Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the impact assessment said originally that the cost of elections was £50 million. He will also know that the Prime Minister told us, and he has confirmed, that additional costs for the one-off election were another £25 million. Will he also confirm that the impact assessment contains £37 million of transition costs to the new arrangements, which do take the figure to over £100 million?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I do not accept what the Opposition have constantly been saying, which is that the overall cost of this reform is over £100 million. That is based on a figure that the Association of Police Authorities has been using, where it appears that it has been counting two elections into the cost. I go back to the point that I have made: the only additional, ongoing cost in relation to this reform is the cost of holding elections. It is a very bad argument to suggest that a democratic reform should not go ahead simply because elections will cost money, and it is not an argument that Labour Members were willing to use in the past when they supported all sorts of proposals for elections, including in relation to the Mayor of London.

I now give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been very patient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are putting in place very strong accountability arrangements, but also checks and balances and transparency. That will ensure the visibility of decisions when they are taken. Panels of locally elected members will be able to hold the commissioner to account and to scrutinise the decisions that are made. All of that will be done in full view of the public, in a way that the current proceedings of police authorities simply are not.

I am afraid that I must briefly detain the House on other formal matters before us. In lieu of the Lords amendments, I shall move a Government amendment to re-establish the Secretary of State’s power to issue a financial management code of practice for police and crime commissioners. A code of practice is currently issued to police authorities, which are required to have regard to it in the discharge of their financial functions. This enables the Home Office accounting officer to assure Parliament that funds given to the Department are used appropriately.

The Bill repeals the general power to issue codes of practice to police authorities under which the existing financial management code was issued. To ensure that we adhere to the principles of financial regularity, propriety and value for money, we propose that the Bill be amended to retain the power to issue codes of practice, but to restrict it to codes relating to financial matters only. The code will set out to PCCs and chief constables how they are expected to conduct the financial management within their force area and ensure good governance of public funds, the majority of which fall within the ambit of the vote from this place. It will be the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the code is fit for purpose and that it enables a PCC to set a budget that is responsible and, crucially, responds to the needs of their local communities and priorities. As such, I cannot agree with the Opposition amendments.

Government amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 1 to 4 and of Lords amendment 6 will move back the date of PCC elections by six months, from May 2012 to November 2012, to allow more time to ensure that all the necessary preparations are in place. That will give good quality candidates, including—I hope—independents, the time to come forward, plan and campaign. PCCs will still be able to lead the strategic planning for 2013-14, as originally proposed—that was the point I made to the hon. Member for Rhondda. Thereafter, elections will revert to May every four years. Reform in London can still take place early because the Mayor is already in place.

In respect of the amendment giving the Welsh Assembly the power to set the first election date in Wales, the Government have placed on the record, in this House and another place, the efforts and negotiations in which I took part and which we undertook with the Welsh Government in order that the National Assembly for Wales could play a stronger role within policing governance in Wales. We have made it clear that we cannot legislate potential to provide two different systems of governance within England and Wales. Moreover, we cannot withhold from the people of Wales the necessary reform that will give them a stronger voice and visible accountability for how policing is delivered within their four police force areas by delaying the implementation of these reforms until the National Assembly sees fit. As the House knows—and, indeed, has determined through statute—policing remains a reserved matter and therefore the House shall decide when and how policing governance will be delivered. That said, we hope soon to restart constructive discussions with the Welsh Government so that they can consider positively how to work in partnership with both PCCs and police and crime panels.

In conclusion, these reforms are essential to address the 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. There will be benefits all round. Chief constables will be liberated from targets and central direction so that they can be crime fighters. Police officers will benefit from a less bureaucratic system in which discretion is restored and someone close to their force 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 first time. The taxpayer will see better value for value 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. PCCs will have the mandate and the moral authority to reflect public concern about crime.

In the end, the House has a choice. The shadow Home Secretary repeatedly described elected police commissioners as a “US-style reform”. It is striking that Labour seems to think that democratic election and accountability are un-British. The Government trust the people to elect representatives to make the right decisions and to kick them out if they do not. It is strange that so many democrats are so wary of democracy. I believe that we can and should trust the people.

[Vernon Coaker]

With the indulgence of the House, let me start by endorsing the comments that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee made in welcoming the Minister back to full health. I know that the Minister has not been too well, and we missed him on the TV over the summer. In all sincerity, I am pleased that he is back and functioning well.

However, I do not intend to let my feelings of good will towards the Minister prevent me from saying that for a moment at the end of his speech it was like being in church—the “Hallelujah Chorus” was all that was needed to illustrate the promised land to which the Minister believes he is taking us. However, let us be clear about this: what we are doing is quite extraordinary. We are not just repairing a bit of damage or tweaking that the Lords have done; what the Minister is having to do—and in a way that is hugely embarrassing for the Government—is reinsert in the Bill the whole concept of police and crime commissioners. In other words, he is having to reinsert the absolutely fundamental principle of the Bill.

However, one would not have known that from what the Minister said, which was that what we are doing today is nothing more than a tidying-up exercise—a bit of tweaking that the Government have found it necessary to do to ensure that the Lords did not inadvertently cause a problem that they had not intended. However, let us be clear: the Lords absolutely wanted to create a problem for the Government on this issue. What they were saying was that, unlike the Government, they recognise that the proposal has absolutely no support in the country. The only people who support the policy are the Minister, a few of his friends, a couple of people at No. 10 Downing street, a few Back Benchers, a couple of think-tanks and the whipped masses, who we will no doubt see later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I stand by the figure of £37 million, which, from memory, some external consultants came up with. Of course the Minister will disagree with many of the estimates that have been made of the costs, because they show that the reforms will cost quite a lot.

[Nick Herbert]

The hon. Gentleman really must do better than that; he has been a policing Minister, as I now am. As far as I am aware, those consultants were commissioned by the Association of Police Authorities. They made a number of assumptions, including about the additional use of Home Office official time, and those assumptions are wrong. The figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman are the official figures produced by the Government, and it is our formal view—I am basing this on the advice that I am given by officials—that the estimate of the transition costs made by the Association of Police Authorities is wrong; I want to say that again.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of November elections. I am advised that, in the dim and distant past, elections have been held in this country in November and, in the more recent though still fairly distant past, in October. It is of course the case that the presidential elections in the United States are routinely held in November. The next such elections will be held in November next year. Indeed, it was thought possible at one time that the former leader of the Labour party and former Prime Minister was going to call an election in 2007. Presumably, that would have been held in late October or early November, but the right hon. Gentleman chickened out, as we all remember. So November elections are not such an unusual proposition.

I would like to pick up on something that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said when he challenged my use of the term “middle office”. He said that I had just invented it, but in so doing, he betrayed his lack of knowledge on these issues, and the fact that he has not read Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s report, in which the inspectorate helpfully offers a definition of the front line. Indeed, “middle office” is a standard term in policing; it is one that the inspectorate uses. It denotes functions that are not directly public facing but nevertheless involve fighting crime.

I want to return to an important point that I made during questions earlier. A very considerable amount of police resource, and a third of all human resources, are not on the front line. That is what the inspectorate’s report said, and it is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not read it; otherwise, he would not have been so astonished at the term “middle office”. Hon. Members should read that report. If they did so, they would see the inspectorate’s assessment of the number of officers in the back and middle office—the figure is well over 20,000—and of the way in which chief constables should consider whether those officers are in appropriate roles. As the Opposition are making a great deal of the fact that 16,000 police officers must be lost, it behoves them to look more carefully at where police officers are actually employed. There is no need for the front line to be damaged, provided that the right decisions are taken and that policing is made more efficient and transformed in the right way.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) paid tribute to the role of our police officers in dealing with the riots, and it was remiss of me not to have done so earlier, because that was the first opportunity that I have had to do so in the House. I certainly join him in paying tribute to everything that those officers did to protect the public and property, and to everything that they went through. I remind the House that a considerable number of officers were injured during that period. In my view, it is right that the justice system operated swiftly in order to deal with the perpetrators.

In the three minutes remaining to me, I should like to comment on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) on the relationship between Cardiff and London and the significance of the reforms in Wales. I have been engaged in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government, and specifically with Carl Thomas—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that were proposals brought forward that did not give that proper, balanced county representation on the panel, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be happy with those proposals. It is quite clear that Parliament’s intention in promoting these amendments is to ensure a proper geographical balance. The changes are being made precisely and explicitly because there are situations in unitary authorities where that would not be achieved. If there were any attempt to subvert that by nominating members in a way that did not reflect the proper geographical balance, my right hon. Friend would not feel able to approve such a scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by those comments, but the Government stand ready to meet her and other Members of Parliament from Cornwall, and the leader of Cornwall council if that is appropriate and he wishes it, to reassure them. Had the Bill not been amended, I would have fully understood the depth of their concerns, but I believe that the amendments address them.

On the Opposition’s amendments about the appointment and dismissal of chief officers, I have explained the changes that we have made and proposed on this issue. Important safeguards are being put in place and will be put in place through regulations. The Opposition suggest that even though the panel will already be required to scrutinise the proposed dismissal of a chief constable and even though the police and crime commissioner will be required to consider the panel’s recommendation, the panel should also be able to block the dismissal. I understand that that would be the force of their amendments, but that would give the police and crime panel the power to act as judge and jury on the police and crime commissioner’s electoral mandate to set the direction of the force and to hold the chief constable to account. It would also circumvent the governance structure of the chief constable, who is accountable to the police and crime commissioner, not to the panel. In establishing police and crime commissioners, we are giving the public a strong and powerful elected representative to hold their chief constable to account. Ultimately they should be able to appoint and dismiss that chief constable, subject—in relation to dismissal—to the proper safeguards. That power is available to police authorities. It is fundamental to the reform.

I repeat that chief constables should not be appointed or removed on a whim or for improper reasons. Police and crime commissioners must take these decisions fairly and reasonably. The amendments are not the right way forward. It would create an impossible situation if, in effect, a police and crime panel were able to veto the dismissal of a chief constable who would otherwise be properly dismissed under the arrangements that we are putting in place, as well as under the existing arrangements. That would produce an impasse. No doubt the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) tabled some of the amendments in order to probe the safeguards. I fully respect that, but I hope that on reflection he will recognise that the amendment goes too far and the Government would have to resist it.

The changes that we have made will all help to bring about the much-needed democratic accountability to the public, while ensuring that the strict checks and balances that we were committed to introducing are in place, and that concerns about operational independence have been fully addressed. I am grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill in another place, which enabled us to secure a number of important amendments. I commend to the House our amendments and the approach that I have set out.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is fair to say that a number of the amendments that the Government have accepted improve the Bill. The Minister was right to point out some of them. I was particularly pleased to see Lords amendments 5 and 7, which place a duty on the police and crime commissioner with respect to the well-being and the safeguarding of children, a topic that we raised in Committee. Those are important amendments with which we would all agree, and I am glad the Government have accepted them. Many of the other amendments have improved the Bill, given that following the Division earlier the Bill is going through with provisions in place for the appointment of police and crime commissioners.

As a result of the Lords amendments, there is now a requirement for elected mayors automatically to be members of the police and crime panel. I gently point out to the Minister that it will be interesting to see the clash of mandates that may occur when the mayor is elected on one crime mandate and the police and crime commissioner on another.

I shall not detain the House. As I said, I accept that many of the amendments mentioned by the Minister improve the Bill. I do not want to intrude on the private grief of Devon and Cornwall. I can only imagine the private meetings and surreptitious phone calls, amendments tabled and withdrawn, reassurances given about meetings, and so on.

Amendment 98 and the amendments in lieu that I tabled would give police and crime panels the power to veto the dismissal of a chief constable. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister does not want at least some sort of power to be made available to either the Home Secretary through HMIC, or the police and crime panels, whereby the dismissal of a chief constable can be vetoed.

To be fair to the Minister, the Government have rightly changed the majority required to veto an appointment from three quarters to two thirds, showing that they have listened in that respect, but why do they regard the dismissal of a chief constable to be different from the appointment? A police and crime panel can veto an appointment or a precept with a two-thirds majority. The Minister questions why we would want to fetter or in any way circumvent the power of a democratically elected individual when it comes to dismissal, yet they have done that with appointment and precept. The logic seems to be that if that is wrong for dismissal, we would not have it for appointment or precepts either. I say to the Minister that I honestly believe that this is a significant and serious flaw. Indeed, I think that it is a dangerous flaw.

The Government have included the protocol, which must be agreed by affirmative resolution of both Houses, in the Bill, but we can imagine a locally elected politician with sole responsibility for the police in their area believing that they should be able to do certain things or require the chief constable to do certain things. The chief constable could say, “No you can’t, because that breaks the protocol”. The Minister ought to tell us what would happen in those circumstances. Where there is such a conflict, what will happen if the chief constable says, “I’m not doing that because it’s contrary to the protocol”?

Even if there is a legal means by which the chief constable could try to resist such pressure, each and every hon. Member present can imagine the emotional pressure and the strain on normal human relationships that would result from knowing that, unless they conformed to what the police and crime commissioner was asking, they could be sacked. Who prevents the police and crime commissioner from doing that? The Minister says that it is okay because the Government have amended the Bill so that the chief constable can now go to the police and crime panel and make representations. What use is that?

The police and crime panel, having heard those representations and listened to the chief constable say, “I am being treated unfairly and required to do things that are inconsistent with my view of how I should conduct policing in this area,” may actually agree, but ultimately it can do nothing. The police and crime panel can say to the chief constable, “We absolutely agree with you. The police and crime commissioner is acting unreasonably and has it wrong.” What can it do? The answer is nothing. It can veto an appointment, as I have said, but it cannot veto a dismissal. What sort of framework is that for the Government to set up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

We have had a good debate and a rather more technical one on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) began by setting out the reasons for his amendment that was intended to achieve a veto over the dismissal of chief constables on the part of the panel. I addressed the issue when I first spoke to this group, so I shall not detain the House by repeating all those arguments, except to say that I think there is a distinction between the area of the appointment of the chief constable and that of dismissal.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is process around dismissal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) pointed out very well. We are introducing further safeguards in regulations, and we have given a stronger role to the inspectorate of constabulary. The exercise of the power of dismissal is not untrammelled: proper safeguards are in place. However, giving a panel of appointees the power of veto over a dismissal that would be merited under the existing arrangements and through proper process, and allowing them to insist that the chief constable remain in office when the police and crime commissioner legitimately wished that chief constable removed, would be a recipe for complete deadlock in local policing. That is one reason why it would be inappropriate to extend the veto in that regard. I fear that we will simply disagree on the matter, but I agree about the principle that there should be proper process around dismissal.

[Vernon Coaker]

Should the Government find out that there was a problem with the process in due course, would primary legislation be required to change it, or could it be changed through an order-making power or a process other than primary legislation?

[Nick Herbert]

We are putting in place regulations in relation to the procedures for when a police and crime commissioner wishes to dismiss a chief constable. We are discussing that with the Police Advisory Board. There is an order-making power.

[Vernon Coaker]

Is the Minister saying that, if the Government were to decide in due course that a veto power with respect to dismissal was appropriate, primary legislation would not be required to introduce it?

[Nick Herbert]

To clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman, the procedures do not extend to the power of the panel. If we wanted to give the panel the power of a veto, that would have to be determined by primary legislation. The matter must, therefore, be settled now. I have set out the Government’s case fully, but it seems that he disagrees with us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

The hon. Gentleman should know that, in police forces generally, a third of human resources are not on the front line. Well over 20,000 police officers are in back and middle-office positions, with a higher than average proportion of them in the West Midlands constabulary. It should be possible to drive savings while still protecting the front line. That is what we ask and expect chief constables to do.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Given the Minister’s numbering problems at the outset of these questions, he probably now recognises the importance of having a good back office.

I have read again a copy of the HMIC report, “Demanding Times”, which was published in June 2011. He will know that a table on page 4 states that only 5% of police officers and PCSOs perform back-office functions, many of them necessary. With more than 16,000 police officers to be cut during the next few years of the spending review, does this not show what we already know—that there is and will be an impact on the front line from these cuts, with the loss of uniformed and neighbourhood officers and detectives?

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

The Minister is providing helpful clarity in responding to what the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and I said. Without having the legal support that the Minister does, it was not immediately obvious to me that that was the case, and I was worried about it. His reply will give a sense of relief to all sane people throughout the country.

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, although I did it almost all on my own without the legal support that he claims. Nevertheless, that is the effect of the Bill, and that is important because it means that there is no doubt about the matter. Any claim based on what the High Court has said since the May judgment would not succeed because Parliament is stating clearly that the original understanding of the legislation should apply. I am happy to put on record that the Government’s, and I believe Parliament’s, intention is not to allow compensation claims that may have arisen as a consequence of this judgment. It is expressly our desire to prevent such claims, which would be improper and unwarranted in the circumstances.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked me a specific question about the Home Office’s preparedness for legislation—that is, did we prepare on a contingency basis before ACPO came to us with its formal request on the necessity for emergency legislation? ACPO presented its case to me on the morning of Thursday 30 June, and I made my oral statement less than two hours later. The Home Office had already studied the judgment, considered possible legislative vehicles, and prepared instructions to parliamentary counsel that were sent on the same day in time for a first draft of the legislation to be received later that day. We acted explicitly and swiftly. Of course, the drafting was not complicated because this is a straightforward Bill that simply restores the status quo ante.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was merely our aim that the Bill should receive Royal Assent next Tuesday or whether it would receive Royal Assent next Tuesday. Of course, that is a matter for the other place, but it is very much our hope and expectation that we will have Royal Assent on 19 May once the other place has considered the Bill. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I should have said 19 July. There is always a danger in reading things without my glasses. As I have said, the Bill will take effect once Royal Assent is received. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

This is a hugely important issue not only for the police but for the confidence of the public in ensuring that we are doing as much as we can, as swiftly as we can, to protect them from the people they need protecting from. Notwithstanding our difference about the delay, it was helpful for the Minister to clarify some of those specific points, and I thank him for that.

[Nick Herbert]

For the record, may I correct what I said about when the Bill will receive Royal Assent? I should have said 12 July, not 19 July. That was written in larger writing, but I could not see it.

[Vernon Coaker]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister absolutely certain that he has got it right this time?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Let me put this in context. I understand that some 130 of some 2,500 officers in the force may be retired under this provision. The independent Winsor review of pay and conditions recommended that this procedure should continue to be available to chief officers.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Approximately 2,000 police officers across the country with more than 30 years’ experience are being forced to retire under regulation A19 because of the 20% front-loaded cuts imposed by the Government. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, these include front-line beat officers, response officers, detectives and firearms specialists, although some, as we know, have been asked to return as volunteers. I want to ask the Minister a specific question: has he carried out an assessment of the cost implications for the Home Office, along with any other associated costs, of forcibly retiring these 2,000 experienced officers? Did any such assessment show that the cuts really were in the interests of the taxpayer?

[Nick Herbert]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that these decisions are made by chief constables in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. This is a procedure that the previous Government chose not to change. The fact is that the total number of officers retiring with more than 30 years’ service who might be eligible for this procedure is about 3,000 of a total 140,000 officers. The question that the Labour party simply cannot answer is how it would have achieved the savings of more than £1 billion a year, which are the cuts it says it would have imposed on the British police.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a genuine point. There are two answers. First, I have said that the Government wish to move sooner in relation to London. The transition in London could therefore be made before the elections in 2012. Secondly, the measures relate to a change in the governance of policing. The Bill will not affect the police forces themselves. There are important changes being made, but this is principally a change to the governance of policing. There should be proper discussion, to ensure that in the run-up to the transition the police authorities do not lose sight of such important matters and that the forces that they hold to account do not do so either.

The remaining group of Government amendments will not, I hope, be controversial. They are all of a minor and technical nature, and I will summarise them briefly now. Amendments 6 and 8 will clarify the wording of the Bill so that a commissioner—or, in London, the Mayor’s office for policing and crime—will be obliged to consult a chief officer of a force on a new or revised plan only to the extent that its content is actually new. At present, the wording of the Bill includes two repetitious obligations to consult on the plan—for example, in clause 5, subsections (6)(b) and (8). It would make no sense legally to compel such individuals to consult again on material that had already been discussed. I would expect such discussion to occur naturally and when necessary between a commissioner and his chief officer, so this new wording merely puts a duty on the commissioner to ensure that new content is drawn to the chief constable’s attention. Any more burdensome requirements would be needlessly bureaucratic and prescriptive.

Amendment 9 will bring the police and crime plan issued by the Mayor’s office for policing and crime into line with other mayoral strategies, in regard to some of the matters that the Mayor has to bear in mind when drafting the plan. It is right that there should be a consistent and joined-up approach to the plan and the other strategies. Amendment 10 will clarify the scope of the duty on commissioners and criminal justice bodies to co-operate with each other. On the purpose of the co-operation, it replaces the word “in” with the word “for” in the phrase

“so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system in the police area”

in relation to a commissioner’s responsibilities for criminal justice “for their force area”. This reflects the fact that elements of the system such as a court or a prison that are outside the geographical area of the force may still contribute to the criminal justice system inside the area.

Amendment 12 makes it clear that the general bar on a commissioner delegating the discharge of his functions to another commissioner or a chief constable does not prevent the delegation of functions in the context of a formal collaboration agreement. Amendment 13 will correct a reference to the wrong subsection in the provisions dealing with the delegation of the functions of the Mayor’s office for policing and crime to the Deputy Mayor for policing and crime.

Amendment 14 will correct an internal inconsistency in clause 30, which deals with the suspension of a commissioner. We noted the inconsistency in Committee. Clause 30(1) makes it clear that the threshold for suspension is that the commissioner has been charged with an offence carrying a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding two years, but clause 30(4) incorrectly refers to the limit as a maximum sentence of two years or more. The amendment ensures that those references are consistent. I have noted the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for a better way to proceed on suspensions. We had a debate about that in Committee, and I suspect that the other place will return to the matter. The Government will pay attention to the concerns that are expressed. However, we are clear that the current threshold is proportionate, striking the correct balance between protecting the public from criminals and not suspending the public’s representative for trivial offences.

Amendment 15 will correct an inconsistent use of language in the amendments that the Bill makes to the Police Act 1996, reflecting the fact that a commissioner will have the same function of maintaining the police force in his police area as a police authority has now under the 1996 Act. Amendment 20 will ensure that, while members of a commissioner’s staff may be compelled to answer questions and provide documents to a police and crime panel, they will not be required to divulge advice that may have been provided to the police and crime commissioner. That brings the provisions on commissioners into line with the existing arrangements for the Mayor of London, which we are retaining while replacing the Metropolitan Police Authority with the Mayor’s office for policing and crime. Not doing so would weaken a commissioner’s decision making power, as all discussions could potentially be subjected to criticism, which would discourage the free and frank flow of ideas.

I apologise to the House for going into such detail, but I think that it is important to give the public clarity on the amendments. Amendments 31, 32, 38 and 39 concern the appointment of a commissioner’s chief executive. The current wording refers to a “qualified” person. However, the Bill does not impose any qualifications in respect of candidates for appointment as chief executive—in contrast to the position of the chief finance officer, who must be financially qualified in accordance with local government legislation—so there is no need to include the word “qualified”.

Amendments 33 and 40 correct a drafting error in which references to the chief constable in amendment 33 and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in amendment 40 should have been references to the police and crime commissioner and the Mayor’s office for policing and crime, respectively. Amendments 34 to 37 and 135 to 138 are included to make references to police staff consistent with the rest of the Bill, which refers to them as “police civilian staff”. Amendment 42 is included simply to clarify the Bill. In its present wording, it is unclear what paragraph (2)5 of schedule 7 is referring to when it uses the phrase “for these purposes”. The amendment makes it clear that this means the purposes of sub-paragraph 6.

Amendment 50 will correct a minor drafting error in relation to the replacement of the strategic policing priorities with the Home Secretary’s new strategic policing requirement. It amends the section of the Police Act 1996 that deals with policing objectives, which in future will apply only to the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority, with the effect that the Common Council will frame its objectives so as to be consistent with the strategic policing requirement, rather than strategic priorities. This will bring the Common Council into line with other policing bodies. It was our intention to achieve that outcome, but the Bill as drafted did not do so.

Finally, amendment 51 changes a reference to “authorities” in respect of arrangements for the police negotiating board to “persons and bodies”. This is simply to reflect the fact that police and crime commissioners are replacing the word “authorities” and it will no longer be applicable in this context.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thought the ending of that was brilliant.

Let me say in all seriousness to the Minister that he is introducing a change to the model of policing in this country—the biggest change for centuries—without one shred of evidence that it is the right thing to do. In his response, we heard not one study cited, not one chief police officer quoted, not one police authority quoted, not one council quoted—as I say, not one shred of evidence in support. All the Minister did was repeat what he has done before—stand at the Dispatch Box and assert that he knows best. He accuses me of elitism, but I can see where the elitism lies when it comes to someone saying that they know best. This is no way to reform the police service; it should be done on the basis of evidence.

I have a couple of quick points. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that Governments sometimes need to pause and look at what they are doing. That is the purpose of the new clause. It invites us to reflect on the evidence and on what people are saying and then to legislate and reform on the basis of that evidence, not ideological commitment. My right hon. Friend may well think that there is an alternative to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary when it comes to who is best placed to carry out the report. Perhaps his Select Committee or other bodies should be involved, but it does not alter the fact that, as he says, we sometimes need to take stock and reflect on how best to move forward and make change.

I also want to deal with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). When the hon. Gentleman goes back to his constituency, he should tell the people he has been talking to in his local authority and others that, as my right hon. Friend said, proposals in the Bill mean that if local authorities do not nominate members for the police and crime panels, the Home Secretary will take upon herself the power to impose individuals on those panels. That is why my right hon. Friend and others from Wales are so upset by the proposals, which effectively drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. Yes, police and crime commissioners are a reserved matter, but local authorities are a responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. That explains why there is such upset and disquiet about the proposals in Wales.

This is a hugely important issue. As I said, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Local Government Association, council after council and ordinary police officer after ordinary police officer all oppose this measure. We have heard not a shred of evidence from the Government. That is why we say there should be an inquiry so that we can take stock, reflect and reform on the basis of evidence, not ideology. I therefore press the new clause to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

First, the Association of Police Authorities is certainly involved in the drafting; it is part of the group discussing the matter. I agree that negotiations must reflect the tripartite system, and I want to reassure my hon. Friend about that. As to supplying the draft to the Home Affairs Committee, I am happy to agree. Furthermore, if my hon. Friend would like to meet me and officials to discuss it further, I think it would assist our deliberations. I would like to organise that as soon as possible, bearing in mind the considerable experience that my hon. Friend brings as a member of a police authority with a particular view.

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s purpose in proposing amendment 149, according to which

“the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement”

in deciding whether a person is investigated or directed. In fact, that is the existing common law principle and the courts have consistently stated that the Executive must not interfere in operational law enforcement decisions, so there is no need for that to be written expressly in the Bill.

I hope that the hon. Member for Gedling will accept the good faith with which I agreed with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I hope he will acknowledge that I have listened to the Association of Chief Police Officers and others who have expressed concern about operational independence; restated that we do not seek to cut across that principle; and confirmed that we will bring the draft document before Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. I appreciate that he would have liked to see it sooner, but I hope he acknowledges the very considerable steps we have taken in this regard.

[Vernon Coaker]

Before I comment on the Minister’s remarks, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his support on the issue of the necessity for this memorandum of understanding. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) commented on what was said by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)—that there was an expectation of no involvement. That is part of the problem. The Minister is right to say that the common law position precludes interference, but I am trying to deal with what will happen when the new model comes into effect, particularly the concern that it will change the parameters within which the policing model works.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 13 December 2010 (Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It would be churlish not to recognise the fact that the Government have provided an additional day’s debate. We are grateful for that. Notwithstanding the time we have, the problem is that the Bill raises so many issues that lack clarity, but no doubt we will debate them this afternoon. As I have said, however, we are grateful for the additional day, and it would be churlish not to recognise that fact.

Question put and agreed to.

Police Funding

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

indicated dissent.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Minister will hide behind local precepting and councils raising money to make up some of the gap, but that is smoke and mirrors—a sleight of hand. There is a 20% reduction in central Government funding to police forces across the country. That goes beyond the HMIC recommendation. Hon. Members must understand that although some money can be saved through efficiency, that amount cannot be saved without impacting on the front line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

He has been caught out. I note that, in his letter to the chief inspector of constabulary, the right hon. Gentleman did not apologise for describing the chief inspector’s report as a “smear” or “corrupt and erroneous”, but that is what he said on Monday. I hesitate, after Monday, to advise hon. Members about using their words carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman should learn that he needs to choose his words more carefully when talking about the inspector’s report. I am sure that he will do so in future.

It is essential that we address the bureaucracy—

[Vernon Coaker]

I should like to quote from the HMIC report, because the Minister disputed the 12% figure that I used in relation to central Government funding. The report stated:

“A re-design of the system…has the potential, at best, to save 12% of central government funding, while maintaining police availability. A cut beyond 12% would almost certainly reduce police availability”.

The 12% referred to central Government funding, so the Minister was wrong.

[Nick Herbert]

No, the Audit Commission and HMIC said that the savings that could be made available to police officers were more than £1 billion a year—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is in no position to criticise anyone for misquoting people—[Interruption.] No, I did not.

The Opposition simply do not focus on the importance of reducing bureaucracy or of changing shift patterns. I want to give two quick examples. The action that we are taking to scrap stop forms and to limit stop-and-search reporting, with all the unnecessary bureaucracy that that has imposed upon officers, will save 800,000 hours of police time. Yesterday, the Assistant Commissioner of the Met, Ian McPherson, told the Greater London authority in an evidence session at which I was present that changing shift patterns in the Met will effectively increase staffing levels by an equivalent of 20% on Friday and Saturday evenings. There are things that we can do to improve the efficiency and deployment of police officers within the availability of constrained resources. That is why it is so important that we continue to reduce interference from the point of view of central Government, and why we have scrapped the remaining targets and the pledge. It is also why we intend to give more discretion to police forces so that they can make these important management decisions.

I want quickly to comment on what hon. Members have said about the use of the A19 procedure to enforce retirement for officers who have served for more than 30 years. There are only 3,000 officers to whom A19 might apply, out of a total in England and Wales of 143,000. It is not the ideal procedure, which is why we have set up a review of pay and conditions by Tom Winsor, which will report in February. It is important that we address issues such as the number of officers on restricted duties—more than 5,500—and the institutionalisation of overtime, when overtime costs are still in the region of £400 million a year. These are all areas in which considerable savings could be delivered to help to protect front-line policing.

Finally, I want to address the issue of police numbers and crime. I want to put on record what I actually said in the interview on “The World this Weekend”, which, by the way, was heavily edited. Nevertheless, as stated in the transcript of the interview that was broadcast, when asked about the link between reducing crime and police numbers, what I actually said was this:

“I don’t think that anyone, and no respectable academic would make a simple link between the increase in the numbers of police officers and what has happened to crime. There is no such link.”

The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is not stupid, and he will know that I was quite clearly referring to that simple link. That was my point and I believe it was a correct point—one also made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). It was also made by one of the world’s greatest crime fighters, Bill Bratton, who was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). If hon. Members believe that there is such a simple link, perhaps they can explain why police numbers have increased in Sweden and Spain, but crime has increased, too. Perhaps they can also explain why police numbers in the United States have fallen, yet crime has fallen, too.

It is obvious to anybody who thinks about it that there is not a simple link, and that what we should be concerned about is how officers are deployed, whether they are available and visible to the public and whether they are there on the streets when the public want them. What therefore matters is not the total size of the police work force, but the efficiency and effectiveness of their deployment and how much they are tied up by bureaucracy. That is an issue that the Opposition simply will not address.

Opposition Members talked about the cost of police and crime commissioners. May I point out that the £100 million costing by the hon. Member for Gedling for police and crime commissioners was for a period beyond that covered by the spending review. The annual additional cost of police and commissioners is reflected only in the election cost and there will be no greater cost for the police authorities themselves. The money will not come out of police force budgets. It represents £12.5 million a year on average—less than 0.1% of police spend. Pointing out that an election will cost too much money and should not be held in the first place is not a good argument for any hon. Member to advance against a democratic reform. That is a very weak and poor argument.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that we are determined to ensure a safe Olympics and that we will make further announcements about the police funding for the Olympics in due course. I would be happy to meet him to discuss any concerns about that.

While Labour Members continue to play politics, continue to criticise cuts, even though they would have made them themselves, and continue to criticise democratic accountability, even though they would have introduced it themselves, Government Members know that we must tackle the deficit. It is in our national interest to do so, not least for the sake of the future funding of police officers generally and of individual officers. We are determined to make the savings by reducing bureaucracy, giving forces more freedom and driving out cost. In so doing, we are sure that we can protect the front line and the visible and available policing that the public value. The public want to know that the police will be there for them, and we are absolutely determined that they will be.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).

Department for International Development

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I should say to my hon. Friend that these are operational matters for police forces, but we strongly support those who have taken what we regard as a sensible decision. The Met Police Commissioner and the Mayor have been clear that the move towards single patrolling has been hugely helpful in increasing police visibility, and that can be extended to other police forces.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Sunday before last, on “The World This Weekend”, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice told the nation that there was no link between police numbers and the level of crime—a quite astonishing claim. He also argued in recent weeks that it is not officer numbers that are key to cutting crime but individual directly elected police commissioners who will make the difference. As The Daily Telegraph reported, the Minister told a private meeting of police authority chairs on 9 November that, to make that happen,

“the first thing a directly elected individual will do is to appoint a political adviser.”

Will he confirm that he made those remarks, and does he stand by what he told The Guardian last week—that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will enshrine in legislation that these advisers

“may not…be a member of a political party”?

[Nick Herbert]

First, I did not say that there was no link; I said that there was no simple link. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman something:

“I don’t think it’s possible to make a direct correlation between police numbers and crime reduction.”

Those are not my words; they were the words of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) when he appeared on “Any Questions” in September.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, he and his right hon. Friend should have taken care to read the Bill and the consultation document before making the allegation that police and crime commissioners will be able to appoint political advisers. We are determined that they should not be able to do so and have legislated for that. It is in the Bill that they may not appoint political advisers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Lord Coaker

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I was talking about that this morning to senior police officers responsible for criminal justice policy. Our concern is to ensure that rising rates of reoffending are reversed. That means ensuring that sentences are effective, and that we focus on the rehabilitation that is necessary to ensure that prisons fulfil their purpose and criminals go straight.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is interesting that the Home Secretary chose not to answer the question on the spending review and the impact on police numbers, but we have heard from both the Home Secretary and the policing Minister that thousands of police jobs are to be lost. The idea that that will not impact on front-line policing is one for the fairies. Can the Minister explain why the 20% cut announced in direct Government funding for police forces is front-loaded? In other words, of that 20%, why are the deepest, most far-reaching cuts in the first two years—next year 6%, in 2012-13 8%, then 4% and 4%? Why is the deepest, most far-reaching cut, 8%, in the year when the country is facing one of it greatest security challenges, the Olympics?

[Nick Herbert]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position.

Olympic security funding is being prioritised in Home Office budgets, and counter-terrorist policing was subject to a much lower cut than the 20% cut for policing. We intend to ensure that priority continues to be given to counter-terrorist policing. We believe that significant savings can be made. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary found that only 11% of force strength, on average, was visible and available at any one time, because officers are spending too much time tied up in the red tape that the hon. Gentleman created when he was a Minister.