Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

67: Clause 16, page 14, line 23, leave out “local policing bodies” and insert “Police and Crime Commissioners”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendment would ensure that persons representing the views of police and crime commissioners are included in the definition of “strategic partners” set out in Part 1. The definition refers to,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

Earlier in Part 1, a “policing body” is defined as including within its scope a police and crime commissioner. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the reference to “local policing bodies” in the definition of “strategic partners” also means local police and crime commissioners, or whether it means something different from the earlier definition of “policing body”—and if so, why.

It is important that police and crime commissioners are included as strategic partners. Under Clause 3, the Secretary of State is required in determining strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency to consult strategic partners. Bearing in mind that a police and crime commissioner will be responsible for issuing a police and crime plan and in so doing will have to have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued by the Secretary of State, it would seem odd if the Secretary of State were not required when determining his or her strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency to consult with persons representing the views of police and crime commissioners. Likewise, in preparing his or her annual plan, the director-general of the National Crime Agency must, under Clause 4 in Part 1, consult with the strategic partners. It would seem inappropriate if these partners did not include police and crime commissioners, bearing in mind that the annual plan sets out how the director-general intends that the National Crime Agency functions should be exercised. This could well have an impact on the functioning of local police forces, including whether that force is efficient and effective, which it is a statutory responsibility of a police and crime commissioner to secure.

We also learnt from the Minister last week in Committee that the unelected director-general of the National Crime Agency could direct a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to perform a task of unlimited magnitude, impact and scope specified in such a direction without having to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State or even having to consult the elected police and crime commissioner responsible for the force whose chief officer the director-general is ordering to take that particular course of action. That might be, for example, as the Minister told us,

“to take the lead to disrupt a human-trafficking gang that is predominantly based in that force area”.—[Official Report, 20/6/12; col. 1800.]

Potentially, that is hardly a minor task in terms of either time or resources.

On top of that, we were also told by the Minister that the unelected director-general of the National Crime Agency could direct a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to provide unlimited specified assistance to the National Crime Agency, also without having even to consult the elected police and crime commissioner responsible for that force—even though, as the Minister said, providing assistance involved transferring resources from the command of one force to another force or organisation.

To many people, that will seem an odd state of affairs, designed to marginalise the elected police and crime commissioner. If elected police and crime commissioners, now that we are going to have them, are not even one of the strategic partners to be consulted by the Secretary of State when determining strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency, or by the agency’s director-general when preparing the annual plan, then it would be further confirmation that police and crime commissioners are intended, in many ways, to be little more than figureheads—a situation and role that any self-respecting elected police and crime commissioner will, I am sure, be unwilling to accept. I move this amendment and await the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 68 in this group, and it is another amendment to the definition of “strategic partners”. The relevance of strategic partners is their role as consultees of the Secretary of State when she determines the strategic priorities for the NCA. We are all familiar with the scope and importance of the NCA’s functions. My amendment would add to the list of strategic partners the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. There was a time when a fiction was maintained about the existence or otherwise of at least one of these organisations but I think that we have moved beyond that. It seems to me unthinkable that the Secretary of State, given the subject matter of consultation on strategic priorities, would not consult those agencies.

Last week, on Second Reading of the Justice and Security Bill, I commented on how the priorities and concerns of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which is embedded in the Home Office, seem to have affected—I am not making a judgment on this—all the Home Office’s thinking. As I say, I simply cannot believe that these services and agencies would be omitted in such a consultation. If it is not the case, then why not say so? If it is, then why is it?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I hope that I can deal with both amendments relatively briefly. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the list of the NCA’s strategic partners currently includes, as he said,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

We have used those terms because local policing bodies include not only the PCCs but two others—the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and the Common Council of the City of London, which acts as the police authority for the City of London police area. For that reason, the noble Lord’s amendment is completely unnecessary in that the provision achieves everything he seeks. Having said that, I accept what he says about the necessity of discussing all these matters with the people he was concerned about. Just to put him at ease, the term “local policing bodies” covers them all.

I turn now to my noble friend’s amendment, Amendment 68. I think she said that there was a time when a fiction was maintained that the intelligence and security agencies did not exist. We now acknowledge that they do exist and we accept that the functions and responsibilities of these agencies go much wider than purely crime reduction and criminal intelligence. They have a limited statutory function in relation to serious crime because that is not their primary focus and they are therefore not included in the list of partners that the Home Secretary or the director-general must consult—it is the word “must” that I stress to my noble friend on this occasion—when setting strategic priorities in drawing up annual plans. However, I can give her an assurance that the security and intelligence agencies will have an important relationship with the NCA. Provisions in the Bill allow the Home Secretary and the director-general to consult them when it is appropriate to do so. What we think is not appropriate is the use of the word “must” here, and that is why we have not included the agencies in the list set out in the interpretation clause, Clause 16.

I hope that that explanation is sufficient for my noble friend, and that the explanation I gave with regard to Amendment 67 is sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply and for confirming that the reference to local policing bodies includes a police and crime commissioner. I think he also said that the provision has been written in this way—namely with a reference to local policing bodies—because, as well as a police and crime commissioner, it also includes the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London. That rather begs the question of why earlier in the clause, where a “policing body” is also defined, it states that it means a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London. When we look down the same page to the “strategic partners”, why does the clause not make it equally clear by simply repeating that they include a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London, instead of describing them as “local policing bodies”? Alternatively, if the phrase “local policing body” is satisfactory, why in the reference earlier on the page to “policing body” does it not simply say, instead of setting out the first three categories, “local policing bodies”?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am not a parliamentary draftsman—I do not think that I ever will be, and I am simple in terms of my understanding of the law. But even I, and I dare say the noble Lord, can probably grasp this one little point. If he looks up to line 4 on page 14 he will see that the meaning of “policing body” is set out in paragraphs (a) to (c):

“(a) a police and crime commissioner;

“(b) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”

“(c) the Common Council of the City of London as police authority for the City of London police area”.

Later the meanings under “strategic partners” are set out, with paragraph (c) stating,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

The local policing bodies go back to “policing body” at that point. It does not take much understanding of drafting—I appreciate that I am not a draftsman—to understand that what is included in the first bit, “policing body”, must be included under “strategic partners”.

[Lord Rosser]

The only comment I would make in response to the noble Lord—like him, I have no great wish to prolong this matter—is that since the first reference is to “policing body” and the second is to “local policing bodies”, one might be entitled to ask, what is the difference between the two? Is there a subtle difference or not? Why is it not simply described again as “policing bodies” when it comes to the definition under “strategic partners”?

[Lord Henley]

I think that the noble Lord is protesting too much, but I will consult those who advise me on drafting matters and ask them whether they can give me a good explanation. I think that “policing bodies” must include “local policing bodies”, so there is no problem. The noble Lord is looking for conspiracies here, I suspect, but there is no conspiracy—it is straightforward, I can assure him of that. We are including the PCCs and the other two that I mentioned.

[Lord Rosser]

I assure the noble Lord that I do not think that there is a conspiracy. He has made it clear what the reference to local policing bodies covers and that is now in Hansard for the record. I do not believe in any conspiracy theory. However, I would certainly be interested to know, if he would write to me, why it is described as “policing body” in one place, with a definition, while a bit further down—under strategic partners—rather than repeating it as “policing body”, it says “local policing body”. One might wonder, why the difference? The Minister has said that he will look at it and write to me and I am extremely grateful for that. No, I do not believe there is a conspiracy, because the Minister has made it clear that police and crime commissioners are included in the reference to local policing bodies. This amendment sought to ensure that that was the case and in the light of the Minister’s response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, it has been a long time since we last discussed these matters in Committee. Perhaps I may be forgiven for forgetting that I had added my name to that of my noble friend Lord Whitty on one of the amendments that we are now considering—Amendment 85. Since I did so, I cannot see any great reason to be in favour of one amendment but not the others. I am particularly glad to see Amendment 113 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. Surely it is essential that the Minister, when making an order under these provisions, should give the reasoning behind the change of status—the transfer or modification—from one to another. Surely one wants a ministerial explanation.

I have, however, come to doubt—this is really a question to my noble friend Lord Whitty—the need for the first five of his amendments, including the one that he is moving. He asks that, in relation to orders to transfer the functions of one body to another, or to modify a body’s functions, the Minister should pay attention to Clause 8. However, Clause 8 itself says:

“In considering whether to make an order … the Minister must”—

I emphasise—

“have regard to the following objectives”,

which include efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. I do not disagree with the point just made by my noble friend Lady Hayter, but I ask the mover of the amendment to clarify why he wants to insert certain phrases that seem to indicate simply that the Minister must consider matters referred to in Clause 8, when that is what Clause 8 itself says.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, hope that the Minister will welcome this group of amendments. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, they are helpful amendments, which do not seek to change, amend or delete any body or group of bodies listed under Schedules 1 to 6. The amendments simply require the Minister concerned to lay before both Houses of Parliament, for debate and approval, a report setting out the Government’s reasons for changing the status of any body or group of bodies listed in the schedules before making the order enabling that change in status to be implemented, with a few exceptions where primary legislation will still be needed. Orders can be only accepted or rejected but not amended, and the Government will seek to push them through considerably more rapidly and with considerably less debate than would apply had the change in status been made through primary legislation.

The amendments of my noble friend Lord Whitty will enable a somewhat fuller discussion to take place. They will also enable Members of both Houses, as well as the public and interested parties, to comment and express their support, opposition or reservations over what the Government propose for the body or group of bodies in question in a proper and open public debate before the Government make a final decision on whether to proceed with the order and its detailed provisions. Such a development would at least begin to address the democratic deficit that the Government are fostering through the absence of any pre-legislative scrutiny, followed by seeking to change or abolish by statutory instrument bodies with important roles, which were in many cases set up by Acts of Parliament.

There would also be another advantage in that it would enable the Government to reflect further on their proposals and intentions on which bodies, or groups of bodies, should have their role and status changed or abolished. It is already clear that this Bill was cobbled together in a great hurry, which is why there has been so much backtracking, albeit welcome backtracking. This has not happened because this is a listening and open Government but rather because this is a Government who seem to think that instant decision-making is the same thing as effective decision-making.

The requirement under these amendments for a report to be made to both Houses that would have to be debated and approved would encourage the Government to think carefully about the necessity and justification of what they are proposing, and would ensure that the implications have been properly thought through and addressed and that the proposals have been subject to challenge and scrutiny in a way that would never be achieved through the laying of a statutory instrument. A statutory instrument is not meant to be the way of implementing what in many cases will be significant change but rather constitutes the detailed implementation of a change which has already been the subject of properly parliamentary scrutiny and debate. That proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate is not happening under the terms of this sweeping Bill, with Ministers all too often simply hoping to get away with saying that the full case for what they are proposing, the implications of their proposals and how it is intended to implement the changes, as well as the details, will have to await the statutory instrument.

I am sure the Minister knows that the Bill has been rushed and is ill thought out and that proper, pre-legislative scrutiny, for a start, would have been beneficial to all concerned, not least to the Government themselves. The usual excuse for the rush—namely, to make quick savings to reflect the Government’s exaggerated claims about the financial situation—was not given because the Government are unable to provide costed figures on savings that might result from the Bill, or even costed figures showing that there will be any savings at all. I hope that the Minister will now accept these amendments and show that the Government’s repeated words about openness and transparency are not simply smooth and meaningless platitudes.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I hope that I might, without abusing the rules of Committee stage, make a brief further intervention as I had not anticipated the thrust of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on her Amendment 107, for which I apologise. It may be helpful to the Minister if I give him notice of this. As I understood it, the noble Baroness was complaining that the provision in Clause 8 about efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability was not sufficient. I hope that my Amendment 106A focuses on that point at least as clearly by saying that one should also take into account,

“fairness, openness, transparency and justice”.

I would like to see some values incorporated into what the Government have to take account of in these matters. Even if my noble friend cannot give me an assurance on that today, I hope that he will reflect on it.

When I made a somewhat similar point to the previous Government, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, immediately took the point and brought forward an amendment to introduce values in a similar context into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Therefore, I hope that that precedent will carry some weight, whether today or in the future.