments that have been made, right from Second Reading through to today, the importance of this protocol is not in doubt. Given that it is an order-making power, I fail to see why the noble Baroness’s amendment does not refer to an affirmative order. It ought to be an affirmative order to stress the importance of this matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give me some comfort on that.
Baroness Browning
Amendment 11 would require the Secretary of State to justify the need for police and crime commissioners, the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and chief officers of police to be corporations sole, and for the chief finance officers employed by chief officers to be subject to the local government legislation that currently applies to police authority treasurers. The Secretary of State would have to address those matters in a report to be considered by both Houses before the relevant provisions could commence.
I hope that it is clear why the Government believe that it is necessary for PCCs and the MOPC to have corporate status. Police authorities, including the Metropolitan Police Authority, are corporate entities at present. In order to allow them to carry out their functions, the PCCs and the MOPC will have the same functions as police authorities do at present. Turning to chief officers of police, the Government set out the reasons very clearly in Committee and on Report why there is a need for them to have corporate status too. It is simply so that they can employ staff and hold funds in their official rather than their personal capacity. PCCs, the holder of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and chief officers of police will be individuals. That is the essence of the Government’s model for policing governance. It follows that, if they are to have corporate status, they will be corporations sole. This simply follows as a matter of inescapable logic.
I turn to the appointment by the chief officer of police of a suitably qualified chief finance officer with responsibility for making reports. Again, I hesitate to repeat what I have said more than once before, but the Bill creates a model for policing finance that is different from the current system. The Government are clear that chief officers should employ their own staff—a vital process in the context of providing greater autonomy over day-to-day management of the force. As an employer, therefore, for the first time the chief police officer will need to hold substantial amounts of money, and it is vital that there are appropriate safeguards around this. Each chief police officer will need his or her own chief finance officer, suitably qualified to manage the chief officer's affairs. In fact, police forces already have finance directors to do this job. The Government believe that the chief finance officer should be under a statutory duty to make reports where he or she fears the chief officer has made or will make an unlawful decision. Such a report would also go to the PCC and to the chief officer's auditor.
I remind the House that, as I said in previous stages of the Bill, there will not be, and in fact cannot be, any duplication between the role of a PCC's chief finance officer and that of the chief police officer's chief finance officer. The former will have responsibility for money within the police fund, and the latter will have responsibility for the money that has been paid over to the chief officer out of that fund. As such, without a properly qualified chief finance officer—with all the necessary powers and requirements—there will be a significant gap in proper financial propriety.
The Government have been very clear both in this House and another place as to why these provisions are necessary. Amendments to remove them were withdrawn with the House's consent on that basis. We believe that these are necessary measures, and I hope that the House will see that there is a very real need to have quite distinct separation in terms of the financial accounting of the PCC and the chief officer. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to withdraw his amendment. I would say to him and to other Members of the House that I regret very much that we did not have our meeting, particularly on corporations sole, which was in the diary. Unfortunately it clashed with the day on which we had to take emergency legislation through the House. I apologise to noble Lords for having had to cancel that meeting.
As this may be my last contribution on Third Reading of this Bill, I hope that the House will allow me to say some words of thanks to those who have contributed to its smooth passage. I thank particularly the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers who have presided, and the clerks and doorkeepers, for whose assistance I am very grateful. I thank my colleagues on the Front Bench; I do not know what I would have done without them. I am also very grateful to the Bill team, who have worked very long hours, not just when they have been in attendance in this House but behind the scenes—and I can assure the House that they certainly were not attempting to waterboard me. I thank all Members of the House who have contributed to this Bill, both in the Chamber and outside. We have not been able to agree on everything; none the less, I have brought forward a package of amendments on Report and Third Reading based very much on what has been said by noble Lords on all sides of the House and outside. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, before my noble friend decides what he wants to do, as the noble Baroness has rather jumped the gun, perhaps I may respond by saying that I am most grateful for her remarks and for the way in which she has conducted the Bill since taking it over at pretty short notice on the first day of Committee. She has earned the admiration of the whole House for the way in which she has conducted herself. She said that she can take care of herself. Indeed, she can, which is why we had a vote on the first debate.
I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord De Mauley, as well as the Bill team, for the support they have given the noble Baroness. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Stevenson and to all noble colleagues who have spoken on the Bill.
Before we come to my noble friend, I just say that the Government have an opportunity to pause now. I know that the Prime Minister suggested in his Statement that he is determined to plough on with elected police commissioners, but there is time to reflect. I hope that the Government will take advantage of that time to consider the real concerns about the Bill that have been expressed around the House.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, it is slightly strange to respond on the amendment after going through the normal courtesies of Bill do now pass. I think that all Members of the House are grateful to the Minister for the way in which she has conducted herself throughout these proceedings, having been given a very difficult, and at times impossible, brief in terms of selling arguments to us. We are conscious that she was thrust into this at a very late stage. If I have expressed myself on occasions with vehemence or even asperity, that has certainly not had anything to do with the noble Baroness but more to do with the difficulty of the brief with which she has been presented.
However—this is the asperity—the response that she gave on my amendment did not really address the key questions. In fact, it addressed two separate points which I did not make. It said that we needed to have corporate status for the PCCs and the chief officers and so on. No one is arguing about whether they should have corporate status; the question is why it should be a corporation sole. This is a particularly strange concept and no one who has had to deal with it seems to think it is terribly satisfactory. It does not lead to transparency or good governance. That is why it seems such a strange way of proceeding.
Similarly, no one is arguing that there should not be a suitably qualified senior financial officer for each chief constable or for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The question is why that chief financial officer has to be recognised under the Local Government Finance Act and the Audit Commission Act, thereby creating a panoply of two separate audited accounts. That is what is wrong with the Bill; that is why we are asking for Parliament to be given another opportunity to look at the matter; and it is why, I am afraid, even at this late stage I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) an order under section (Policing protocol);”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the protocol is a vital matter. I fail to see why it should not be subject to an affirmative order. Even at this late stage, will the noble Baroness be prepared to accept this? I can see she will not. I beg to move.
Metropolitan Police Service
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I echo her tribute to the thousands of police officers who perform their duties in the metropolis, often in dangerous circumstances.
The noble Baroness rightly paid tribute to Sir Paul Stephenson and his work. He has done excellent work in London, backing neighbourhood policing and action to cut crime in the capital as well as vital work on counterterrorism. His is an honourable decision to protect the crucial operational work of the Met from continuing speculation. However, his departure raises serious questions for the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. It is clear that the Met commissioner and the head of counterterrorism have now gone because of questions about this crisis and the appointment of the former deputy editor of the News of the World. Yet the Prime Minister is still refusing to answer questions, or apologise for his appointment of the former editor of the News of the World. The judgment of the Metropolitan police force has been called into question by appointing Neil Wallis, but so too has the judgment of the Prime Minister by appointing Neil Wallis’s boss, Andy Coulson. People will look at this and think that it is one rule for the police and another for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister agreed to that this morning. He said:
“The situation at the Metropolitan Police is really quite different to the situation in Government, not least because the issues that the Met are looking at, the issues around them, have a direct bearing on public confidence into the police enquiry into the News of the World”.
But the Prime Minister runs the country, and the issues that he is looking at, and the judgments that he makes, have a direct bearing on public confidence in the Government’s ability to sort this crisis out. Sir Paul has very honourably accepted his ultimate responsibility for the position the Metropolitan police force finds itself in. Why does the Prime Minister not similarly accept his responsibility?
The Home Secretary is right to have concerns about the appointment of Neil Wallis, and she is right that she should have been told about the conflict of interest. This does raise serious questions for the police force. But the Met commissioner says that he could not tell her, or her boss, because of the Prime Minister’s relationship with Andy Coulson. How did it come to this? The most senior police officer in the country did not feel able to tell the Home Secretary about a potential conflict of interest for the Met because of the Prime Minister’s compromised relationship with Andy Coulson—an ongoing relationship, as they met at Chequers in March, months after the new police investigation began.
This morning the Home Secretary refused to defend the appointment of Andy Coulson, and today the London mayor refused to defend it. The Home Secretary has been remarkably silent during the crisis despite the serious allegations that phone hacking may have interfered with criminal investigations, the serious questions for policing, and the growing cloud over the national and international reputation of British policing as a result of the crisis. She has said very little in the last two weeks. The judicial inquiry that we have called for is important, but confidence in policing is too important to wait for its results.
Why has it taken the Home Secretary so long to ask Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships with the media and other parties? What are the implications of the Home Secretary’s proposals to bring in American-style elected police and crime commissioners? The nearest Britain has to an elected police chief—the London mayor—did not stop these problems at the Met. If anything, he made them worse. Boris Johnson described the phone hacking allegations as “codswallop”. He went on to say:
“It looks like a politically motivated put-up job by the Labour party”.
What backing does the Minister think that Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates could have expected from the mayor if they had decided to reopen an investigation that he described as politically motivated? The truth is that the elected mayor made it harder, not easier, for the Met to get to the heart of this issue. The Mayor of London is now looking forward to working with his third police commissioner in his current term. To lose one commissioner is a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness. Above all, it shows the risks of the closeness of the relationship between politicians and operational policing.
I come to the implications of all of this on the police Bill, which we are told is based on experience in London. In light of what has happened, I would ask the Minister for a pause in consideration of the Bill, currently due for Third Reading in your Lordships’ House on Wednesday. Whatever the ups and downs of the British police force over the decades, its political impartiality has shone out to international acclaim. However, this Bill threatens a disaster. Party political commissioners to be elected in nine months’ time risk undermining the very impartiality of which we are so proud. The Bill threatens the politicisation of operational policing; and it threatens a huge loss of public confidence in the untrammelled power given to party political commissioners to appoint or to dismiss chief constables at will.
The London situation is particularly worrying. As Sir Paul said in his statement today, the Met faces extraordinary challenges: the phone hacking investigation, the public inquiries, the inquiries that the Home Secretary announced today; its responsibility in counterterrorism and national security issues; and the Olympics. There is now huge disruption in the senior ranks of the force with the resignation of the commissioner and Mr Yates. What are the Government doing to stabilise the situation? They are introducing legislation to scrap the Metropolitan Police Authority, threatening yet more disruption. That is the last thing that the Metropolitan Police force needs now. I believe that Third Reading of the police Bill should be postponed so that the consequences of the proposed legislation can be seen in the context of this week’s very disturbing events. Will the Minister agree to that?
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
I apologise to the House if I have got it wrong yet again and I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee. My amendment relates to the handling of complaints against senior police officers in London. The Bill proposes that responsibility for complaints against senior ACPO officers—that is, officers below the rank of deputy commissioner—should be moved from the Metropolitan Police Authority to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. My concern is not that this would make the commissioner responsible for employing, promoting and disciplining officers—I do not have a major problem with that—but that it would also make him responsible for sackings and, crucially, for hearing appeals against his own rulings. It would remove all the elements of independence and transparency that the Metropolitan Police Authority currently provides and would in effect make the commissioner judge, jury and executioner.
The proposals are deeply flawed because they concentrate too much power in the hands of the commissioner without any proper checks and balances. There is also no effective framework to safeguard impartiality. I am aware of the Government's response to the argument. They argue that it is commonplace for complaints to be decided within an organisation rather than by an external arbiter. However, this fails to appreciate that police officers are in a unique position. They are officers of the Crown who have the power to detain members of the public and to take away their freedom through arrest. Consequently, there is no valid analogy with how other organisations—even the Armed Forces—deal with complaints, conduct, dismissals and appeals. It is in the interest of the police that they should be able to demonstrate an independent element in the assessment of the seriousness and reputational risks of allegations made against their most senior ranks. The Bill envisages allowing appeals to the IPCC, but only at the end of the process. That is no substitute for an independent review of whether standards of conduct may have fallen below those that the outside world would recognise as proper.
Lack of independence also creates another problem. A very likely consequence of the new system is an increase in the number of complaints against the commissioner for failing properly to investigate complaints against ACPO officers under his command. If those making complaints against a senior officer feel that the issue has not been properly or sufficiently well dealt with in the first instance, they will almost certainly lodge a complaint against the chief officer. The whole rigmarole in turn creates an increased possibility of legal challenge.
I believe there is a more fundamental problem. In any closed institution, such as the police, it is common for custom and practice to become entrenched. An independent element is vital to provide a counterbalance and to ensure due process. It is worth considering the virtues of the current system for handling complaints. At present the Metropolitan Police Authority hears complaints through its professional standards cases sub-committee and there is a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal. This current system is not an accident of history. It evolved to address concerns about the perceived lack of independence and accountability in how complaints and conduct matters had been handled previously. Are we really confident that policing has matured sufficiently to deal with these concerns? The Government seem to be ignoring the lessons of the past and are therefore likely to repeat the errors of the past.
Since the Bill abolishes the Metropolitan Police Authority, the purpose of my amendment is to restore equivalent safeguards to the new arrangements. The amendment would, within London, make the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the relevant appeals body. It is also essential that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has statutory access to all information and systems where complaints are recorded. Without this, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime will be totally reliant on the commissioner advising it of complaint or conduct matters. It would also be unable to discharge the functions proposed in the Bill to ensure that chief constables have fulfilled their duty in the handling of such complaints. The Government’s proposals do no favours to the PCC. They expose him or her to accusations—unjustified, one would hope—of conflict of interest, bias and favouritism. This amendment would avoid these pitfalls without in any way affecting the proper authority of the PCC and the correct limits to his or her discretion. I therefore commend this amendment as a means of preserving the necessary elements of independence, transparency and impartiality. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I understand the thrust of the noble Baroness’s argument, but it is interesting that in her amendment she seems to be proposing that outside the Metropolitan Police area the chief constable still carries out that function. I wonder why she has not amended the situation outside London. The logic of what she is saying is that if it is the MOPC in relation to the Metropolitan Police area, it would presumably be the police and crime commissioner who would do the same thing in other areas. I should be grateful if she would clarify that point for me.
Baroness Doocey
I can only plead ignorance and apologise. My amendment was meant specifically to deal with London and I do not think I was sufficiently good at checking that the final version of the amendment dealt just with London. I crave your Lordships’ indulgence.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that. She has raised an important matter of principle and it will be interesting to see what response the Minister gives. If it were a sympathetic response, in which we had an opportunity at Third Reading to discuss this again, she might wish to look at the wording of the amendment. That depends on the Minister.
The principle that the noble Baroness has enunciated must be right. I hope she will pursue this. As for the government amendments, we, of course, welcome them.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it would be helpful to the House if the noble Baroness could give some indication of the Government’s intention. My reckoning is that there are 18 groups left to be debated on Report. Can she tell me at what point she intends that the House be adjourned tonight?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I come to the Floor of the House tonight ready to complete Report. I do that particularly for this reason: there have been times during the course of this Bill when we have made quite rapid progress, with the co-operation of both sides of the House, but noble Lords will know that I have amended this Bill so that Members of your Lordships’ House could apply for and carry out the function of a full-time police and crime commissioner. During that debate, I was persuaded by Members of this House that your Lordships could not only carry out their functions in this House but hold down a very demanding full-time job as PCC as well. Everybody will know that people who engage at that level are people who do not clock-watch but get the job done. They stay until the job is finished; that is what I intend to do.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I found that the most remarkable response. The Opposition have been very co-operative on this Bill. We agreed to do Committee in six days and Report in four days. We did not agree that the clock should start at 8.35 of the evening. On average, we have taken about half an hour per group. At that rate, we would be meeting for another nine hours. I regard that as wholly unacceptable, as I am sure that other noble Lords will do. I suggest to the noble Baroness that a discussion should take place in the usual channels on an appropriate way forward. It is not acceptable to say to the House that, at this time of the night, we should start a full day’s debate on Report.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, before my noble friend replies, will she bear in mind that some of us who have amendments tabled for debate this evening intend to keep our speeches very short so that we will be able to conclude this stage of the Bill?
“Acting police and crime commissioner
(1) Where a police and crime commissioner is unable to perform his or her functions under this Part, the relevant police and crime panel must appoint an acting police and crime commissioner from amongst its members.
(2) A person who is appointed to the role of acting police and crime commissioner under subsection (1) has the same powers and is subject to the same requirements as a police and crime commissioner, in accordance with this Act and any other enactment.
(3) In appointing an acting police and crime commissioner under subsection (1), the relevant police and crime panel must stipulate the maximum length of time that the person may hold that position.
(4) A person ceases to hold the position of acting police and crime commissioner—
(a) in the event that the police and crime commissioner is able to resume his or her functions under this Act;(b) at the end of the maximum term stipulated by the police and crime panel; or(c) as otherwise stipulated in this Act or any other enactment.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to a very important matter: the appointment of acting police and crime commissioners. Whatever our views on this Bill, one thing is clear: the police and crime commissioners will have considerable power and authority over policing matters in their local police force area.
A second point is that, with the numbers so elected, inevitably there may be circumstances in which a police and crime commissioner may become incapacitated: they may be suspended, they may decide to leave office voluntarily, or they may die in office. Quite rightly, the Bill contains provisions for the appointment of an acting commissioner. That is well and good. However, the problem with Clause 63(2) is that an acting commissioner, appointed by the police and crime panel, can only be appointed if they are a member of the police and crime commissioner’s staff at the time of the appointment. The acting commissioner can exercise all the functions of a police and crime commissioner, other than issuing or varying a police and crime plan under Section 6, so the acting police and crime commissioner can dismiss the chief constable. They can set the precept and, as my noble friend Lord Beecham has reminded us, that can be around 9 to 11 per cent, depending on whether you are in England or Wales, of the total council tax bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I think the point has been well put that the powers of the acting PCC could be considerable. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Beecham for underestimating the size of the precept. It seems to me that it has grown between Committee and Report stages. But it involves the precept, the budget, the appointment of the chief constable and the dismissal of the chief constable. I am still concerned that the problem here is the construct of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Harris has said, once you decide to place on a political individual so much power and responsibility, you clearly have a big problem in deciding what to do if that person is no longer able to carry out the job.
It seems to me that this is a very important issue, which has been debated in the other place as well. The Government clearly still do not have a clue about how to deal with it. The noble Baroness said that she is concerned about appointing the acting PCC from the police and crime panel, which is an inherently political body. But what is the PCC but politicisation? In terms of the idea that the staff will be wonderfully neutral, what on earth will the staff be doing? I am horrified at the thought that the PCC will employ an army of people. It will have one point, which will be to ensure the re-election of the police and crime commissioner. What else are they there for but to support that person?
The noble Baroness has said that she will take this away. I am very grateful to her, but can she confirm that that means that she accepts that I can bring an amendment back at Third Reading or that she will? It cannot be dealt with in the Commons on ping-pong. It is impossible to deal with this issue in that way. It has to be dealt with by this House. We have only a few days left. Will the noble Baroness confirm that she is saying that this is a matter that requires further clarification and can be brought back at Third Reading?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I will commit to bringing it back at Third Reading for clarification.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in that case I am extremely grateful and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I wonder if I might put a different gloss on the matters that we are debating in this group of amendments. We know that there is a strong likelihood that there will be a national crime agency some time in the next calendar year. We already have a discussion document about that. It refers to tasking, which I am confidently assured means direction from the centre. That means that there is bound to be tension between local and national issues, which is a good thing. It is democracy in action. It is inevitable that the inspectorate will become involved, at the behest of local or national figures. That is what it is there for and that is my experience, having served in it for more than five years, albeit some time ago.
I am concerned that the Bill is in grave danger of becoming overprescriptive. We are covering detail, which is good as far as it goes. However, to put it in the Bill rather than take it as a matter of good sense or encompass it in regulation stretches too far the issue of what should be in the Bill.
I shall refer to Amendment 235A. Having followed an all-encompassing definition of national crime, we are then invited to put in something about children, vulnerable adults, members of minority groups and so on. I do not at all underestimate the threat to those groups; terrible things are done to and with them. However, if we are to pick out those groups, why do we not put in something about drugs, counterterrorism, and the theft of high-value motor vehicles and plant, all of which happen on a European—if not a more international—scale? Why do we not put in something about cybercrime or identity theft? I shall sit down soon because I want to brief, but my point is that we should not drop into the trap of being overprescriptive. Valid though all the comments from speakers so far have been, it is asking the Bill to accept too much.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is saying about the risks of overprescription. However, we are talking about strategic policing requirements. This is a matter of national importance. My noble friends have argued very well for their respective amendments.
No election will be won by a police and crime commissioner on issues to do with national policing. They will be won on local manifestos. Almost every candidate will promise more police on the beat. The question will be an auction over just how many police will be on the beat at any one time. That is fair enough and clearly responds to a general view held by many members of the public, who like the police to be visible. I do not argue with that. However, it will have some consequences. It will put the squeeze on the specialist units that the police forces have developed. It will also put the squeeze on each force’s responsibility to the national policing requirement. In some way or other, without being wholly prescriptive, we need to find a way in which to reassure Parliament that the national strategic policing requirement will be carried out as effectively as possible. It is not just terrorism; it is also about serious organised crime. My noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Foulkes were absolutely right to develop the argument about the threats that we face. We are in no position today to be complacent about those threats.
In their approach to the Bill the Government have really rather pooh-poohed the current tripartite relationship. They have criticised police authorities for a lack of visibility—although I have yet to hear any conclusive evidence put forward on why they ought to be visible. Furthermore, they believe that the tripartite arrangement is at fault because Home Secretaries have indulged in too much target-making. There will be a debate about targets and their place but there should be no doubt that in the end the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament and ought to be accountable to Parliament for national policing strategy and the effectiveness of police forces in making a contribution to that strategy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, about the implications of the national crime agency. I also agree with him that some tension will be constructive—but tension could also be destructive. In the Bill we see that the requirement in relation to the strategic policing requirement is placed on chief officers of police. In exercising the functions, they must have regard to the strategic policing requirement. In other words, they can ignore it, because “have regard to” is a very weak use of parliamentary language. They have to have regard to it, alongside other matters that are placed in the Bill.
We then look to page 2 of the Bill and see that in Clause 1(4) that the,
“police and crime commissioner must … hold the chief constable to account for”,
a series of actions, but also,
“the exercise of the duty under section 37A(2) of the Police Act 1996 (duty to have regard to strategic policing requirement)”.
All we have in statute is a requirement on the police and crime commissioner to hold the chief constable to account. Then we find that the actual requirement is simply to have regard to. What if the police and commissioner does not effectively hold the chief constable to account? What if the chief constable has regard to but does not take the necessary action? Where are the safeguards and sanctions? There are none. That is really our concern.
The amendments seem to be helpful and constructive. My noble friend Lady Henig asks for a report to be prepared assessing the extent to which the strategic policing requirement has been met in each police area. That does not seem overprescriptive; it is simply giving an assurance to Parliament that there will be a process by which Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has a means of looking at each police force area and reporting on how they are doing in their contribution to the strategic policing requirement.
My noble friend Lord Harris has another constructive amendment around the inspection programme. In our first debate the Minister was very helpful, although I did not really follow her arguments. She was very constructive in being willing to engage in the area of the acting police and crime commissioner. Nothing is more important than the national strategic policing requirement. I hope that the noble Lord, who, I suspect, is going to respond to the amendment, will be able to be as constructive as his noble friend.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, before the Minister replies to the debate, he will recall that nearly an hour and a half ago the government Chief Whip indicated that she would return speedily with a new timetable for this Bill to propose to the House. We are now approaching the normal time of rising of this House. I hope that the Minister will give an indication as to when the government Chief Whip will do us the courtesy of returning to indicate what the new timetable for this Bill will be.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There was a tension also about how much detail one writes into the Bill. We spent some time on these amendments with people wanting reassurance that there should be much more detail in the Bill than is required of them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest respect to noble Lords, a requirement for HMIC to publish a report annually is not a target; it is simply information to Parliament. Surely the Minister is prepared to consider that. As I have said, it is a very short time until Third Reading, but will he take this back without commitment and consider whether some reassurance might be made to Parliament on this?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
In the next group of amendments we will move on to HMIC, and it is part of the requirement for HMIC that it will publish reports for the public, so HMIC will be publishing regular reports. The question of whether it should have to publish reports on a regular basis for Parliament is an additional thing of which I am not persuaded. I will certainly consult further but I am not currently persuaded that that is a necessary addition. Many years ago I took part in a debate which required the Government to report to Parliament twice a year on developments in the European Union so that there could be a six-monthly debate. Those reports have continued to be published and somewhere in my attic I have a number of them. I am a little doubtful about additional reports.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Surely the Minister will know from the debate that we have had on the European Bill that many noble Lords in this House talk of little else.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Before Minister comes back on this, I say that this is not just about whether or not this is a document published for Parliament; it is about ensuring that there is a focus on the strategic policing requirement. That is something which the Government have not yet conceded. While I am on my feet, and to prevent me getting up again, can he tell us what he actually means by a situation report? Does that mean that when we get to Third Reading which, as far as I am aware, is still only a few days away, we will have in front of us some idea as to what this document will look like?
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I am much relieved that I was interrupted, because Amendment 235A is in the name of Baroness Hamwee.
Amendment 236 is grouped with Amendment 235, on which we have just had a Division.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest respect, it was pointed out earlier that there is a misprint in the grouping list. My noble friend made it clear that there is a group starting Amendments 236, 237 and 238.
The Deputy Speaker
I beg your Lordships’ pardon. That information had not reached me.
Clause 85 : Functions of HMIC
Amendment 236
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 236, 237 and 238 which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. We are being asked to support nothing less than a revolution in policing governance in the absence of any evidence base on which the benefits of such drastic changes are set and in the absence of any public clamour for costly reform—indeed, the opposite. We are being told that these changes will not be piloted or introduced in stages since reform is urgent and cannot possibly wait. I beg to differ on all those counts.
However, if we are to press ahead with such an untried system, I am absolutely determined that we should do our duty to ensure that all means possible are employed to insert safeguards into the Bill. HMIC inspections seem to me to be a bedrock of any such safeguards against potential pitfalls and I share the high regard in which Sir Denis O’Connor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, is held, together with his extremely able team.
In short, HMIC inspections are at times a difficult and challenging process for those undergoing them and they have repeatedly yielded the improvement across policing, which is at the heart of HMIC’s mission. So I am left, frankly, bemused when the Government propose not to expand but to constrict the use of this valuable tool for improvement. It makes no sense at all effectively to exclude these completely new systems of oversight from an inspection regime when that regime has already helped the current system to improve.
Next, I shall draw out the intention of Amendment 238, which removes the proposed new obligation on the local policing body to reimburse HMIC for the costs of its inspection. We have heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, thinks of that. We have sought to replace this with a statement that the panel may request that HMIC conducts an inspection if its concerns warrant such an intervention. I am unaware of any other inspection regime in which those delivering a public service, or who invite in or are made the subject of an inspection in the interests of public trust and confidence in their work, are expected directly to cover the costs of their inspection. Surely, in some cases an inspection will be called amidst quite serious financial issues or challenges. This idea that those opening themselves up to scrutiny in the public interest must pay for the cost of such transparency seems decidedly odd to me, even bearing in mind the parlous state of Home Office finances at the present time.
It also seems to me to be the most bizarre disincentive to those on the panel or on the commissioner’s staff who are considering whistleblowing on what might be significant issues of public interest or concern. A whistleblower or concerned panel member or local policing body member would have to gain pre-emptive approval for the costs of a possible investigation from someone who might be implicated in the very dubious activity that necessitates the inspection.
This parcelling of costs on to the petitioner for an inspection feels wrong to me on a very instinctive, but also on a very practical, level. Surely the Home Office should be seeing fit that the costs of HMIC’s absolutely essential work should be met by a Home Office grant. It would seem to be neglect approaching a dereliction of the Government’s duty to do otherwise. We have proposed that this apparently ill suited new subsection (2BB) should be replaced by a positive power for the panel that it should be able at any time to request that HMIC carry out an inspection of the PCC.
No one will be more aware of the PCC’s action or inaction in some areas than the police and crime panel since it is designed as her or his safeguard and strict check and balance. However, while the panel will be equipped to oversee the PCC in most areas, it may feel that there are issues on which it lacks a professional operational judgment on a matter of controversy. In such circumstances, it may not be appropriate to pull the chief constable into what could amount to a difference of opinion with the PCC. Who then can the panel turn to for that necessary professional advice and impartial opinion?
Finally, there should be a direct and clear ability, and a responsibility on the panel, to be able to involve HMIC appropriately. HMIC could, of course, take a view that it was being asked to get involved in a petty or irrelevant matter and could decline the invitation. However, we anticipate that this referral mechanism to HMIC will provide a helpful bridge to practical improvement for many forces facing difficulty in the future, as it so often has in the past.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, all I would like to say on the amendment is that we have discussed in previous debates the inconsistency between different parts of government in relation to inspection. I must declare my interest again as chair of an NHS foundation trust and as a consultant trainer in the NHS. NHS foundation trusts, which the Government support, were meant to be given much more freedom than other NHS bodies but they are still subject to the tender mercies of a regulator called Monitor. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government have taken such a light-rein approach to the construct in the Bill when we have such an excellent inspectorate in the form of HMIC. These amendments seem wholly constructive. By the grace of the usual channels, we have been given a little extra time—a day—to consider these matters. Is this not a matter which the Government might take back and consider?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, with regard to fees, I do not know whether my noble friend is in a position to give any comparables, but I think that local authorities have to pay—or have had to pay—for Audit Commission inspections and that it is the Audit Commission that has set the rates. There must be comparables. Maybe there are comparables which go either way; I do not know.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we on this side of the House support the legislation, which is needed to overturn the High Court ruling in the circumstances described by the noble Baroness. It is clear that the judgment causes serious problems for policing operations, for ongoing investigations, potentially for the delivery of justice and, most seriously of all, for the protection of victims and witnesses.
As the noble Baroness so lucidly explained, it had previously been assumed that releasing a suspect on bail effectively paused the detention clock. It was thought that the clock could then be restarted when the suspect answered police bail and was redetained, even if that point was later than 96 hours after the relevant time. The recent High Court ruling is that that is not the case under the precise wording of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Instead, the maximum 96-hour period specified in that Act runs immediately from the relevant time and cannot, as has been common police practice, be suspended by releasing a suspect on bail and be restarted later beyond the 96 hours by redetaining the suspect. The detention clock continues to run even while the suspect is on bail.
Understandably, Parliament has always been concerned to ensure that emergency legislation should be brought only on the basis of very serious considerations, and is never to be done lightly but with a clear understanding of the risks involved. However, Parliament needs to balance that with the risk to the public and to justice if we do not legislate immediately. The situation apparently means that the police are unable to recall people from police bail if they have been bailed for more than four days unless the police have new evidence that allows them to rearrest. The situation also raises serious issues about the application of bail conditions, particularly in domestic violence cases, as those conditions can include important protection for the victim. Such conditions could include someone being prohibited from going to his ex-wife's workplace, the family home or the children's school. Some bail conditions are an extremely important part of protecting the safety of victims and witnesses; and if they cannot be enforced, protection is clearly at risk.
We therefore support rapid action but, unfortunately, rapid action has not entirely characterised the response of the Home Secretary. I noticed that, in her introductory remarks, the noble Baroness emphasised the written judgment. She will know that the oral judgment was given on 19 May and her officials were informed soon after that—certainly before the end of May. The Home Secretary has said that she had to wait for the written judgment, but that has not meant that the Home Office had to suspend any action and judgment of what advice should be given to Ministers until the written judgment was received.
It is now seven weeks from the original judgment, three weeks since the written judgment was put in place, and two weeks, apparently, since Ministers were informed. The gap alone between Home Office officials being informed of the written judgment, the written judgment being published and Ministers being told has put Ministers in a difficult position. Our first concern is about the initial delay before the Home Office received the written judgment. More work should have been done between the oral judgment and the written judgment, and once the written judgment arrived, advice should have been given very quickly to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about the risks in this case.
Lord Clinton-Davis
It is common practice for solicitors to note the judgment beforehand, so it is not necessary to await the written judgment as it unfolds.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a very telling intervention from my noble friend. Surely that is the case. All I would say to the Minister is that I hope lessons will be learned from this matter.
Changing the law retrospectively is in general undesirable and creates great uncertainty. It threatens natural justice if people end up breaking up a law they did not know existed. In this case, my understanding is that the Government are seeking simply to restore the law to what we in Parliament thought it was, to what it had been intended by Parliament at the time to be and to what the police, the CPS and others have followed in good faith for many years.
I noted the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Like the Minister, I also noted the comments of Liberty, which are worth emphasising. Liberty does not believe that the Government are seeking retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden, so it would not fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Is the noble Lord saying that he can envisage what Parliament meant many years ago, when a High Court judge has determined through the language used what was meant? If anybody disagrees with his interpretation, surely the appeal for which leave has been given should be pursued.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, of course we shall have to see the outcome of the appeal. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read Michael Zander’s piece on this, which refers back to the debates in Parliament 25 years ago. From my reading of the amendment moved by Clare Short for the Labour Opposition at the time and of the response given by the then Home Secretary—the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—it is apparent that Parliament’s view was pretty clear. In that case, I must endorse the interpretation given by the Minister.
The case for rapid action is clear and that is why we are not proposing amendments today. Equally, the case has raised some important points, both of principle and of detail, which I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would respond to. Some of the commentary since this case came to light has expressed concerns about the possibility of the use of endless police bail. There appear to be cases where people have been left on police bail, including with conditions, long after another suspect has confessed to the offence, or where investigations have run dry but action was not taken to end the bail arrangements. I welcome the Minister’s offer of an opportunity for a wider debate about the appropriateness and proportionality of different lengths of police bail and what safeguards are required.
There are also issues around the fact that the original 1984 legislation has been amended many times. It would be helpful if the Minister could say in the review whether she intends to look at the legislative context in which police bail is enacted, and whether she thinks that it might warrant a review of legislation as well as practice in the fullness of time.
It is also noticeable that in some of the comments that have been made, including those from Liberty, a proposal has been made that Parliament should consider a statutory time limit to restrict the total duration of police bail to no more than six months. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would say whether that is also a matter that will be considered in the welcome review that she has announced this afternoon.
We have also benefited from the advice of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, which drew to the attention of the House one feature of the Bill which the Select Committee felt touches on an issue of constitutional principle. Essentially, the High Court judgment that the Bill seeks to reverse is itself under appeal to the Supreme Court. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to that point. The Select Committee says:
“We are concerned that asking Parliament to legislate in these highly unusual circumstances raises difficult issues of constitutional principle as regards both the separation of powers and the rule of law. We have noted the constitutionally important distinction between legislative and adjudicative functions before. We are concerned that, in the understandable rush to rectify a problem which the police have identified as being serious and urgent, insufficient time has been allowed for Parliament fully to consider the constitutional implications of what it is being asked to do”.
I know that the noble Baroness has responded very rapidly—and it is very welcome that she has done so—by saying that the Government see no constitutional impropriety in the present decision to legislate in advance of the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court. She went on to say that it is common ground that the sovereignty of Parliament means that it is competent to legislate at any time, in response to a judgment of a court. I do not disagree with her assessment of that matter, but it seems to me that the Select Committee has raised a number of very important points, which would warrant also being considered within the review that the noble Baroness has promised to undertake.
In supporting this Bill and the actions that she has announced today, I would ask that there be an element of public involvement and input into the review that she has announced. I would also suggest to her, through the usual channels, that it would be opportune if, perhaps in the autumn, we could have an opportunity to debate these matters in this House, possibly as part of an input into the review that she has promised.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I agree with everything he said. It may be that the answer to his final question is that Royal Assent should not be given to this Bill until we have the judgment of the Supreme Court, and then there could be no necessity for it to be repealed.
When the noble Lord was speaking I was reminded of the story of the acorn falling on the head of Chicken Licken, who informed Henny Penny, Goosey Lucy, Turkey Lurkey and others that the sky was falling in. Finally, they all told Foxy Loxy, who listened to their panic-stricken warnings and then ate the lot of them. Much emergency legislation is introduced like the fabled acorn. The Hookway case merely declared that the relevant legislation did not allow the police to save up unexpired periods of authorised detention and to use them to detain and question suspects pre-charge at any date in the future—and this is the important point—even though no fresh evidence had been obtained.
If this is what Parliament meant in passing the legislation, as Mr Justice McCombe has held in his complex judgment, which required to be in writing before it could be properly addressed, then it seems to me as a matter of policy a highly desirable result. If the police and the CPS advising the police do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge a person today, why should they be allowed to detain and question the suspect in six months’ time, he having been on police bail, on exactly the same evidence? It is lazy policing. Of course, if there is fresh evidence as a result of a more vigorous or deeper investigation—a matter of some topical relevance today—that is a different matter. In such a case, if there is fresh evidence, a power of arrest would arise and a person could be detained and questioned in relation to the whole case, including the fresh evidence.
The problem that arises in this case is that a suspect can be detained again at a later date—six months, or even more, later—and questioned when no further investigation has taken place. He is simply being questioned on what was in the past. If Mr Justice McCombe’s interpretation of the statutory provisions of what Parliament meant—which is what his judgment is and not what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, thinks from reading an article in a magazine—is correct, then Manchester Police should continue with its appeal, for which, as your Lordships have learnt, it has obtained leave through a certificate that it is a matter of public importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did not continue entirely with the Constitution Committee’s point, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has also made, that Parliament would then have the benefit of a considered judgment from the Supreme Court to assist its deliberations if the appeal were allowed to go ahead. We would then know what the Supreme Court thinks about Mr Justice McCombe’s interpretation.
This simple Bill ensures that lazy and possibly oppressive policing can continue but it raises a much more important question: has the practice of indefinitely extending police bail become a genuine abuse? There is no statutory limit when a person is given bail pre-charge and invited to come back at a later date. In Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill of 2003, my noble friend Lord Dholakia moved an amendment to insert a provision that police bail should not extend more than 28 days, as had been recommended at that time by the Home Affairs Select Committee. He said that his amendment would limit the pre-charge period and that:
“The CPS will of course progress the case as fast as possible. However, we have concerns about the unlimited bail periods. Set deadlines go some way to ensure that matters are reviewed and less likely to drag on unnecessarily”.
The then Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, responded that pilots that had been carried out suggested,
“that in most cases a five-week period should be sufficient to enable charges to be brought”.—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 683-84.]
He thought extending police bail for about five weeks was appropriate. Consequently, on 29 October 2003, I moved an amendment on Report for a limit of 35 days —five times seven, taking the Attorney-General at his word. He said in response that he did not wish to have a statutory limit but that it would be better for guidance and instructions to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Were such guidelines ever issued?
I am indebted to Mr Roger Windsor who has pursued this topic with freedom of information inquiries which reveal that in 2008, in three police areas alone out of 43—West Mercia, Sussex and Surrey—358 individuals spent more than nine months on police bail to which conditions were attached. I have supplied his findings to the Minister. I am also indebted to Mr Csoka QC of Lincoln Chambers in Manchester and Mr Joseph Kotrie-Monson for their views, which I have similarly passed on.
Not only are there no time limits in relation to how long the police can keep a suspect on police bail when no new evidence has emerged but there is no mechanism whereby the degree to which the police are acting with due expedition—or, worse, with bad faith—can be independently scrutinised. One wonders whether the cuts in funding for the police and CPS could be translated into restrictions on the liberty of those who have not been charged with any offence. The conditions that can be imposed on those bailed can include reporting, curfews, travel and residency restrictions. It is my own personal experience and that of others that conditional bail can last for months or even years with no sign of any activity by the police or the CPS. In other words, people can be given bail at the police station and are welcome to walk out of there subject to the restrictions but those can continue indefinitely without any possibility of seeing whether the police are carrying out their functions expeditiously.
When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was enacted the police could bail only without conditions—there was merely a requirement to surrender on a future date. In 1995, after 10 years of PACE, the police were given the power to impose conditions. The use of those powers has now reached epidemic proportions. It is the experience of defence lawyers that conditional bail is used punitively against suspects who the police believe are criminals but against whom there is no or no sufficient evidence. The police can extrajudicially, by the grant of bail subject to conditions, curtail their liberty for an indefinite period. Additionally, those arrested for public order offences at political demonstrations are often bailed for inordinate periods with a condition; for example, not to enter Westminster or not to attend further demonstrations. Often no charges are ever brought. They have been subjected to a form of control order which is effectively outside the rule of law. This happened in 2009 with protesters planning a protest at the E.ON power station in Nottingham and the arrest, detention and bailing of protesters during the occupation of Fortnum & Mason on 26 March this year.
The simple solution is to bring in a legal framework which imposes time limits on pre-charge bail and gives a right to appeal. Defendants who are remanded in custody have the protection of custody time limits. Extensions of custody time limits—normally six months —can be granted only if there is a good and sufficient cause and the prosecution has acted with due expedition. It is a frequent case in court that the prosecution goes along and explains how its inquiries are going and why there has been a delay. There ought to be similar protection for those on police bail. Extensions of time could be granted by a district judge but only if the police show good and sufficient cause—that there are reasonable lines of inquiry which could not, with due expedition, have been completed within the initial time limits.
Such a system would protect not only the rights of a suspect but also the victim: a rape victim, for example, has the anxiety of waiting months to see whether a charge is to be brought. Time limits will prevent inefficiency, poor staffing or indecision from creating a culture of delay.
Unhappily, the acorn at the moment is too small and this Bill is too light to carry the burden of extensive amendments to deal with these problems. I am grateful to Mr Justice McCombe for leading Parliament to investigate this area and I am extremely grateful to the Minister for indicating that an urgent review will be carried out in the autumn into what is potentially a very considerable abuse of the system, which certainly Parliament never meant when it passed the legislation in 1985 or when it was considered at any later date.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that was not the point I was making. The noble Lord asked me where I referred to the supposition in relation to putting it back to where Parliament thought it would be. I quoted from an article, which in turn quoted quite clearly from Hansard of the debates at the time. But that was not the point I was arguing.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I have made all the points that I wished to make. I look forward to the review. I look forward to participating in a parliamentary debate on that review and we can see whether this abuse, which I believe does exist, can be cured.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I have a couple of brief points to make about Amendment 102, and particularly Amendment 104 to which I have added my name. First, I welcome the fact that the Government have shown that they are willing to listen to some of the concerns expressed in Committee and I am genuinely pleased that they have moved to two-thirds the majority required to exercise a veto. I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, that a simple majority might be even better. It would certainly strengthen the role of the police and crime panel, which I think we all agree is essential. Hopefully, when taken in conjunction with earlier amendments about a more collaborative approach, this would guard against too capricious an attitude by the panel, having helped develop the proposals in the first place. I support this amendment but I am concerned about the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, about the relationship between this Bill and the Localism Bill in relation to the precept and referendum arrangements. I agree that this needs to be clarified. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on this point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we have had a series of debates during the passage of this Bill about the role of the police and crime panel in scrutinising the performance of the police and crime commissioner. The Minister herself has emphasised on a number of occasions the importance of the panel in doing that.
For these panels to do their jobs effectively, they surely have to have a certain amount of leverage. This Bill in effect gives them only two levers; they can veto the appointment of a chief constable, and they can veto the precept that the police and crime commissioner wishes to set. Of course, on other matters it can be consulted and there can be dialogue, but it is very clear from the Bill that the elected party political commissioner can ignore completely any input from the panel unless it exercises the veto. In the past few days we have seen one of the products of a weak regulator, the Press Complaints Commission. That surely shows the problem of having of weak regulators with very few levers. My concern with these new arrangements is that we are establishing police and crime panels inevitably to fail because their influence over elected police commissioners is likely to be limited. The veto in the original Bill was set at a very high level indeed, with a 75 per cent requirement of the members to vote in favour of veto. The Government hinted in the other place that they would be prepared to reduce it and we now see the product of that in the amendment that I am sure the noble Baroness will speak to in a moment.
The question is whether a two-thirds veto is sufficient. Like my noble friends, I do not think it is. To be effective, the police and crime commissioner must surely feel or fear that if he or she were to go too far there would be a risk that the panel would veto his or her proposals. I am speaking here about the precept.
To get a two-thirds majority of the members still places the bar at an impossibly high level. That is why I very strongly support my noble friend and I have tabled an amendment along the same lines calling for a simple majority of those present and voting. The phrase “of those present and voting” is well known to all noble Lords who have taken part in public life. Remarkably, it is not to be found in the Bill. The veto requirement refers to the members of the panel. I very much support my noble friend Lady Henig in wishing to ensure not only that a simple majority is required but that it should be of the members present at such a meeting. I have also laid an amendment to Amendment 103 of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, so even if the House settles on two-thirds as the majority figure, it ought to be of those members present and voting.
Maybe I have confused the wording of the amendment because I see the noble Baroness perhaps assuming that that is what it says. My reading is that it is two-thirds of the membership.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It is. Why is that? It is normally of those present and voting. It seems to me that simply by not being there you count as an assenter—a dissenter, if you like, from a proposal to veto a precept. It seems rather an extraordinary state of affairs.
I refer the noble Baroness to later amendments where the Government propose that an elected mayor within the area of a police force becomes members of the police and crime panel automatically. I am not arguing about the principle, but elected mayors are going to have many other responsibilities apart from serving on police and crime panels. One can think of a number of metropolitan areas so it is quite likely that under the noble Baroness’s amendment a considerable number of elected mayors will serve on the panels. However, there will be circumstances in which such people will not be able to be present at a meeting of the police and crime panel and because of the noble Baroness’s amendment the numbers relevant to the veto are the members rather than those present and voting. It seems to me a rather extraordinary state of affairs that simply by being away or being ill you add to the threshold that would have to be reached if a veto were to be exercised. I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to give that point further consideration. It is a very odd state of affairs.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I very much welcome the reduction from three-quarters to two-thirds. I think I said at an earlier stage that it can be a bit disconcerting to see that a Minister has her name to the amendment you thought you had tabled. We came in as back-up on this occasion, although clearly on the same day. I welcome it even though it probably only makes a difference of one individual. However, perhaps as important as the proportion is whether it is a proportion of the whole membership or of those present—I will come back to that in a moment—and more important than both is what can be vetoed, which we have debated and will continue to debate.
I know the Government take the view that a simple majority would detract from a commissioner’s accountability through the ballot box. There is a subsidiary argument the other way that members of the police and crime panel indirectly elected are expected by their own electors to have perhaps a greater voice than can be exercised when the threshold for the veto is set so high. As I say, that is subsidiary; it is a different position from the commissioner, but one that may be a little confusing to the electorate of the councillors who make up the panel.
It is right and proper that the calculation should be made based on those present, but I have a couple of questions. I do not know whether this is going to cause the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a problem, as I am speaking after him, but what would happen to abstentions under his amendment? Where do they count? Some of us—before I get teased about this—are used to abstaining in person in this Chamber. But we need to sort out—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It may help if I intervened at this stage. My assumption in drafting “present and voting” is that you have both to be present and to vote. I do not think that abstention can be taken as a positive vote. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Hamwee
I shall ponder on that. My other question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley may have asked on a previous occasion, is whether, given the importance of the numbers, the Government anticipate providing through regulations procedures for substitutes for members of the panel. Furthermore, is it intentional on the part of those who proposed these amendments that they apply only to the precept and not to the appointments, which is the other candidate for veto? Whatever we end up with should stay the same. I think it is right that a member can affect an outcome by staying away, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure the House on that point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I was rather disappointed that the Minister did not come back to the point about why the vote should not be of those present and voting. That is a perfectly normal, appropriate action and standing order for public bodies. I see no reason why it should not relate to the precept. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was quite right in spotting that I should I have put down a similar amendment to the Government’s proposal in relation to the appointment of a chief constable. I have no doubt that that can be dealt with at Third Reading. The substantive point is that there will not always be huge amounts of time—you cannot guarantee that. By not attending, one is effectively voting against the veto. I do not think that that is right. I therefore seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I am slightly confused now. Those of us who argued for the “of those present” amendment now see the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talking about the need for substitutes, without which the right result may not come out. That is a little confusing.
I am standing up because I have a déjà vu about a déjà vu. I remember advising the Minister to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, about the way that he achieved the political balance that her Bill seeks to achieve but I believe, from the contributions today, does not achieve. Like the noble Lord, I, too, live in an area where the police authority has a lot of different local authorities—Essex also has many different local authorities—which is a situation that arises across the country. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, as Home Secretary, spent a great deal of time achieving a balance to counteract political dominance of police authorities that was unrepresentative of the local community, and ensuring that no one party—rather than no one person—could dominate and pervert the views of the local area.
The proposal before us today puts most of the power in the hands of an individual who may have been one of the people whom Michael Howard, as he was in those days, thought was unsuitable to dominate what was happening in policing, backed up by a system on the panel that will not give diversity. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to assure me that this proposal, rather than my noble friend’s amendment, carries the Michael Howard seal of approval to ensure balance. Although I did not always agree with him when he was Home Secretary, I recollect that he worked very hard to do something that the present Government are busily unpicking. They ought to stop it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Farrington takes us back to the core of the debate. Of course, the question is: which Michael Howard? I very much agree with my noble friend that the problem we face is that we do not accept that police authorities have failed in the way that the Government say they have. We also do not accept that the police authority should not be the model that might be used to develop the police and crime panels. These issues of political balance and the role of independent members are very important. I should have thought that the model of the police authority was one to be followed.
I know that the noble Baroness has tabled her own amendments. Their intention is to keep the same model as is currently in the Bill but to allow areas to increase their representation by co-opting additional members from existing local authorities or additional independent members, with a cap of 20 members in all. I welcome that as far as it goes. My concern is that I am not sure it is entirely appropriate to give complete discretion to the police and crime panels themselves. If we are preserving any remnant of a tripartite system, it is right for the Home Secretary to lay down through legislation certain minimum requirements for police and crime panels, such as that there should be political balance and a proportion of independent members. That is why I very much warm to my noble friend’s amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the issue of substitutes. The problem is that the House has now decided, by voting, that the decision will not be that “of those present and voting”. However, the House has not solved the evident problem that, by making sure the veto can be used only in relation to the number of members, there are all sorts of reasons why it will be almost impossible ever to use it. One thinks of illness. I understand that there is no proposal for how to deal with that. What happens if the local authority is setting its own precept at the time that the panel meets and a member of the panel has to attend? In some areas, we are talking about a large number of local authorities. The idea that a noble Lord can come to the Dispatch Box and say, “Oh, but the meeting time with the PCP will be known and, therefore, no other authority will meet”, is unrealistic. In some areas, we will have a number of elected mayors—the Government are forcing referendums on 11 of the largest cities in England. Presumably, if the government amendment is passed, there will be elected mayors in other cities and boroughs who will already, and automatically, be members of the panel. You could have a situation whereby the attendance record at a meeting of the panel is quite low. It would, therefore, make it almost impossible for the veto to be exercised.
The Government and the House have now decided to reject a sensible amendment by which the veto requirement should be “of those present and voting”. I agree with the noble Lord that this matter has not satisfactorily been resolved. The Government will have to think about this matter between now and Third Reading, because this simply should not stand as it currently does in the Bill.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I must confess, for the first time in taking this Bill through the House, that I am genuinely disappointed, because in the government amendments in this group we have tried really hard to address concerns across the House that were raised in Committee about giving more flexibility to achieve balance on the panel. As we know from previous debates, that balance ranges across geography, politics, gender and ethnicity. Of course, among the group of people who the panel can co-opt it is sometimes necessary, because of local circumstances, to co-opt people with particular expertise in an area who will be a useful addition to the panel. By raising the threshold of the panel size to 20, I have gone far in excess of anything suggested in Committee in order to provide those additional co-opted places on the panel so that these matters can be addressed.
Let me establish for the record that paragraph 30(3) of Schedule 6 already places the same duty on a panel to ensure that it represents the political make-up of the force area. This, of course, achieves exactly the same political balance as the current police authority regulations do. Therefore, while there is more scope for these additional nominated or co-opted people to be invited to sit on the panel—there is nothing mandatory about this; the panel can decide whether or not it wishes to go up to that threshold of 20—we have retained political balance based on what already happens in police authorities. The noble Baroness mentioned the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to do that. I hope she will accept that we have not departed from that principle in the Bill.
However, I was particularly concerned that noble Lords, in speaking to their amendments, did not seem to be aware that it is not mandatory for co-opted members to come from local authorities. They can, if the panel so chooses, but they need not come from local authorities at all. Later, when I speak to my amendments, I will flesh out a little the fact that where the panel opts to co-opt more people on to the panel to achieve diversity, gender balance and ethnicity balance, the Secretary of State is required to approve these co-options because the panel will, in making that submission to the Secretary of State, be required to demonstrate why these particular people are being co-opted on to the panel. At that point, I would expect there to be a case for balance across a range of gender, ethnicity and expertise—whatever the thinking is behind the panel wanting to make these recommendations. The Secretary of State will then have the opportunity to see that the panel is not filling up those places just with chums—people of a like-minded persuasion or of the same political party. The Secretary of State will want it to be clearly demonstrated that the panel has seriously considered who it needs to add to give a balanced mix to enhance its functioning and to give fairness across the piece.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, perhaps the solution to that is that PCPs can also set out their own rules and practices for all other business and procedures under Part 4 of Schedule 6, at paragraph 24. There is sufficient flexibility already in the Bill, combined with raising the threshold to 20 members, that gives the panel the opportunity to get the right balance that this House has called for. I genuinely mean this.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The problem is that there is too much flexibility. The cases have been quoted to the Minister: there will be panels where the political parties in control of the councils will be almost all of one party. The Minister is saying that you can rely on the panel to which these people are appointed to then ensure greater impartiality. This is why we know it will not work. I have said again and again that the Minister will come back in a couple of years’ time with another Bill to put it right, because what she is in fact doing is leading not just to the politicisation of the police commissioner but also the panel, in a way that will be destructive because it does not guarantee either balance or having truly independent members on it.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, again I am very disappointed that the House is not able to identify the flexibility that the increase in the number on the panel offers. I want to make some progress now. I propose to place in the Library of the House as soon as possible—I hope within the next 48 hours—a comparison of the current system and the new system and how it will affect each police authority in the country. If noble Lords have a chance to analyse that, they will see that the flexibility is there. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that I am now creating too much flexibility in the Bill. The inference I have taken in previous discussions was that noble Lords wanted more prescription in the Bill and not flexibility. I believe that these matters are best decided at a local level, case by case, giving the power to the panel to decide what is needed. I am genuinely disappointed that that point of what I believe is a very generous amendment on the part of the Government has not been accepted.
Before I turn specifically to the amendments before us, my noble friend Lord Shipley mentioned deputies and how the panel conducts its business. We can consider the views that he has raised today as the Secretary of State has power in Schedule 5, set out by regulation, to see whether in regulation we can address the problem he has just identified. I will liaise with him on progress specifically on that matter.
Amendments 106, 116, 121, 123, 132A and 140 seek to vary the composition of the police and crime panel. Although I have heard the views put forward again today, I believe the series of government amendments that have been tabled will address many of the issues noble Lords have been concerned about, and I invite noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group not to press them.
Amendment 140, from my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, seeks to limit the Government’s power under paragraph 32 of Schedule 6 to make regulations applying local government legislation to police and crime panels. As I have said, we will take a look at what can be achieved in regulation but the amendment specifically would mean that the power could only be used to the extent necessary to apply the relevant legislation. I can reassure noble Lords that this power will not be used to a greater extent than is necessary. I will say more about it when I come to the Government’s amendments.
Government Amendments 120, 122, 124, 126 to 128, 130 to 132 and 134 to 137 seek to address, as I have mentioned, the composition of the police and crime panel. I thank—and they may be surprised to hear me say this—my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Hamwee and, if it is not going to ruin his reputation, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for their input. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, looks horrified. I have tried to listen, across the House, to the points that have been made. There have been some very good points made, particularly in Committee, and I have tried to incorporate them into the amendments I have tabled.
I fully recognise the need to ensure that the police and crime panels are able to represent geographically large and diverse communities. I also understand the significant challenges that local authorities face in achieving this under current provisions in the Bill. These provide for the inclusion of district councils, which previously have not been recognised in their own right, which reflects the Government’s localism agenda but leads to potential issues relating to proportionate representation.
Fundamentally, the Government still believe that the model set out for police and crime panels in the Bill is entirely appropriate and provides for a clear process and structure in establishing such panels. I believe we have created a structure that is sufficiently flexible to meet local structures while being the right size to avoid being expensive and a bureaucratic burden. However, the Government propose to allow areas to opt to increase their representation by co-opting additional members from local authorities—they do not have to come from local authorities—or independent members.
It is still important not to encourage oversized and unwieldy police and crime panels and it was for that reason that the cap was set at 20 members. For example, Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime panel will have 15 members under the provisions originally set out in the Bill; with these new provisions it will have an option to co-opt a further five members. This provision could therefore be used to enable the panel to reflect more directly the geographical representation of the force area. I remind noble Lords that in the Devon and Cornwall force area, Cornwall as a county is a unitary authority. However, we will not prescribe this; increasing co-option will be a local decision. The Secretary of State will retain a role in agreeing to any proposed increase in the number of co-optees, merely to ensure that local areas have considered all the issues arising from their decision, including other areas of balance.