Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I signed and spoke to related amendments in Committee. I also take a perhaps rare opportunity to congratulate the Minister on a comprehensive and fair Amendment 84 that really addresses the concerns of workers who are particularly low paid and insufficiently respected.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I note that this demonstrates a hashtag I use often: #campaigningworks. USDAW has done so much work on this over so many years, as has the Institute of Customer Service and its Service with Respect campaign.

I want to ask the Minister two detailed questions. Does this also apply to people providing services over the phone or remotely? I am thinking particularly of Section 16 and threats to kill. It would appear that would also potentially be covered under this. If the Minister wants to write to me later that is fine. I also want to confirm—I think I know the answer but it is worth confirming for the record—that this is an offence committed against a person providing a public service. Will volunteers also be covered under these provisions? Many volunteers provide all kinds of public services and I think that is an important issue.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak in this debate. I declare an interest as a member of USDAW and the Co-operative Party—I wanted to make sure that I did not forget to do that.

I know that it is quite late in the evening, but it is worth us spending a few minutes on something that impacts on millions of people across this country, in every single area of this country, from the smallest and most impoverished communities to the wealthiest. This directly impacts on all of them.

The Minister is quite right in saying that her amendment supersedes mine, and I welcome government Amendment 84. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will speak to her amendment, and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. On my amendment, I thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy for pointing out that it is the first time in my life that my comrade has praised the Conservatives for tabling a better amendment than me. On this occasion, he is absolutely right; it is a far superior amendment to the one that I tabled. It is a great tribute to the Minister, who has listened.

We often say that Ministers should listen and need to take account of something. This Minister has actually acted on that and changed the legislation—she has talked to her civil servants. I say this as an example to other Ministers in both Houses: sometimes a Minister has to stand up and say, “This is what the public, the House and the Chamber demands, and this is what common sense says—so change the law and do what people think is right”. Millions of people across the country will see this as something that has taken years of campaigning by people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, my noble friend Lord Kennedy and others. People on all sides have demanded this change.

One thing that we need to emphasise in the amendment that the noble Baroness has put before us is really important. Rightly, much of the emphasis has been on retail workers, and I want to emphasise some of the facts. We have emphasised the fact that the trade union and large retailers of all sorts have come together. But this amendment talks about assaults on those providing a public service; that is a huge expansion of the categories of worker that can be taken into account by those in court, using the aggravating factors before us. That is something that we should reflect on as a Chamber; it is a key change and a massive extension of the number of those workers who will be protected from abuse.

As we sit here in this Chamber at 9.23 pm, there will be people in the remotest part of Cornwall in a village shop, someone collecting tickets on a railway station in a different part of the country—a rural part of Northumberland, for example. There may be somebody on Walworth Road or in Manchester, who will at this time be facing the sort of abuse that we all deplore. We can say to those people that not only have we deplored and understand how horrific it is, we also recognise the responsibility that we have with the other place in legislating to do something about it.

The Minister was right to say that this sends a signal. Of course it does, and that is really important—but it also gives the magistrates and courts the power to say to people who think that they can act with impunity, whether it is in a village shop or a railway station or on a bus, “We are going to use that as an aggravating factor and you are going to receive a stiffer punishment than you otherwise would have done.” That should give people pause.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was quite right in some of the points he made. However, the important thing for us now—the Minister will know this, and I think the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Bennett mentioned it—is how we ensure that we make this legislation work. How do we give the confidence to somebody, who is often on their own and sometimes not in the first flush of youth, to come forward and report that crime to the police so that those people get taken to court? Often those people will be their own witness. They have to go to the police to report that crime and say, “I’ll go to court” or whatever the process will be. As we move forward with this incredibly welcome piece of legislation, we need to understand how we build that confidence among people. That was one of the things that members of various trade unions as well as USDAW have raised with me. It is about building people’s confidence so that they come forward, are their own witness and report the crime. We must get to a point when the new powers that courts have can be used, because we understand the intimidation.

The Government could do with some good publicity at the moment. I would be ringing this out across the country, not to benefit a Conservative Government but to show that the Government of our country, responding to people across the Chamber, have turned around and said, “We are changing the law and we want people to be aware of the law.” Not only do we want those who act in a criminal way to understand that there is now a punishment that courts can use to deal with them, but, as I say, we want to give confidence to people to come forward.

Many other things could be said but it is important for all of us who have come together as we have to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to say a big thank you to her again for the changes she and her colleagues have made and the way in which she put that meeting together. This is a strengthening of the law which reflects the seriousness with which the state views these assaults. We will not tolerate it, and the law is saying to people across this country, “We’re going to act, because these people deserve better protection than they’ve had so far.”

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, in my time as a Minister I have had a to-do list in my mind, and included on it was tackling assaults on retail workers and the historic disregards. I am very pleased that in the Bill we will be able to do both, so tonight is a very good night.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for bringing back his amendment and for his obvious commitment to support business owners in areas affected by high crime rates, in particular business owners from diverse communities. In Committee my noble friend Lord Sharpe made it clear that shoplifting offences involving the theft of goods of up to £200 can and should be dealt with by the police as a criminal offence. Section 176 has no bearing on the ability of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute a person for theft from a shop or on the court’s powers to punish offenders.

My noble friend also spoke about a survey conducted by the National Business Crime Centre to ask police forces about the reporting of retail crime. I will repeat what he said, because it is important. He stated that the survey asked

“whether forces had a policy where the monetary value of shop theft determined whether the crime was investigated. Thirty-four out of 43 forces responded … the survey found that no forces used a £200 threshold for making decisions about responding to shoplifting offences.”—[Official Report, 3/11/21; col. 1272.]

I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said today and I understand the concerns about the prevalence of shop theft. I understand in particular the concerns from owners of small businesses, such as small independent shops operating in areas with high crime rates. If the noble Lord is amenable, I would like to meet further with him to discuss it.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Kennedy, for their fulsome support of the government amendment and for repeating the point that we are sending a very strong signal about how seriously we treat this issue. There is more that we are doing. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, prolific shoplifters often have a drug or alcohol dependency, and shoplifting funds this addiction. We need to have the right interventions in place, and the Government’s 10-year drugs strategy, published last week, sets out the Government’s intention to invest in substance misuse treatment, including clear referral pathways for offenders into treatment to reduce the risk of reoffending and help reduce acquisitive crime, including shop theft.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to be back from the Armed Forces Bill to join you all again for this group of amendments. I start with a comment that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made about the haphazard nature of the amendments before us. This is the last set of amendments on Part 5 of the Bill on road traffic offences yet, despite being haphazard, some really important amendments have been proposed. That demonstrates to the Government that there needed or needs to be a new road traffic Act, which would bring together all the various comments that have been made plus numerous others that people would make. We heard on a previous group about a review of existing traffic offences: some are out of date, and some that did not exist a few years ago should have offences against them. I make that opening remark to the Minister, as he might wish to say that to his colleagues.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley did us a favour by bringing forward these amendments. It is easy to scoff at railway bridges, but we have heard that there are seven incidents a day and that 50% of drivers do not know the height of their vehicles. An issue raised by these amendments clearly needs to be considered. The least we want from the Minister is that he takes away these comments and speaks to his colleagues at the Department for Transport or wherever about them.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is also right in saying that, in trying to solve one problem, you do not want to unfairly penalise another group—in this instance, lorry or other drivers. You have to be careful about the way that legislation is drafted and unintended consequences, so his amendments are important as well.

This is yet another serious amendment that has been put forward to deal with a very real problem, to set against all the other amendments that have been put forward which deal with serious issues on our roads. The legislation needs to be updated. This is a Christmas tree of a Bill. Part 5 on road traffic needs a separate Bill, as has been demonstrated by the debate this evening. I hope, at the very least, that the Minister will take that back to his colleagues.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Attlee for explaining these amendments. I reassure them and other noble Lords that the Government take this issue seriously and think it important. We recognise the serious risk to the travelling public that results from drivers striking and damaging bridges.

It is my understanding that this amendment seeks not to create a new offence but instead to create a new and specific penalty, for striking guided transport system structures, most notably railway bridges, to be applied to broader offences such as careless driving. I do not think that is needed. The penalties available for the offences for which a driver can already be charged in these circumstances are adequate to reflect the seriousness of the offence. The offences include careless, inconsiderate and dangerous driving or, where appropriate, drink-driving or drug-driving. For example, an offence of careless driving attracts an endorsement of three to nine penalty points on the driver’s licence, an unlimited fine, and a discretionary disqualification from driving for such period as the court thinks fit. Damage to property is a factor in the sentencing guidance indicating greater harm, which can lead to a higher sentence. If a driver were found to be under the influence of drink or drugs, the penalties available would include custodial sentences, unlimited fines and driving disqualifications.

As my noble friend will be aware, warning and regulatory signs already exist to indicate low bridges and to ensure that drivers are given information about alternative routes in time to adjust their journeys. I take my noble friend’s points about routes and so on, which he made most forcefully. Those signs are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and can be used by local authorities without reference to the Department for Transport. Local authorities are responsible for placing traffic signs on their roads, and the Department for Transport provides advice to them on the use of these signs in the Traffic Signs Manual. Disobeying a regulatory sign indicating a low bridge is already an offence that attracts an endorsable fixed penalty notice and may lead to the disqualification of the driver. Network Rail can reclaim some of the cost of repairing any damage from the insurer of the vehicle that hits the bridge. The Government are satisfied that the existing offences, penalties and route to a claim for damage are sufficient.

I am afraid that I cannot answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about why this happens so frequently. I imagine there are a whole variety of factors. As to the concerns from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I will of course take those back; we need at least to understand this issue a little better, so I will commit to doing that. That being the case I urge the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to withdraw his amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard part one
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, after “workforce,” insert “including mental health and the impact of trauma,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would explicitly require that mental health and the impact of trauma on the police workforce must be reported on as part of the report on the covenant.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to start the discussion of this very important Bill in Committee, and I look forward to discussing it with the Minister and, no doubt, many other colleagues across this House. I am particularly moved to speak on the policing part of the Bill and to open this discussion, since, as some of your Lordships will know, my father was a Metropolitan Police officer for 30 years. He retired fairly recently—over 30 years ago—and is still alive at the age of 95, so it is a great privilege and an honour to speak. One or two people may have met him; I am not sure. It probably goes back a bit further than that.

The serious point is that the amendment gives us the opportunity to start this debate by praising our police. Yes, there have been some serious questions raised about our police. Very well-documented issues have arisen which need proper investigation and inquiry, and they will, in due course, be looked at and raise serious questions. I am not saying that these issues are not important, but we should also recognise the serious job of work that the police do. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, is in his place. Nottinghamshire has a very fine police force, as is the case across the country. Many of us have had cause to call on police officers and their staff to help us in our daily lives. That was evidenced in our own Parliament not long ago when PC Keith Palmer was killed on our premises as the result of a terrorist attack. Every single day, as we come on to the Estate, we see the police protecting us. It is important to set that on the record so that, when we discuss these issues, police across the country—both past and present—their staff and families know that we start from this perspective.

We strongly support the police covenant, which we believe is long overdue. These amendments are about making the covenant as strong and effective as it can be so that it works for police officers and their families. I know that the Minister will take the amendments in that spirit as we seek to clarify some parts of the clauses.

I suggest that the Minister looks at the lessons learned from the Armed Forces covenant, to build on that experience and mirror its strengths in the way in which it has developed. It is important that the covenant is designed to cover both former and serving police personnel; we welcome that. I want also to pay tribute to the Police Federation and all those who have long campaigned for the introduction of a covenant, the Police Federation having done so through its Protect the Protectors campaign.

The size of the Bill has been remarked on. It will raise a huge number of issues during the next few weeks. However, today’s debate and the amendments we have put forward are related to the covenant. I will speak also to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser.

Amendment 1 would put into the Bill that a report about the police covenant must specifically include

“mental health and the impact of trauma.”

I have also added my name to the important amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which probes what access members and former members of the police workforce have to mental health programmes and support. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply because the importance of mental health support for our officers cannot be overstated. As we know, they are regularly exposed to traumatic and dangerous situations in their job—something they willingly accept as part of their duty. As the covenant says, it is therefore incumbent on us to recognise the trauma that may be imposed on officers and their families, both when they are serving and when they have moved on or retired.

I sometimes think—as I am sure many other noble Lords do—what it must be like to go to some of the scenes of horrific murders or of child abuse. All these occur in the normal, everyday life of a police officer, who then has to go home. I know that the Government will want to ensure that this support is given to them. These amendments ask how we ensure that somebody who has to deal with such situations is given the support they deserve. The amendment would specifically recognise the impact of trauma in the Bill.

This was raised by a number of Members in the other place, particularly my colleague Sarah Champion MP, and I pay tribute to her work on that. She raised the necessity of training our officers in recognising and identifying trauma and how to deal with it. She said:

“The fact that across police forces there is not a standard level of support to be accessed once an officer feels he has the need for it is really letting our forces down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 25/5/21; col. 178.]


That is a concern that we all have. No doubt there are examples of good practice, but how does one ensure such good practice across all forces and areas? The lack of consistency in mental health support is something that we need to address.

Since the debate in the Commons, to be fair to the Government, they have announced a programme of mandatory annual mental health checks—but they are for the Armed Forces. The Minister for Defence has called it an annual mental health MOT, with the intention of ensuring that our Armed Forces understand what help is available to them and are equipped to manage the unique pressures of service life. I wonder whether the Government might learn from that. Might that be something that could be applied to the context of the police in our country? We could learn from the Armed Forces covenant on what has worked with respect to this and from the successes and failures.

This is about the safety not only of the police but of our communities. Regular and high-quality mental health support makes sure that our police are fit to be in post, are able to process the situations that they deal with regularly as part of the job and are capable of supporting and responding to traumatised victims.

Amendment 3 would specifically add to the Bill that a report on the police covenant must look at what mental health support is required by officers’ families. This is to probe the simple issue of what support is available for an officer’s spouse, partner or family. The key thing here, which I am sure the Government will recognise, is that if your partner is regularly put in harm’s way in the course of their job, or they are traumatised by their experience during their service, there should be a service that you can call to seek support and to have a specialist speak to you about its impact on you and your family. That is an important point for us to consider.

Amendment 5 goes to the absolute heart of how the covenant must work. It would set up an oversight board with an independent chair and membership from policing organisations, including the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association, UNISON, the College of Policing and others. The oversight board would review the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant before it is laid before Parliament. The basis for this was put succinctly in the other place by my honourable friend for Croydon Central, who said:

“In essence, the amendment would ensure that the covenant does not have Ministers marking their own homework.”—[ Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 25/5/21; col. 193.]


The covenant must belong to our police forces, and the Government must listen to our police. It should not be for the Home Secretary to decide how well the Government are fulfilling their duties under the covenant.

We recognise that, currently, there is an oversight board, which met for the first time over the summer, but that was chaired by the Home Secretary. This would rebalance that by putting an independent chair in her place. This is an important point about putting the police themselves in the driving seat, instead of Ministers.

I turn now to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, which has our full support. It would amend our own Amendment 5 to include the National Association of Retired Police Officers in the proposed oversight board. Our Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant specifically to consider the support needed by the police workforce on retirement, including access to training courses. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her work on this issue and look forward to her contribution later in our discussions.

A crucial part of the covenant and a key strength of it is that it applies, as I say, to both serving and former officers and their families. The service an officer has paid to their community and the impact it may have had on, for example, their health, does not finish the day that they retire from the force. The covenant is about that long-lasting partnership and recognition of the unique situation of the police workforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very thoughtful and helpful discussion on this first group of amendments, as we begin our discussion on the Bill. I also thank the Minister for her reply. The way in which she tried to respond directly to the points the amendments were making was very helpful for the Committee on a number of issues, so I thank her and I think the Committee would thank her as well.

Having said that, and having been a Minister myself, I am always slightly suspicious when the term used for amendments is that they “are not necessary”. That was always a term I was told to use when I was not quite sure where I was. I say gently that when they “are not necessary” what I want to do—and I am sure other noble Lords would—is reflect on the Minister’s remarks to see if they indeed meet the points the amendments are making.

I have a couple of points to make. For example, the Minister said on a number of occasions, “We will keep this under review”, “We will look at how it works out” and “We will try to understand how the covenant operates in practice”. What many of us would say is that we can learn. The Minister mentioned the Armed Forces covenant, and I take the right reverend Prelate’s point about this, but we can learn from what the Armed Forces covenant has done. It seems a bit strange to say that this is not the same as the Armed Forces covenant. Everyone recognises that, but why wait to find the same thing happening with the police covenant, when we have seen from the Armed Forces covenant that for either central government or other public bodies to have due regard is important?

I note the point the Minister made about NARPO and the importance of the involvement of retired police officers. So, there are a number of points that we will need to reflect on as we go forward from Committee to Report, but with those brief remarks I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support these amendments. I too have little confidence in the IOPC and the resources that are available to it. It was very interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about it. We must shed some light on the timelines for these investigations, both for the police officers and for the alleged victim.

I have been within and have commanded a disciplined organisation, and I was always acutely aware of the need to complete investigations as fast as possible when something had gone wrong. If this amendment does not find favour and the noble Lord needs to return on Report, I can make a very much longer speech then.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and of which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is a co-signatory. It is an important amendment. I was particularly moved by the comments made by the noble Baroness, reminding us that of course it is from a police officer’s point of view but that this is also about a complainant’s point of view. It is from both sides that this debate has taken place.

Sometimes you look at an amendment and wonder whether it is as important as some others. Listening to the moving opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, I have been struck that this is a crucial amendment and a crucial discussion which is of huge significance to the police, communities and our country, particularly in light of issues that have arisen over the last few months. However, investigations that are delayed and drag on without resolution are completely unacceptable for the complainant and the officer in question.

I was completely unaware and absolutely astonished to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, from his experience as a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, that officers under investigation have been waiting for 10 years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what happened and whether they were guilty or innocent, that cannot be right. This has got to be looked at by the Minister who now has responsibility for this, wherever you come from in the debate. I am sorry if other noble Lords knew this, and that I was the only person here who was unaware of it. I knew that there were delays, but frankly, that is astonishing. We have just had a significant and important debate on protecting the mental health of our officers. One can only imagine the mental health implications for people under investigation but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reminded us, for people who have made the complaints. It does not serve justice for anybody.

There is some suggestion about delays in driving cases, but if she knows, can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is a particular delay in one area or a general problem across investigations? The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned firearms, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned some other examples, but is there a particular problem which emerges when a complaint is made in a particular area? There have been many references to certain offences not being taken seriously even when complaints were made, but it would be interesting for the Minister to come back to us on that.

I think that, at its heart, this amendment is saying that if we do not get this right, public confidence is undermined and eroded, and it is of no benefit to any of us not to be confident in the system. We must believe that the investigations which take place are fair, operate in a timely manner and are done with that integrity which people can understand and believe. We all accept that. Nobody here would disagree that this is the process which must happen and should be in place. However, as we have heard, that is not happening. Therefore, the amendment rightly asks us whether the answer is to set a time limit, to lay out a process that is better and more effective. The key question for the Minister is: what plans are there to review and update the disciplinary process, to restore public confidence and to reassure all of us that, at the end of the day, not only those who are complained against can feel confident but those who are making the complaint? That is the resolution that we all want from this important amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, set out, this amendment seeks to further improve the timeliness of disciplinary and misconduct proceedings against police officers. It seeks to do this by amending existing regulations governing complaint and misconduct investigations by the IOPC, as well as those conducted by force professional standards departments. In substance, they seek to introduce a new system of separate independent adjudicators with powers to close down investigations which have taken longer than 12 months, where they decide that there is no “good and sufficient” reason for delay.

Again, with this amendment, I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord and others said, namely that disciplinary and misconduct investigations should be conducted and completed in a timely fashion, for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Hogan-Howe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when I heard “10 years” I was utterly shocked. However, this amendment comes at a time when investigation timescales are already reducing and when the Government have worked hard to reduce bureaucracy in the system and not add to it.

Under the IOPC’s predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, investigations would on average take 11 months. Since 2018, under the IOPC, that has fallen by almost 30% to just eight months. The IOPC has closed more than 90% of its cases in under 12 months and is making strong progress on the number of cases that it closes in under nine months and even in under six months. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, it is in nobody’s interest for investigations to drag on for long periods unnecessarily. We recognise the impact that this can have on everyone concerned.

It might be helpful in terms of explaining the trajectory that the Government introduced a package of reforms in February last year to the police complaints and disciplinary systems. It included new provisions to improve timeliness, with an expectation that investigations will normally be completed within 12 months. If not, the investigating body must provide a written explanation of any delays and steps to bring the investigation to a conclusion. The Government expect the IOPC to go further, and it now has targets in its business plans to complete many of those investigations in under nine and six months, as I said.

There are a number of reasons why cases might take too long, including the complexity of a case, the time- scale being impacted by parallel criminal investigations, and delays in obtaining expert evidence or post-mortem reports. It might be further complicated by delays in obtaining accounts from key police witnesses and subjects. That said, it is not acceptable for investigations to go on for too long, but the trajectory of timescales is certainly downwards.

The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce an additional layer of cost and bureaucracy. It would also risk creating perverse incentives for investigators to rush to meet deadlines at the expense of the quality of an investigation, particularly in those complex cases or if historic matters are at stake.

If an investigation into police wrongdoing was terminated without being concluded and that officer might have had a case to answer for gross misconduct—I can think of very recent cases which are relevant here—this would significantly undermine public confidence and potentially the course of justice. I am sure that is not the intention of noble Lords.

The amendment also risks undermining the independence of the police disciplinary system, blurring the lines between when legally qualified persons are appointed to this role and when the same person is appointed as a legally qualified chair of a misconduct hearing. These individuals would be selected from the same pool. That fundamentally changes the role of a legally qualified chair and jeopardises the independence of their position and the disciplinary system.

In conclusion, the Government have already taken steps to reduce investigation timescales and we will be monitoring the timeliness of investigations, drawing on new data collection requirements that we introduced as part of recent reforms. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Knife Crime

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on his introduction to the debate.

I will start with this and get it out of the way: there is an issue with police resources and numbers of police, and there is an issue with the cuts there have been to local authority services and youth services. We will leave that for another day, but I do not want people to forget it, because there is a debate to be had. On neighbourhood policing, I say gently to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that there used to be huge numbers of neighbourhood and community police officers, backed by police staff, and that that made a huge difference.

In order to try to take this forward from where we are, and as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will have heard me say countless times over the past few months, I say to the Minister that this is a national crisis. It is a national emergency. If it were any other type of national emergency, irrespective of what else was going on, the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Justice would be in the House of Commons at the Dispatch Box day after day after day, outlining what had happened and what the Government were doing about it.

That is why I called a few weeks ago for knife crime to be treated like terrorism—not to underestimate terrorism or decry the importance of dealing with it, but to give that sense of urgency. Instead, frankly, we drift on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) alluded to, the Prime Minister promised a knife crime summit nearly three weeks ago at the Dispatch Box. We are now told that one will take place sometime next week. I say to every hon. Member present that, in the face of a national emergency, a month’s delay—as it will be by then—is simply and utterly unacceptable and will be bewildering to the people of this country.

Virtually certainly, three or four times a week, not just in London but across the country, people are killed, horrifically, and we have to do something about it. We have to speak up and speak out about it more. It is absolutely astonishing that the House of Commons Chamber does not reverberate with the roar of MPs demanding action from the Government. The Government will say, “We are doing this, we are doing that,” but—as was certainly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and I think by the hon. Member for Romford—where is the urgency? Where is the passion? Where is the anger? Where is the desire to get a hold of this? The public do not see that, and I do not feel it.

People say it is ridiculous, but I have said, as did former Prime Minister Tony Blair this morning, that Cobra should meet because, irrespective of resources, cross-Government co-ordination is lacking. I will say something about sentencing in a minute to illustrate what I mean. Solving this is not only about police numbers—that is ridiculous—but a long-term public health plan will not prevent somebody from being stabbed tonight. Increased police resources and an increased police presence on the ground will stop that. That is not the overall answer of course, but that is where we have to go in the short term—the increase that the Chancellor announced will help.

The Government’s evidence in the serious violence strategy and the leaked Home Office memo—I know that the Minister is a Justice Minister—show that hotspot policing reduces knife crime. That is evidentially based. It also does not displace that crime to nearby areas; it stops the crime, because it tackles the people who commit those offences. Am I saying, “Lock them up and throw the key away?” Of course not. All I am saying is that we have lost control and there is no short-term alternative. Where are the intervention and prevention measures that were there before? Where have the youth clubs gone? Where are the street workers?

The hon. Member for Romford is right: when I was the Policing Minister, the most effective people on the street, alongside police officers, were street pastors, and particularly the older ones. There are countless examples. They stop stupid incidents outside shops or in precincts, when there are issues between stupid kids and their stupid gangs. Somebody might look at somebody else, or bump into their bike—for Christ’s sake—and get stabbed. The street pastors get involved and prevent that. That sounds almost pathetic in the face of the huge rises in knife crime, but it actually works and makes a difference.

I will come to sentencing, but I would love the Minister to say that he and the Justice Department recognise that the Government have to more effectively co-ordinate what happens across Government rather than there being individual, compartmentalised elements. I hope the Minister brings the urgency I have seen in his reflecting on other things to dealing with this problem.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent series of points. I was hoping that we would cover that the break- down of the fabric of society is part of this. We cannot point to only one thing such as the 21,000 reduction in police officers. There are also schools exclusions, including unofficial exclusions. Kids are out on the streets, and there is a lack of youth provision and other preventive stuff. All that should be looked at in the round. Does he agree that austerity has had an effect, and that this issue could be a consequence of it?

[Vernon Coaker]

I absolutely agree. I am making the point that it is not only about policing. However, in the short term, that is where we have to go. That is all I am saying. It should never have got to this point, with the breakdown of all that.

The system—this is true of Justice or whatever—does not look at what works. For example, on youth crime, exclusions and kids not being in school have an impact. That is a no-brainer. We do not need a research project on that costing millions of pounds. Everybody knows it. People on the street know it, every Member knows it and everybody watching our proceedings will know that it has an effect. We have a problem in how we deal with those young people. There are brilliant examples of pupil referral units and activity with young people excluded from school, but many of those young people disappear. Everybody is responsible but nobody is.

That has to change, otherwise those young people just drift into a twilight zone where they are exploited by criminals or associate with people who parade around estates saying, “Do you want to make some money? I’ll show you how to make some money. Don’t listen to them.” We know that that goes on. We have to take that culture on, but we cannot do it without being honest. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) is absolutely right: proper provision for excluded young people is fundamental. Some of it works, and some of it does not. We have to find a way of ensuring that good practice is spread much more widely.

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend speaks with his normal passion and insight. He is right on exclusions from school and young people disappearing, but there is another problem. When some youngsters are sent to alternative provision because they are too much of a nuisance in school, some of it is very good, but some of it is nothing more than poor childminding. We need to urgently look at alternative provision.

[Vernon Coaker]

I absolutely agree. The Minister will know, because his Department will report to him, that some of the alternatives to prison or custodial sentences are rubbish, but other alternatives are brilliant. If we know what works, why are we not replicating it instead of the Justice Department funding alternative provision outside some schools or inside others? Why do we not replicate those things that work and that prevent young people who have been excluded from school from getting involved? I know that this is not a fashionable thing to say in a time of localism. Localism is absolutely right, but sometimes the Government have to pick it up and drive it. This is one area in which they should drive it forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and the hon. Member for Romford made the point, as I am sure will others, that the Minister has a tough job. The public will say that anybody carrying a knife—I am not talking about the use of a knife—is completely unacceptable, and that they should be jailed straight away. They will also say that people should not have a second chance when it comes to something as serious as that.

All Governments, including the last Labour Government, write into every bit of legislation that courts have discretion to look at circumstances, but that is the bit of the mandatory sentencing guidelines that nobody reads. I am appalled by repeat cautioning and the fact that the courts seem in many instances to fail to act on persistent offending. However, even I can see that, if somebody stuffs a knife in the pocket of an idiotic 12-year-old lad but he cannot prove it, we have to let the court try to find out whether he deliberately carried the knife or whether somebody had put it on him, or had threated to beat him up unless he took it. We have to be careful about saying that, in every single circumstance and in every single case, the first time a pathetic girl or boy—that is what they are—carries a knife, they should be jailed forever and the key should be thrown away. I do not accept the inability of the state or the Government to explain that to people. Everybody says, “We’re going to be tough. We’re going to have mandatory sentencing. We’re going to lock all of them up.” Of course, that does not happen, because rightly in a democracy we have the legal system and the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary, including any of us if we were magistrates, would look at the circumstances of an individual case and say that in that instance they do not want to send the person to a place like that described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), because they deserve a chance.

There are not many people in our Parliament who would not allow the courts discretion, but I say to the Minister—again, the Government should be shouting this—that he should explain that and tell people. He should not hide behind harsh rhetoric. He should do what I have just done and explain that, even in a national emergency—a knife crime epidemic—there will be circumstances in which the courts will want to exercise discretion. The Minister no doubt has that in the notes for his speech at the conclusion of the debate.

The legislation talks about mandatory sentencing except in exceptional circumstances. What does that mean? The Minister is brandishing the guidelines at us, but they are not interpreted across the judicial system in a fair and consistent way. That drives people mad—it drives me mad—and undermines the system. Alongside all the things that I have discussed, the sentencing by the courts is crucial. There has to be an expectation that people are jailed, whether they be young children, older children or adults, but there has to be more consistency. Figures were given by the hon. Member for Romford. It cannot be right that huge numbers of people are being cautioned again and again. It cannot be right that between different courts some people are going to jail and others are not. It cannot be right that nobody among the public properly understands what “exceptional circumstances” means—no Minister has properly gone out there to articulate and explain it. This Minister will have an opportunity to do that when he winds up the debate.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. When I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on basketball, we did an inquiry into how basketball could be harnessed as a sport that appeals to certain demographics. It attracts a high number of inner-city and black, Asian and minority ethnic participants. Basketball could be used as a sentencing tool. That might seem a crazy idea, but evidence was given by police and crime commissioners in Leicester and in one of the London boroughs—I think it was Newham—which were using things such as basketball to sentence some of the young people who were at risk of being the ones to get into knife crime. They were looking for alternative provision, and basketball was one of the things that it was deemed would work, so much so that, in the London Borough of Newham there is an initiative called “Carry a Ball, not a Blade”. Does my hon. Friend think that more initiatives such as that should be looked at as a means of prevention in sentencing?

[Vernon Coaker]

I absolutely do think that more initiatives such as that should be introduced.

Let me finish with a personal account. I have been an MP for nearly 22 years. Before becoming an MP, I taught for 20 years, mainly in inner-city schools in Nottingham. They had the challenges that anybody here could recount. Much of the time, when I started teaching, it was possible for somebody to choose where they went. It was possible to say, “I would like to go here,” and I always said that I wanted to teach in an inner-city school. Some people stereotype me—for good reason or not—but talking in the way I do helped in Nottingham. This is a point for the Government. When we went there to raise standards—without being arrogant, in all the schools I worked at, we raised standards—we did certain things. Among the things that we put in place was certainty that, if someone broke the rules, there would be a consequence. It was not a case of locking somebody up and throwing away the key, but people knew that there would be a consequence.

There was a lot of the alternative provision to which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West has referred. I was the harshest disciplinarian in the school. I was not going to have people coming in who were not in uniform. People may laugh about it, but the truth is that out on our streets the police need to ensure the same certainty. Alongside that we need the sort of provision that my hon. Friend has talked about and opportunities for young people to get work, to have social mobility and to prosper. That is what will stop knife crime. I say again to the Minister that this is a national crisis and a national emergency, and the Government simply have to treat it as such by co-ordinating and driving forward change, rather than just making a series of compartmentalised, well-intentioned announcements that do not have the passion, drive and enthusiasm needed to effect change in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I will come back to knife crime prevention orders. The interesting thing about this debate is that although we all share a horror of knife crime, not everybody in this Chamber agrees on the particulars, such as knife crime prevention orders, sentence lengths or whether courts should have discretion. In a sense, the debate in this Chamber is a reflection of the debate among the public.

The core question is which of the dozens of suggestions in the serious violence strategy will make most difference as quickly as possible and be most effective. There may be many individual initiatives that are fantastic at a community level, but others may be even better, and those are the ones that we need to focus on. I want to focus on four areas in particular. The first is sentencing—this is a debate on sentencing, and I am here as a representative of the Ministry of Justice to talk about sentencing. It is true to say that following on from the 2015 two-strike rule, more people are now going to jail for knife possession offences, and they are going there for longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) raised the question whether we have got that balance right, and it is a difficult balance.

The hon. Member for Gedling, a very experienced ex-Policing Minister, asked exactly how these exceptions are defined. They are defined quite closely. Some 82% of people found in a double possession will find their way towards a sentence. Who are the 18% who are not getting sentences? The guidelines stipulate very clearly what the mitigating factors are and lay them out. In extreme cases, it could be somebody with learning difficulties, mental health problems or a serious medical problem, or it could be somebody who has co-operated with the police—all these things are mitigating factors that might lead to someone not receiving such a sentence.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Minister talks about 82% of people being given a sentence by the court. Does he mean suspended sentences as well as custodial sentences?

[Rory Stewart]

I am including suspended sentences as well as immediate custodial sentences. In the case of a suspended sentence, if somebody breaks their licence conditions, they will be recalled to court for the remainder of their custodial sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Yes, that is absolutely right. We should do much, much more on addiction. Shoplifting is a big problem. We have a lot of shoplifting, and the majority of people get short sentences of less than six months. The highest single offence is shoplifting by a very large margin. Of those offenders, 76% are crack cocaine or heroin addicts. The real way of dealing with the problem is to deal with their crack cocaine or heroin addiction.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Minister has given a very thoughtful, measured and informed response, and people listening to it will say, “That’s great. How will the Government and Parliament make that happen?” As part of that, will he tell the House that he will go back, wake up the people who need waking up and introduce regular statements to Parliament, every single week at least, about what is happening, what progress is being made and what is or is not being done? It should be a regular statement to Parliament, not a response to an urgent question.

[Rory Stewart]

I have enormous admiration for the hon. Gentleman, and I would be very proud to have him as part of our team dealing with this. I am sure he would deal with it very well. I am not in the business of committing colleagues in the Home Office to making statements, but I assure him that we take this very seriously. I have not spoken enough to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), but we are putting another £100 million into policing, particularly driven by violent crime and knife crime, in addition to our investment in the youth endowment fund.

Action is not just what happens in Parliament. It is not just about the inter-ministerial group that has been set up and the meeting that the Prime Minister is holding next week. It is about setting up the violent crime taskforce and that 10 am meeting every morning in Lambeth, and about ensuring the money and resources begin to flow in behind this. I believe that this will make a significant difference, but I absolutely agree to sit down with the hon. Member for Gedling. The only way of doing this or anything in Government is with urgency, grip, imagination and passion. Above all, it should be rooted in realism. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool very much indeed for this incredibly informative debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

T4. A knife crime epidemic is facing this country, so can the Government explain why four in 10 criminals who are caught in possession of a knife for a second time are not jailed, as the law requires?

[Mr Gauke]

Since the introduction of the minimum custodial term in 2015, people who are caught for repeat possession of a knife are now more likely to go to prison. Recent statistics show that 83% of offenders received a custodial sentence, which is an increase from 68% in the year ending June 2015. It is also worth pointing out that average custodial lengths are also going up—from 7.1 months in the year ending June 2017, to 7.9 months in the year ending June 2018.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Let me start by giving some context to this EU withdrawal Bill. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister went to the country. What was the purpose of going to the country? It was because she wanted a bigger mandate, given the ups and downs to come over Brexit. Let us remind the Government what happened in that election. Did they win? Did they increase their majority? No, they did not. They lost seats and their majority went. With this Bill—and, indeed, tomorrow’s proposed Committee changes—we have a Government believing they have a mandate to act as though they had won the election and their views had been endorsed by the British people.

A Government who were offering true leadership to the country would now be saying, “We recognise the closeness of the referendum and we will respect the result, but our country, which we seek to govern, is divided. Our people are divided”—we heard some of that just before I spoke. A Government showing true leadership would seek to bring the country together and say to people, “We have to find a way through.” But what has the Government’s starting point been for this? Their starting point has been, “How do we get this EU withdrawal Bill through Parliament, given that we don’t have a majority?” We now see this Bill constituted in the way that is, with respect to SIs and the grabbing of power.

Let me be clear: my constituency voted to leave—I respect that—but what my constituents did not vote for was leaving at any cost to jobs, business, workers’ rights, the environment, welfare or the unity of our country. I have absolutely no problem going back and arguing to my constituents that, yes, I respect what people said and how they voted, but also saying, “I cannot, as your representative, stand up in this Parliament and say that what is on offer from the Government in this EU withdrawal Bill will be of benefit to you and your family.” This is not about trying to ignore the will of the people; it is about trying to give expression to it in a way that works—not to block Brexit, but to get the best for it.

We have only limited time today, and some of these further debates will obviously happen in Committee, but let me just say one thing to the Government. We have heard calls for amendments but, in many respects, the whole Bill needs to be rewritten. Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17 give the Government huge powers. Indeed—this is absolutely astonishing, and I have never seen it, although a constitutional expert would no doubt tell me that it has happened before—the Government are giving themselves secondary legislative powers not only to deal with many of the things that may arise, but to modify the primary legislation itself. This legislation could be modified by a Government-stacked Committee on the basis that it was not working. It is unheard of; it is an affront to our democracy and to the way this Parliament works. It is not what people who voted leave voted for, and nor is it something I believe the people of this country would want to see.

Ministers should not take my word for it. In its interim report, the House of Lords Constitution Committee absolutely lambasted the Government for using its original report to say that the Committee supported the Government’s use of statutory instruments. Let me read the summary conclusion of the interim report, which was published on 7 September, just a week ago:

“Overall, we conclude that the Bill is highly complex and convoluted in its drafting and structure. This is not to deny that it must inevitably grapple with a set of difficult legal issues. But it is a source of considerable regret that the Bill is drafted in a way that renders scrutiny very difficult, and that multiple and fundamental constitutional questions are left unanswered. We will consider all of these issues in greater detail in our forthcoming inquiry on the Bill.”

What an absolute lambasting and castigation of the Government’s position by a cross-Bench, cross-party House of Lords Select Committee. Ministers will have to respond to that report by actually taking account of it.

I will finish where I started: a Government showing true leadership would seek to bring the people together, would seek to bring this Parliament together and would seek to bring the country together. Instead, we have a Government who are dividing everyone.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

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.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vernon Coaker]

I will in a moment; I am just getting going. If the hon. Gentleman lets me, I will make a few points and then give way to him—he served on the Committee.

One of my hon. Friends asked the Minister where the evidence was that there was a demand for his proposal out there in the country. The answer was that there was none. I and many others have consistently asked the Minister to publish the results of the public consultation on “Policing in the 21st Century”, a document to which there were approximately 800 responses. We have not heard a word from a Minister about those 800 responses. I wonder why that is. I am sure that if a large number of those responses had been in favour of the proposal, the Minister would have published every one. However, he cannot do that, because we know that very few of those responses were in favour. This Government—who, we are told, are in favour of listening to the people, in this new dawn of not imposing things—say that in this instance they know best. The fact that nobody supports the proposal does not matter to the Minister.

[Mr Burley]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

Don’t worry; I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman.

The same goes for councils. We have just heard about the objections of the Local Government Association and the Association of Police Authorities. The Minister’s answer to them is: “We don’t care what you say—you’re dinosaurs. You’re in the way of me reaching the promised land; you’re in the way of me reaching what I regard as the best reform. You’re people who are out of touch. You will inevitably vote against this proposal because it’s like turkeys voting for Christmas.” However, there are individuals on those local councils and police authorities—members of all parties or none—who have dedicated their lives to the service of their communities and to policing in their communities who fundamentally believe that the Government’s proposal is a bad reform. To dismiss them purely as people who do not want to vote themselves out of a job does them no service at all.

[Mr Burley]

The hon. Gentleman says that there is no support for the reform, but let me read him two quotations. The first is from the Lib Dems’ manifesto, which says on page 72 that they will

“Give local people a real say over their police force through the direct election of police authorities.”

This is the second quotation:

“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.

That was the hon. Gentleman himself, in a speech in 2008. Rather than there being no support for reform, is it not true that the case for reform of police governance has been made right across the political spectrum?

[Vernon Coaker]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not just reading that out; he normally does better than simply reading out Whips’ documents. He will remember, as I do, that in Committee the Liberal Democrats actually voted against their own amendments—

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Once.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits it. I have never known anyone vote against their own amendments, but there we go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burley]

I agree with nearly everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. The point is that there is cross-party agreement on the need for reform of police authorities, but there is disagreement on the form that the new model should take.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not think there has ever been any disagreement, either in Committee or in any of our other debates on police governance, about the need to make police authorities more visible and find ways of helping them to work more successfully in their neighbourhoods. That has never been in doubt. However, people have certain concerns relating to the introduction of direct elections—whether using the model involving a directly elected police authority, or the one involving a directly elected individual—and I will discuss those worries in due course.

The Minister has failed to provide the House with the evidence for why the Government are taking forward these reforms. He says that there is support for them, but he has failed to put any evidence for that before the House. Let us look at the detail of the Bill. Interestingly, when the Minister argues against the points that have been made on this matter, he simply says that people are wrong, and that he does not agree with them. However, we all know that there are serious issues involved that need to be addressed. He and the Liberal Democrats might have sorted out a way of getting the Bill through, but that does not negate the real concerns that were mentioned by Members on both sides in Committee and that have been mentioned again since.

The Minister says that there is no way in which a police and crime commissioner would be able to influence a chief constable or interfere with the operational independence of the police. He dismisses the politicisation argument with a sweep of his hand, but he knows that real concerns have been expressed about operational independence and politicisation. It is worth repeating some of the points that have been made. Let us imagine that, if the Bill is passed, an election will take place at some time in the distant future, perhaps on 15 November 2012 or on the first Thursday in May 2013. What are the manifesto commitments that the candidates for police and crime commissioner are going to stand on? They are not going to stand on the promise of a better counter-terrorism policy or a decent fraud policy for the pensioners of their area. What they are going to stand on is something like, “We want to see police stations kept open in our community,” or “We want to see more visible police officers going up and down our streets every single day.” That is the sort of manifesto on which police and crime commissioners will stand.

By putting these provisions back into the Bill, the Minister makes it difficult for us to believe that there will not be a conflict between someone elected on a manifesto like that and a chief constable who says, “Hang on a minute. I don’t think that is the right policing priority for this area. The right policing priority for this area is not having police in that neighbourhood. My professional judgment says that they should be placed here, and there. I am going to take some officers from their duty in that neighbourhood and put them into a domestic or sexual violence unit or a fraud unit. These will be front-line officers, but not in the sense of being visible uniformed officers on the street.”

[Mark Tami]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Vernon Coaker]

I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) first.

[Mr Burley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but he lulls us into thinking that this is a new thing. Was not Tony Blair’s summit on knife crime when he was Prime Minister—when he called all the chief constables to No. 10 Downing street to discuss what could be done about that crime—an example of a politician quite rightly reflecting public concern over a type of crime and influencing the police to do something about it? Is that not exactly the same as the power of influence that the police and crime commissioners will have, and is it not a good thing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

Obviously, people try to influence what the police do. I have no problem with that and, of course, I sat on some of the summits that the Prime Minister called, which brought chief constables together to deal with a national issue of importance and concern. What is different is where someone is elected on a manifesto at a local level, which might contain specific commitments about what should happen in that local area. That is the fundamental difference between those circumstances and what the Bill proposes.

[Mr Burley]

Could not a local person stand on a platform of cracking down on knife crime in the local area? What is the difference between that local person saying that and a democratically elected Prime Minister doing the same at the national level?

[Vernon Coaker]

Because the person will have a specific local democratic mandate and will have been elected on certain pledges, it is different from a Prime Minister or other national politicians responding to a problem that has arisen and working with the police to try to deal with it. The context is totally different.

[Mark Tami]

Before my hon. Friend moves away from specialist units, their work is very important, but the general public might not see what those officers are doing in the local area. Such units are often set up because of the failings of traditional policing after tragic events like the Soham murders or other instances when the police forces might have failed to work effectively together.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is the point I am making. Front-line officers are not just uniformed officers visible on the street; they might include officers in the specialist units to which my hon. Friend refers. I agree that they are particularly important.

[Alun Michael]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a big difference between this and the approach adopted under the Labour Government, which was about highlighting a problem or concern when something needed to be done? It was about how to hear from the police and how to learn from them about what was needed to tackle issues like antisocial behaviour, for instance, thereby providing the tools necessary to do the job. It was about teamwork between the Government the police, which contrasts greatly with what is happening now.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is absolutely right. The teamwork, collaboration and partnership working was, I think, one of the consequences of a Bill that my right hon. Friend took through in 1998. I believe that was one of the most successful reforms carried out under the last Government.

Let me deal with a fundamental issue that will be dealt with more fully in the next group of amendments. It is important, so I shall refer to it now, as it is one of the crucial issues on which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase might want to reflect further. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, one thing he could not do was sack chief constables in individual areas. Under the Bill, however, the police and crime commissioner will be able to sack the chief constable, without the police and crime panel having any power to control it. That is an important difference; in my view, it is a big flaw in the Bill.

[Keith Vaz]

Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am that although, apparently, the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has had a photo call with the Home Secretary—before she came into the Chamber—and the policing Minister has been at the Dispatch Box, there still has not been an announcement to Parliament of the new appointment. Everyone knows that it is Mr Hogan-Howe, but apparently the House of Commons does not know. Has my hon. Friend been told the name of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

[Vernon Coaker]

I have been told now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might be helpful if Vernon Coaker gave way to the Home Secretary.

[Vernon Coaker]

I give way to the Home Secretary.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am tempted to say that there is no need for me to rise to my feet now, given that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has given the name of the new commissioner. As I have just come into the Chamber, the policing Minister and I were discussing the best way to announce to the House the appointment of Bernard Hogan-Howe as Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He is the former chief constable of Merseyside, where he had a fine record of crime fighting, seeing crime levels go down by just under 40% over three to four years. I am sure that he will bring that crime-fighting capability to London and the Metropolitan police.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time and will recognise that that is not a point of order. He has put his point on the record.

[Vernon Coaker]

On behalf of the shadow Home Secretary, myself, and all Members of the House, may I wish Mr Hogan-Howe well in his new role as commissioner and in the important job of work that he will have to do?

The issue of the politicisation of operational independence is important, but Members have also referred to the huge problems that will be caused by having one police and crime commissioner to represent such a large number of areas and communities. Despite that, the Government are reinserting the proposal in the Bill with no indication of how they expect such problems to be overcome. We have heard from Devon and Cornwall, and Avon and Somerset, about this issue of size, yet the Minister just says that it will not be a problem. We also learn from the Minister that he believes that the Bill contains proper checks and balances and that, therefore, the reinstatement of the provision is not a problem. However, he fails to point out to Members that the police and crime panel has only two powers. One—to be fair to the Government, they have amended the majority that is required from three quarters to two thirds—is the veto over the appointment of the chief constable, and the other is the veto over the precept. That is it. The police and crime panel has no other power. The policing Minister wants us to disagree with the Lords amendments on the basis of his assertion that the Bill contains proper checks and balances, but I say to him that the police and crime panel has only two real powers to hold the police and crime commissioner to account.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Is not the hon. Gentleman doing a disservice to the future police and crime panels? They will doubtless be composed of notable members of the community, perhaps with expertise in crime and the justice system, and they will have an incredible platform from which to address the local media and engage in a debate on local television and radio. I envisage that kind of check and balance on a potentially wayward police and crime commissioner coming from the panels. So they will not have just two powers; they will probably have three, the third being the power of voice.

[Vernon Coaker]

Of course they will have the power of voice. I have the power of voice here, but I shall still lose the vote, unless something goes dramatically wrong. I can still argue for what I think is right, but at the end of the day a police and crime panel will have no real sanction or power to change what a police and crime commissioner is doing if it believes it to be wrong, apart from the two specific powers that I have mentioned. As will become clear when we debate the next group of amendments, the panel will not even have the power to veto the sacking of a chief constable. The police and crime commissioner will have a completely unfettered power.

The Minister told us that the Government had listened to what the Lords had said, and that a chief constable who was to be sacked would be able to go to the police and crime panel and tell it why the police and crime commissioner was wrong. The panel would not have any power to do anything about it, but the chief constable could make representations to it. That might be a good thing, but it does not alter the fact that a chief constable in that position would have no proper right of appeal. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the police and crime panel can say what it thinks, but ultimately it can be ignored by the police and crime commissioner, except in the two specific instances that I have mentioned.

[Simon Hart]

In what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman believe that a police and crime commissioner would go solo and make a serious decision like that against all the interests of the community and, indeed, the other elected politicians and councillors who might reside in the area? How likely is that to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

There are a number of possible examples. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one of them. If an election is approaching and a chief constable is refusing to follow the priorities on which someone intends to stand, what would prevent that person from saying to the chief constable, “Unless you announce that you will introduce neighbourhood policing, put bobbies on the beat and keep this police station open, all of which I will include in my manifesto, I will sack you”? There is no power for anyone to stop a police and crime commissioner from doing that to a chief constable.

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this matter, and I know that he would be as anxious about such circumstances as I would be. He may think that they will never arise, but he and I both know that many situations arise that were not predicted. I should have thought that any Government would want at least to include a provision ensuring that police and crime commissioners did not have an unfettered power, but as the Bill stands it is completely unfettered.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the Mayor of London has already demonstrated such circumstances in managing to get rid of two commissioners of the Metropolitan police?

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. It illustrates some of the problems that can arise in connection with police and crime commissioners.

I will not rehearse all of what has been said before, but the Minister has asked us to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, and to reinsert the original proposals on police and crime commissioners in the Bill. The “one person” argument, the “operational independence” argument and the politicisation argument are all still there, as is the lack of power for the police and crime panel—the fact that it is a toothless watchdog—yet the Minister is telling us that he is right, and that everyone else is wrong. In their amendment 6 on the police commission model, the Lords attempt to overcome some of the existing problems—such as having one omnipotent person, as the Government would like—by ensuring that the police and crime panel is established as set out in the Bill and that the police and crime commissioner is appointed from among that group of people.

This group of amendments also addresses the delayed election issue. I know some of my hon. Friends want to say a little more about the Welsh aspect of that, and I fully understand and support their argument.

We oppose in principle both the elections and police and crime commissioners. We also believe that if the Government are going to press ahead, May 2012 is a ridiculous date given issues such as the speed with which things would be required to be put in place and the Olympics. The Government apparently now agree with that, but have come up with the equally stupid idea of holding the elections in November. That would be costly, and there would also be further problems that have been pointed out not by the Opposition—my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has not pointed this out—but by the Electoral Commission, including the problems of daylight hours and of the electoral canvass going on at the same time. The Electoral Commission is a body that is independent of this House, and it has pointed out to the Minister that it is silly to delay things until November. Moreover, members of that commission have said that the cost of such a delay would be significant.

I therefore ask the Minister to tell us how on earth the Government have arrived at that date. Why are they delaying the elections? Is there any truth in the newspaper reports that it was in order to ensure that the Liberals voted for the Bill in totality? Is this another example of the tail wagging the dog?

[Steve McCabe]

If we give the Government the benefit of the doubt and accept that the delay is to allow more time for candidates to campaign and make themselves known to the public and for the untried and untested arrangements to be developed to the point where they might actually be implemented, would it not make sense to delay the elections until at least May 2013? That would enable the Government to increase the turnout and save on cost, whereas what they are doing is reducing the chances of a high turnout and increasing the cost, which seems completely nonsensical?

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the logic of the Government arriving at the date of 15 November. In speaking to the amendment in question, the Minister in effect just said, “We’re changing the date,” in what amounted to not much more than a shrug-of-the-shoulders argument. The House deserved more than that, because many people say that if we are going to delay this, it is much more sensible to delay until May 2013. Why has this date been chosen? Why is it so special? What discussions have taken place with the Liberals?

There has been much debate about the cost of the elections. How has the figure of £25 million been arrived at? The Government have accepted the sum of £50 million, and £25 million is now to be added to that. As shown by Channel 4’s “FactCheck”, there is now a debate. We have also seen that a referendum that was held on the same day as other elections cost £89 million. Admittedly, that did not include Scotland, and this arrangement is just for England and Wales.

Again, there is no proper explanation, and that fault runs all the way through the Bill. Most of the time the Minister relies on assertion and saying, “This is the right thing to do,” or, “I don’t agree with what other people say.” Very little evidence is given, and there is seldom any resort to any studies that might have been done. Instead, there is just an assertion of what the Minister thinks is the right thing to do.

I shall conclude, as I know that many Members wish to speak—and I see that you are getting a bit restless as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government have offered no real argument as to why these measures should be put back into the Bill, and they have no real answers to the questions that were raised throughout the Committee’s proceedings. They have offered no real argument as to why they think this delay is right, nor have they made any real assessment of the costs involved. They have offered no real argument as to why everyone else is wrong and they are right.

Even at this late stage, the Minister pretends to us that another little tidying-up exercise is needed. The change in respect of the financial code of practice is presented as merely a technical amendment, yet one of the key demands made in the Lords was that a code of practice was necessary in respect of the police and crime commissioners. However, apart from a few sentences of assertion from the Minister, we have no real idea even at this late stage about this financial code of practice, which will govern the way the police and crime commissioners operate. The Government have therefore not just produced another tweaking amendment, but have had to bring forward a major change. That is why we tabled our amendment about the importance of this change to chief constables. The Minister again just dismissed this, but perhaps he would agree with those who say, “Why shouldn’t the chief constable have some real say about what should be included in that financial code of practice and about the impact of police grant cuts on officer numbers?”

This is the wrong reform at the wrong time. If we were to ask people whether they would set as a higher priority this Government spending more than £100 million on the ideological experiment of police and crime commissioners or instead spending that money on police officers on the street, I think almost everyone in the country would say, “Let’s have police officers on the street and not spend £100 million on elections that nobody wants.”

[Mr Ruffley]

I support the Government amendments, and would like to favour the House with some recollections from the two and a half years before the last general election when I did the job that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) does. In the course of my shadow duties, I had occasion to speak to a great number of police authorities, crime reduction partnerships and voters and I came to the following conclusion: while police authority members believed for wholly honourable motives that the proposed step was retrograde and potentially dangerous, I could find very little antagonism and opposition to the idea of elected police and crime commissioners—and I challenge the Opposition to produce evidence that that idea is unpopular with the British public.

If we rely on MORI—I do not see why we should not rely on it—we know the following about British public opinion. Over the past five or six years, it has regularly produced findings that demonstrate that police authorities, as vehicles for making the police accountable to the public they serve in any locality, are invisible. That is not a term of abuse. Some of my best friends are members of police authorities, and they take umbrage when it is suggested that they do not do a good job. Many of them do a good job, but the fact remains that they are invisible to the public.

The main thrust behind this proposal is to have a single focal point of accountability, much in the way that the disparate things that used to happen under the Greater London council and all the other bodies associated with the running and governance of London were brought together in the shape of a directly elected Mayor. By and large, that has been a very popular programme of government and a very good idea. Having a single focal point of accountability focuses people’s minds, as the public know that if something is going wrong in policing, there is one man or woman to whom they can go to find out whether it can be fixed and when it will be fixed.

[Vernon Coaker]

I acknowledge the experience that the hon. Gentleman brings to these debates from his former shadow policing role. He challenged me to produce evidence of where this approach was not wanted, so may I refer him to the Liberty polling evidence produced a few months ago? I cannot remember the exact month when this was produced, but when people were asked who they would trust more to protect their family from crime, 65% said:

“A Chief Constable reporting to a Police Authority, as now”.

Some 15% said that they would prefer:

“A Chief Constable reporting to an individual politician elected as a Police and Crime Commissioner”.

There is some evidence for him.

[Mr Ruffley]

I will not take issue with the skewed nature of the wording—“politician” is often a dirty word. I have no knowledge of the survey, but what many of the respondents would probably not understand is that the majority of those serving on a 17-person police authority are politicians—nine of them will be indirectly elected council members. So a clear political element is already involved, which brings me on to my next point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ruffley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He has huge experience from being leader of one of the great cities of this country, he knows what he is talking about and he spoke eloquently in August about how the riots affected Manchester. His is a genuine point that is not easily resolvable. The idea is that a directly elected police commissioner will be able to set the precept, and one of the strengths of a police authority—probably the only strength I can think of—is the fact that a proportion of the members of that police authority also sit on the precept-raising authority with their councillor’s hat on. That means there is a connection between the council raising the precept and individual members of that council, wearing a different hat, sitting indirectly on the police authority. That was a useful nexus and it will not necessarily be the case here.

In practice, I would expect any police and crime commissioner worth his or her salt to listen carefully to the priorities of, and arguments put by, the leading group on the relevant precept-raising authority. I do not pretend that this proposal is perfect in that regard. There will be quite a big disconnect between the person wishing to set a police precept and the authority that has to go out and raise it, but that might be the rough edge of an otherwise quite unremarkable proposal. That returns me to my theme and my next point.

This is not a radical revolution that will throw all the police cards up in the air and it is not a case of letting the chips fall where they may. I do not believe that that is a sensible way to make public policy nor do I think it is a sensible way of running the police service. I think we are in agreement on that point. However, many of the powers and duties of the new police and crime commissioner will be virtually identical to those of police authorities at the moment.

At the end of the last Parliament, I was rather a sad individual and I counted the number of duties and powers that police authorities had under a wide range of legislation from the Local Government Act 1999, under which they had value-for-money audit responsibilities, to the police Acts and so on. There were about 120 to 130 such duties and responsibilities and it seemed to me that those authorities exercised quite a lot of power over the police, such as the power to call police officers to account. I struggle to see how the panoply of powers possessed by the average police authority is very different from the powers, duties and responsibilities that a police and crime commissioner will have. We know that the setting of a precept is an identical power and we also know that police authorities, in conjunction with a chief constable, set police priorities and objectives for the year. Police authorities have strong views on the strategic objectives for a local police area and it seems to me that the police and crime commissioner will have similar strongly held views but will have the advantage, at least, of a public mandate through the ballot box when he or she sits down with the chief constable and they set out their plan to run the force in any given police area. Equally, police authorities can appoint and, in certain circumstances, dismiss chief constables. That is a power that police and crime commissioners will have, too. For me, those are the big ticket items.

[Vernon Coaker]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience, I am interested in his view about the unfettered power of the police and crime commissioner to sack the chief constable. Does he believe that should be subject to the same veto provisions as the police and crime panel has for appointment and the precept?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). May I say how glad I am that he had such a good shooting trip over the weekend, which I fixed for him with the Indian cricket team? I hope their shooting was better than their cricket.

I support the Government’s attempts to reverse Lords amendments 1 to 4. If I had not been convinced of the arguments for doing so before tonight’s debate, I would have been convinced after I heard the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I suspect he might accuse me of misquoting him, but he said that one of the problems with the election of police commissioners is that they will have a democratic mandate. Surely that is what the proposal is all about. Arguing against it on the basis of a fear that somebody might have a democratic mandate does not sit comfortably with the whole direction of the coalition Government.

I shall concentrate on two themes—first, communities and the police, as they are affected by the election of police commissioners, and secondly, a wider discussion of the broader consequences. Hon. Members know that I represent a small part of the Dyfed-Powys constabulary area in west Wales. There is always a perception that the priorities and work load of rural police forces are different from those of other forces, and to a great extent they are, but even a constabulary such as Dyfed-Powys, which has a huge geographical area to cover, covers some intensely urban and suburban areas which have all the same problems as any other part of Britain.

That is a particularly good example for the House to consider and to which we can apply the principle of elected commissioners to see whether the arguments stack up. I do not think that anyone on either side of the argument is suggesting that the current situation with regard to police authorities is perfect. Of course it is far from perfect. Nobody is arguing that the proposal is perfect in every detail but it is argued, with some validity, that it is considerably better than the situation we have put up with for 50 years. Let us not forget that police authorities have largely been operating under the same structure for that length of time, yet the challenge facing policing and the social dynamic of Britain has changed radically over that period. It is entirely sensible that we should seriously consider reforming the manner in which governance is applied.

There seems to be no question but that the relationship between communities, whether they are urban, rural or suburban, is at best remote and strained, and that when these recommendations are in place, it will be considerably enhanced. Much of the debate has been about the politicisation of the role. I think we exaggerate that. Having read over the weekend some of the contributions to the debate in another place, I recommend to hon. Members the contribution of Lord Dear, who was a serving officer in the west midlands for 40 years. He was happy to go on the record as saying that his initial reservations about the proposal had been gradually eroded as the debate unfolded.

The idea that there is no politicisation now is absurd. There is a huge degree of politics in policing now. Chief constables make rather adept politicians, as it turns out. They agonise over press releases and over the relationship that they have with politicians in their area. In an intervention, I mentioned my force, Dyfed-Powys. I feel rather sorry for the chief constable. Not only does he have a wide range of MPs to deal with from various political parties, but he has a wide range of Assembly Members representing different parties, and several different local authorities. He has to balance the relationships that he has with all those individuals.

The idea that a single elected police commissioner can storm into that relationship, overpower a chief constable and not be held to account by the numerous other elected representatives in that area is exaggerated. It is an excuse to try and undermine a good idea, rather than an evidential basis upon which to do that.

The role of commissioners will be the political one. To coin a phrase, the commissioners will do the politics, enabling the chief constables to do the policing. I do not know whether many Opposition Members look at the website “Labour Uncut”—it is probably their equivalent of “Conservative Home”—but even “Labour Uncut” thinks this is one of the Prime Minister’s better ideas. I think it goes so far as to say that it is his only good idea, a view that I do not share. It grudgingly reaches the conclusion that this democratic improvement is something that the coalition Government got right.

Continuing the theme of politics interfering with police forces, Lord Dear’s speech in April this year referred to his time in HMIC and in particular to Derbyshire police authority 15 to 20 years ago. If ever there was an example of intense political interference with a police force, that was it. It was staunchly party political and had a hugely debilitating effect on that police force. The consequence was that Lord Dear, in his position in HMIC, had to judge the force to be not fit for purpose as a direct result of the party political interference and the sub-standard police authority at the time. Therefore, the idea that this risk applies only to future proposals and has in no way poisoned the operation of constabularies in the past is also a complete myth. I concede the points made by the hon. Member for Gedling and acknowledge that there are concerns. The Minister has addressed some of those and, I am sure, will address more as the evening wears on.

Taking this from a police officer’s perspective, we can see that it is all the more important to address these concerns publicly now. The argument that this is a one-size-fits-all solution and that, because constabularies are not all the one size, it cannot possibly work in all places needs further explanation. The officers’ concerns about the ownership—not in the physical sense—of staff issues, building-related issues and the more mundane elements of policing are, in debating terms, unfinished business.

We also need to reassure people about political ideology. In our various debates on police reform, political ideology has somehow been labelled a negative influence. If political ideology includes the desire to make a police force more accountable and cost-effective and to give better value for money, that is an ideology that I am more than happy to sign up to. In going about our duty, we should not attempt to scare potential voters in these important elections into believing that someone who adopts ideology should be avoided at all costs. There will of course be political ideology, whoever ends up in these positions and whatever party they represent. Even if the status quo were to continue, political ideology pervades the system.

The Minister will no doubt offer some reassurances on the points raised about the crime panel, although I am less worried about it than others seem to be. There will be a large number of locally accountable people in my area of Dyfed-Powys who will be very sensitive to the risk of one man going off piste and running a solo political operation at the expense of the voters who put him there, which I think would be extremely unlikely.

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman says that he thinks that would be extremely unlikely, but given the fact that it could happen, however unlikely, and the seriousness of a PCC’s unfettered ability to sack a chief constable, does he not agree that the Bill should at least provide HMIC, for instance, with a reserve power to refer such a sacking to the Home Secretary so that he or she could judge whether anything untoward had happened? Is not some sort of reserve power necessary to protect against such an eventuality, however unlikely?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I am not sure that that necessarily needs to be in the Bill. I think that there are sufficient checks and balances in the process anyway. His question presupposed that the existing system is risk free, but clearly it is not. We have all seen examples of the relationship between police authorities, local communities and chief constables breaking down. I argue that the proposals we have heard debated on numerous occasions so far during this Parliament represent a better and safer version of what we currently have. I share neither his concerns, nor his optimism that we can design a piece of legislation that is 100% risk free. I do not think that that is possible either in this area, or in many others.

To me the arguments that this is an improvement on the existing arrangements are reasonably compelling. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and do not think that it has necessarily been answered in a way that is convincing for us, let alone for the people it will affect directly, either those who will vote, or those who will do the enforcing. Both deserve a clear answer. On that point, further clarification on what action will be taken in the event of a failure is significant, because I am not convinced—I am not sure about other hon. Members—that if the relationship between the chief constable and the elected commissioner breaks down for any reason, there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure that that will not have a negative effect downstream.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burley]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me. I would be fascinated to know whether any of the 43 police and crime commissioners elected next year will have such low visibility on their websites for people who want to contact them or complain about the police. All those points show why the introduction of police and crime commissioners is so important. They are a key element of the Government’s programme of decentralisation, where power is returned to people and communities.

I want the new commissioners to be big local figures with a powerful local mandate to drive the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour. After all, they will decide policing strategy; set the force budget and the local council tax precept; and appoint, and if necessary dismiss, the chief constable—that point has been made throughout the debate. They will do those things on behalf of the public who elected them, and who will then hold them to account at the ballot box.

A key point is that the role of commissioners will also be greater than that of the police authorities that they replace. That is the significance of the words “and crime” in their title. Police and crime commissioners will have a broad remit to ensure community safety within their budgets, and to prevent crime and tackle drugs. They will work with local authorities, community safety partnerships and local criminal justice boards, helping to bring a strategic coherence to the actions of those organisations at force level. In future, their role could be extended to other elements of the local criminal justice system, ensuring that the police and those who manage offenders operate together, working to break the cycle of crime.

In short, police and crime commissioners will be big beasts: highly visible, highly accountable and highly effective. The contrast between them and today’s police authorities could hardly be greater.

[Vernon Coaker]

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for criminal justice commissioners? In other words, does he want locally elected people in an analogous role to that of police and crime commissioners in respect of chief constables? In my view, he does want that, but is that what he is arguing for? The House would like to be clear on whether the next stage is to have criminal justice commissioners elected by the local population.

[Mr Burley]

I am not arguing for that, but speculating how the role of commissioners could develop over time. The key point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is this: there will be pressure on elected police and crime commissioners to do things in a different way. There will be pressure on them to be far more collaborative with other forces and other police and crime commissioners, for example, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, to drive efficiencies through procurement. There is no real reason at the moment for police forces to collaborate to purchase cars or uniforms together. They have not had that driver, yet they have had increasing budgets for 10 years. The guys who are elected next year will want to work with neighbouring forces. If I were elected as police and crime commissioner for Staffordshire next year, the first call I would make would be to the police and crime commissioner in west midlands, to ask, “Can we do things together? Could we collaborate to procure things together?” I would have a reason to want to reduce my budget so that I could spend it on delivering the pledges that I put in my manifesto, such as a pledge to get more officers on the beat.

The hon. Gentleman and I discussed Tony Blair’s knife crime summit. I was thinking through his logic after he answered my question, but I still do not understand it, so perhaps he could help. It was okay, at a national level, for an elected politician—the former Prime Minister—to hold a summit at No. 10 Downing street, inviting all the chief constables from around the country, who no doubt could have been doing other things with their time, to ask them what they were doing about knife crime, which he had identified as an issue in this country. No doubt he was coming under a lot of pressure from the public, who were contacting him and their MPs demanding that something be done, and quite rightly he called together the police forces to bang heads together and come up with a strategy to deal with knife crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burley]

I am fortunate to live in a very well- policed area. Staffordshire has an excellent chief constable. He is one of the few chief constables to come out and say that, despite his budget reductions, he will be making absolutely no cuts to the front line until 2013. We have forward looking police forces.

[Vernon Coaker]

Only to 2013?

[Mr Burley]

He has confirmed to 2013. I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman wants him to confirm.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), I would simply quote his party’s manifesto back at him. Page 72 of the Lib Dem manifesto—I do not know whether he helped to write it—stated:

“We will give local people a real say over their police force through the direct election of police authorities”.

Clearly, there is a problem. All the bodies that he named are bureaucracies. He just reeled off half a dozen bureaucratic bodies that no one has heard of, that no one knows how to contact and that do not deliver what local people want. His own party’s manifesto proposes a highly visible single individual who is accountable at the ballot box, whom people know how to contact and who is not next to the male choir on the website. How can that not be an improvement?

--- 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 ---

[Mike Crockart]

I want to speak in favour of a number of amendments. Before doing so, however, I make a plea from the heart as a new Member of the House. I am working with the Plain English Campaign to urge simplicity and transparency in product design and communications coming from the financial services industry. Having faced a minefield of amendments, amendments to amendments and disagreements with amendments over the past few days, I suggest that the Plain English Campaign could well assist this House with some of its processes.

Let me start with amendments 70 to 78 and 80 to 83, which deal with the composition of the police and crime panels. Originally the Bill allowed for a minimum of 10 members from local authorities, or one member from each authority for police areas with 11 or more authorities, and two non-political co-opted members in each instance. Our amendments in Committee sought to create additional capacity within the membership of the police and crime panels. The Lords amendment would mean that there was still a minimum of 10 political members and two non-political co-opted members but allow for a resolution by each panel to appoint any extra number of co-opted members provided that the total number does not exceed 20.

We spent a great deal of time on this subject in Committee and debated at least 40 probing amendments to the Government’s initial proposals. Then, as now, the key issue for the composition of the panel was how well it could manage to meet its balanced appointment objective as set out in schedule 6(30)(3), which bears quoting:

“The ‘balanced appointment objective’ referred to in this paragraph is the objective that the appointed members of a police and crime panel (when taken together)…represent all parts of the relevant police area”—

it says “parts”, not “local authorities”, to seek to ensure geographical balance—and

“represent the political make-up of…the relevant local authority, or…the relevant local authorities (when taken together)”.

That is a very important sub-paragraph. Our amendments proposing to increase the size of the police and crime panels would have given the PCPs a small amount of wriggle room to meet those geographical and political balance objectives. That involved an extra two members specifically to address concerns about balance.

The Minister agreed to reflect on those amendments, and I am happy to see that what has come back here today is a significant improvement, not only on what was initially proposed but on what was included in my amendment. While my amendment would have given an additional two members to help with the balance, these new proposals give a potential eight extra members who could be co-opted on to a police and crime panel, all of whom would be subject to the balanced appointment objective. This is a significant change which gives the vast majority of PCPs the flexibility they will need to ensure that we achieve an effective body for reviewing and scrutinising the police and crime commissioner across all the constituent local authorities. Of the 41 police areas, 31 would have the potential to use the maximum eight additional co-optees and only five would have fewer than an additional four members.

The one question that remains, although the Minister has already dealt with it to a great extent, is what constitutes, or indeed necessitates, the agreement of the Secretary of State to allow for the further co-opted members to be appointed. It is clear that this power is necessary. It would be bitter-sweet to have identified the issue and proposed the amendment to deal with it only for the Secretary of State to fail to agree to the use of that power. I would like to hear more about what circumstances the Secretary of State would take into account before making that decision—as, I am sure, would those who tabled amendment 80. I do, however, thank the Minister for listening and welcome this improvement to the Bill.

Lords amendments 69 and 98 deal with the power of veto for police and crime panels over the setting of the precept and the proposed appointment of a chief constable. The issue that consumed more time in Committee than any other was that of the powers available to the PCP to discharge its duty to review and scrutinise the decisions and actions of the commissioner. We had a wide-ranging debate that examined many possible additional powers. We agreed that the sharpest teeth—or some might argue the only teeth—that the PCP will have is the power to veto the proposed precept and the proposed appointment of a chief constable.

I tabled amendments in Committee to achieve precisely what is now being proposed by the Government. In doing so, I challenged the Minister to reflect on whether any other veto power had such a high threshold of 75%. We argued, with the support of the Local Government Association, that the three-quarters majority required for the veto was too stringent and impractical to provide an effective block on the commissioner. No democratic system places executive power in the hands of an individual without providing suitable and strict checks and balances, and no strong democratic body requires a three-quarters majority to provide such a check on the executive. A veto by a two-thirds majority vote is given to the London Assembly and councils with directly elected mayors in budget matters. That would be strongly preferable and would give suitable strength to the authority of panels. It would align the commissioner model with a tried and tested framework for holding a democratic executive to account.

The move to a two-thirds majority will strengthen local democracy and accountability, and it will be a major step forward. When I made that point in Committee, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) agreed with me, so much so that he was desperate for me to push the matter to a vote, despite the promise of the Minister to reflect on the points raised. However, I took the Minister at his word and I am happy to see these amendments today.

[Vernon Coaker]

You voted against them.

[Mike Crockart]

No, those are not the matters that the hon. Gentleman pushed to the vote.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) asked the Minister what percentage of amendments moved by Liberal Democrats were withdrawn rather than pressed to a Division. He was told to work it out for himself. I am happy to help him today. It was 100%. And yet, here we are with significant changes to the composition and powers of the police and crime panels. The Minister said in Committee:

“We are all adjusting to coalition politics, but it is interesting that Opposition Members are finding it harder than we are.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 8 February 2011; c. 456.]

Seven months on, that does not seem to have changed.

Finally, I would like to consider a missed opportunity that the Government may live to regret, although I hope not. Government Lords amendments 33, 87 and 88 relate to clause 31, which covers the suspension of police and crime commissioners. We discussed this provision in Committee and identified a drafting error, which I am happy to see has been corrected. We also discussed whether the correct threshold had been set for suspension. At present, suspension is possible only when an individual is charged with an offence punishable by a

“term of imprisonment exceeding two years.”

That threshold rules out a number of potential charges which, were they hanging over him, would seem to make it incredible that a police and crime commissioner could continue to hold a chief constable to account. Those charges include assault with intent to resist arrest, racially or religiously aggravated assault, racially or religiously aggravated harassment and a number of others that were outlined in Committee. I am disappointed that the Minister, after reflecting, has not included this change in his amendments.

The Minister did propose that the power for a police and crime commissioner to stand down voluntarily would be introduced. He said that that would provide a better way to deal with such situations. Alas, unless I am looking in the wrong place, that is not in the Bill or in the amendments. That is a missed opportunity, because it leaves the potential for embarrassing situations to arise.

In conclusion, the proposals go a long way to strengthening the police and crime panels and, I believe, will deliver the strict checks and balances as laid down in the coalition agreement. The Bill will bring about public accountability of the policing function, bring it out of the shadows and subject it to the full scrutiny of every member of the electorate.

[Vernon Coaker]

I want to know exactly where the Liberal part of the Government stands on this. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he supports my proposal that the police and crime panel should have the power to veto the dismissal of a chief constable?

[Mike Crockart]

I will make it very clear that I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, although there is an outstanding question and some further work is required. Employment law would look on the ability to dismiss someone without an appeal as being dubious at best, so there is possibly a legal aspect to look at. However, when we look at the powers in the Bill on the suspension and removal of chief constables, we see that the situation is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes out. It is not just a case of the police and crime commissioner wanting to get rid of the chief constable and his being gone the next day. A long, public process—six weeks—is kicked off, involving the panel, notifications and representations.

I do not believe for a second that any police and crime commissioner would set out on such an open and public process without a very strong case for the dismissal of a chief constable. To do so would lay the commissioner open to a very high level of public scrutiny. I cannot see a publicly elected official opening themselves up to that level of scrutiny without sufficient cause. The process that the Bill lays out will effectively stop that situation ever arising.

To conclude, the Bill brings public accountability of the policing function out from the shadows. Community safety, and the fight against crime and disorder, deserve nothing less.

--- 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.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Mr Coaker.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Perhaps I should explain to Members who were wondering why I was not standing up to speak that I was trying to give others a chance to make a contribution. Some of what I say may appear to repeat aspects of the debate we have already had, and although I do not mind being subjected to barracking, I hope I will not be subjected to barracking over and above what one might normally expect.

As we have now moved into Committee, let me go into a little more detail. To be fair to the Minister, a few moments ago he could have done with a little more time to address some of the measures he is trying to rush through. Clause 1 is essentially the Bill, so it is almost as if we are repeating Second Reading, but let me say again from the outset that we support the provisions in clause 1. We absolutely agree that we need to fast-track the Bill, and the reasons for that are well set out in the explanatory memorandum.

Earlier, the shadow Home Secretary was trying to elicit from the Government answers to two key questions on fast-tracking and the legal advice and preparation—or lack of it—that the Home Office made in introducing the Bill. First, our understanding is that the Attorney-General was asked by the Supreme Court to intervene in the public interest in the application for a stay of judgment. Did the Attorney-General intervene and support the Government? Was he involved in seeking that stay of judgment in the Supreme Court? As I say, we support the fast-tracking of the Bill, but secondly, will the Minister tell us when the Home Office commissioned officials to draw up draft legislation? It would be of interest to us all to know when that advice was commissioned, so that we could have greater clarity about the Bill and the speed with which the Home Office acted. Our view is that it did not act as quickly as it might or should have done.

We do not, in any way, underestimate the importance of and need for speed in this matter, as 80,000 individuals are currently on police bail. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to look at the submission from The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff—NAPO—I urge them to examine it. That body has put together some case studies that illustrate some of the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the judgments. I shall just discuss one of its examples, which relates to a 24-year-old man arrested on suspicion of an alcohol-fuelled assault and affray. He was held in cells overnight to sober up, and it is believed that that counts towards the 96 hours. His interview was then delayed for a further two hours to wait for the duty solicitor. He was then bailed on condition that he avoided the victim and the pub, and the police are now collecting witness statements and forensic analysis from the site. Five days have already passed since the incident, and so the bail conditions will fall. NAPO’s submission contains other examples, which are set out for the Committee. Those case studies are extremely important and they show why the Government have introduced this fast-track Bill.

In the previous debate the Minister started to respond to some of the questions posed by hon. Members from both sides of the House. If we examine what Liberty, Justice and many hon. Members have said about the Bill, we find that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked. However, we need to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was saying, as it goes to the heart of the matter. As he set out, the Bill contains no sunset clause and, irrespective of whether or not that is the right way to proceed, that does not mean that the Government should not consider some of the issues that people have raised. The fact that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked does not mean that we should not address the issues relating to time limits for how long somebody can and should be able to remain on police bail, and those concerning some of the conditions that are attached to bail.

I believe that the Minister said earlier that the system had been operating for 25 years without anybody raising such issues and so there was not previously a problem. I do not mean to misquote him, and apologise if I am doing so, but the fact—or not—that these issues have not been raised before does not mean that the Government should not consider examining those that have arisen as a consequence of the judgment. There needs to be a debate. Given that the Bill contains no sunset clause, will the Minister say whether he feels that there is a need for a debate about time limits and the application of conditions in police bail, just to see whether any change to the guidance should be made? There may well be no need as a result of that debate to make such a change, but all this throws up an opportunity for us to discuss with the police and others whether any change is needed.

[Steve McCabe]

I do not think that I have heard either on Second Reading or during this debate whether someone who decides to leave this country, which at the moment they are perfectly entitled to do, will be subject as of 12 July to the retrospective conditions. Presumably it would cost quite a lot of money and time to try to bring that person back. Is that the kind of problem about which my hon. Friend is concerned? There is a category of people who would be perfectly at liberty to leave the country now because no controls apply to them, but whom we would want to contact and bring back because they are engaged in potentially quite serious offences.

[Vernon Coaker]

That might well be one example of concern to us all. Whether we use that example or others—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) cited examples of police bail having gone on and on—we need to consider any constraints or restraints or whether the system works so well that we do not need to worry about it. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that it is time to discuss that and to see what the evidence tells us, or that we should just carry on.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—it might have been the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—mentioned the use of police bail. Do we need to consider that? Is it totally appropriate? Are we sure that it works in the way that we would want in all circumstances?

One of the things about a fast-tracked Bill is that the information that comes to us is fast-tracked, too. Some Members were sent just this morning, when it was published, the report on police detention and bail by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. I do not know whether all Members have managed to see it. Although the Committee does not oppose what the Government are doing, it has raised one or two questions. It wonders whether, because the Bill is being fast-tracked with limited opportunity for amendment, the Government will need to return to consider some of the matters that might otherwise have been debated. It is important to consider the detail now we are in Committee, and the Constitution Committee raises the constitutional issue of the fact that Parliament is legislating before the Supreme Court has made a judgment. The Constitution Committee does not necessarily say that there is anything wrong with that, but states:

“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”—

note the word “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.”

The Committee says that it will return to the matter later in the year to consider what

“the effect of Parliament legislating in advance of the Supreme Court hearing may be on the Court when it hears the case on 25 July.”

Can the Minister tell the Committee the Government’s view? I appreciate that the Government might have seen the report only relatively recently and I am unsure whether the Minister will have had time fully to consider it. If the Minister has not had time to do that, he might need to ensure that there is a full discussion and debate in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

One of my concerns is that the decision might mean that the rule was ineffective going back 25 years and that a collection of people who believe that they were wrongly treated during that period might bring claims for compensation. There is some detail about that in the explanatory note and my reading of the clause is that the retrospective effect rules out any such potential issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that and welcome it?

[Vernon Coaker]

I think so, but we are in Committee and I would need the detail in order to understand what legal advice the Government have had about retrospective effect before I could properly answer the hon. Gentleman. I thought that either the Minister or the Home Secretary had said that all this will apply only as far back as 19 May, when the initial judgment was made. I seek to clarify whether it is possible to apply such provision to cases from the past 25 years. There will be a legal opinion on that and I suppose it will be either one thing or the other.

I have only a few brief points to make, because of course we all agree with the Bill. Clearly, we all want the Bill to become law as soon as possible and certainly before Parliament goes into recess. In answer to the very important question about Royal Assent, the Minister said that the Government aim for the Bill to become law on completion of its passage through the House of Lords, which is on Tuesday. Will he confirm that what he actually means is that Royal Assent will be given at the end of that day? Are the Government aiming for that, or will it definitely be given then? We all want absolute and firm assurance on that, because every Member of the House supports the Bill and will want to know, 100%, that Royal Assent will definitely be in place before the House rises for the summer recess. Of course, that is assuming that the Bill is passed by both Houses.

With those few brief comments and detailed points I will sit down and wait for the Minister’s response or to hear what other Members have to say.

[Nigel Mills]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I should like simply to expand a little further on the point I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the potential for retrospective effect. We have seen, in relation to other issues earlier this year, how concerned the public are about any possibility of compensation being paid to people who are guilty of offences and are, perhaps, now being denied their right to vote. I expect the public would be incredibly concerned if people who have been through what was thought to be due legal process now had some chance of compensation, no matter how little, because that process, despite having been believed by everyone to be right, might have been ruled technically out of order by one judge in a verdict with which no one seems to agree. I accept the fact that, as is made clear in the explanatory notes, making the Bill’s provisions retrospective, right back to 1984, is an attempt to address that.

My concern is that to some extent we are in this mess because Parliament was not clear enough about its intentions when it passed the 1984 Act. It would be helpful if Parliament was entirely clear about what we mean when we give retrospective effect and if the Minister made explicit the intention, as set out in the explanatory notes, that these powers will be restored to what we all understood them to be for 25 years so that the courts will not allow any compensation claims. The explanatory notes are clear that that is what the Bill is attempting to do.

To try to clarify the point that the hon. Member for Gedling made, if he looks at page 9 of the explanatory notes, he will see that paragraph 36(c) states:

“Unless the Bill is given retrospective effect, it is possible that a very large number of people could bring claims for damages for detention occurring before the judgment, even though that detention was in accordance with what was honestly thought to be a long-understood legal position.”

There could be a huge number of claims and a large amount of money at stake, and it would be very generous to think that some claims-handling firms would not go around trying to find people to make those claims and test the process.

I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he make it absolutely clear that the Government’s view, and Parliament’s intention, is that no compensation would be due? Secondly, will he address the point about whether it would be wise to add a separate subsection to the Bill that makes that absolutely explicit so that if and when such claims are brought there is no doubt that our intention is that no compensation should be due?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

I believe that the Minister is absolutely certain. I am going to put on my glasses to ensure that I get things right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

The official Opposition are pleased that the Bill has progressed swiftly through the House. It is a very small Bill, but it is none the less very important. Important points have been raised, and the Minister sought to address them. No doubt that will inform the debate in the other place. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the judicial system, the vast majority of people in this country will have had an “I can’t believe it!” moment in relation to this matter. When the House has passed the legislation, it will help to give the police the clarity that they need with respect to the law, so that they can deal with some difficult cases and individuals in the proper and professional way in which they carry out their business. I hope that this unsatisfactory situation will be resolved as swiftly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 6 to 10, 12, 13, 15, 20 and 14.

Amendment 134, clause 156, page 102, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2A) Commencement of Part 1 of this Act is subject to Clause [Commencement of Part 1].’.

Amendment 135, page 102, leave out line 27.

Government amendments 31 to 40, 135A, 136 to 138, 42, 50 and 51.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is very good to be reunited with many of the members of the Committee who did such sterling service upstairs. It falls to us now to scrutinise the Bill on Report, to consider the various improvements that the Government will seek to introduce and—from the Opposition’s perspective—to continue to point out the Bill’s various deficiencies.

As hon. Members will have seen, new clause 4 states that the commencement order for clauses 1 to 103 should not be brought into force until an inquiry into the impact of the Government’s arrangements, which will be given effect in England and Wales by the Bill, has been completed. In other words, the provisions should not be brought into force until we have begun to understand what the impact of police and crime commissioners will be. Obviously, we would ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct the inquiry, and that before commencement the Home Secretary has to consider the recommendations. The Minister knows that we oppose the introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners, which constitute the major part of this part of the Bill, and we will continue to do so. I seek again to persuade hon. Members across the House of some of the deficiencies we see in the Bill, and hence of the need for us to calm down, row back and consider what is happening and what the Government are proposing.

The Minister has provided no evidence of the need for the change. In fact, the responses to the policing and crime White Paper “Policing in the 21st Century” seem to be a mystery. After nearly 900 responses to the White Paper, all the Government did was publish a summary of them—they did not publish any of them. I challenge him again to publish all 900 responses. I have a sneaking suspicion that had those 900 responses been in favour of the introduction of police and crime commissioners, we would not have seen him for dust as he moved to publish them. He would have published them with a fanfare of glory, called a press conference and said to everyone, “Look, the introduction of police and crime commissioners supported by me, the Prime Minister and a couple of other people and whipped through the House of Commons is supported by these 900 people. No need for an inquiry. No need for anyone to be concerned.” However, he did not do that; he published a summary, on the grounds that it would be disproportionate to go further.

The silence from those who support the Government’s proposal is deafening. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I have not had people queuing up outside my surgery, knocking on my door and telling me that the introduction of police and crime commissioners is one of the foremost policies they want introduced in their communities. No doubt, the Association of Police Authorities would be among those to whom HMIC would want to talk in its inquiry. However—and I hope that hon. Members have read the Committee deliberations—the Minister does not think that the APA is worth listening to, because obviously it would be opposed to anything that the Government put forward. Clearly, given that the Bill seeks to abolish police authorities, it is thought that there is not much point in listening to the APA.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am following my hon. Friend’s arguments carefully. The new clause would put a lot of responsibility on HMIC. Does he feel that it has the resources to deal with what he would have it deal with? As we know, it published a report only yesterday on police numbers. Does he not think that if we give it this responsibility, it would need the resources to deal with it?

[Vernon Coaker]

My right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, makes a reasonable point. Of course, there would be a resources issue for HMIC that the Government would need to consider, but given the importance of the reform that the Government are seeking to introduce, and given that the police themselves say that this would be the biggest change to the policing model in this country for centuries, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is incumbent on us to say to HMIC that we will ensure that it has the necessary resources.

The Local Government Association—I do not know whether the Minister has a higher regard for it than for police authorities—is also totally opposed to the reform. It is difficult to find a single council that supports it. Surrey county council sometimes edges towards it, but it is difficult to find many others. I would have thought that if this were a great reform, the police would be coming forward and saying, “This will make a huge difference”, but of course they are not. The challenge, therefore, is to find the demand for the change. Local people are not demanding it, so who actually is? The Minister seems to be driven by a belief that he knows best. He accused others of being elitist, but if everybody is saying that the Government have got it wrong, there might be an element of truth in it.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman asked for an example of a council that supports the reform. My council—Medway council—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) is also a member, has supported the reforms, and our council leader, Rodney Chambers, has been a strong proponent, with me, of direct election for those who oversee our police. Surely the key thing, however, is that the electorate voted for it. The Lib Dems stood on a platform of direct election for police authorities, and we stood on one of directly elected commissioners. We now have this compromise involving a panel. The APA commissioned an opinion poll that showed that most people wanted direct election for those who oversaw the police.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up the issue—there is one council in favour of the proposed changed across the country. However, I disagree absolutely with what he said about the electorate voting for this measure. The model in the Bill was not voted for by the majority of people. As he said, the model in the Liberal Democrat manifesto was completely different from the one in the Bill. He gave the game away when he said, “Of course, in the coalition agreement, there was a compromise”. Well, if there was a compromise, it obviously happened after the election, not during the election, so I do not think that anybody actually voted for this model.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key issue is about having elected people looking after policing? That was the common ground between our two parties. The outcome was not exactly as we would have liked, but it was a balance between the two options. Does he further agree that there is a problem at the moment, in that police authorities do not represent those on district councils? District councils do not have a direct input. In fact, does he think that police authorities, as they currently are, work well at all?

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not think that police authorities are as bad as they are portrayed. There is some variation among them, but many do a reasonable job. Perhaps they are not as visible as they might be, and perhaps people do not understand exactly what they do, but people such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who sits on the Kent police authority, do a good job.

As for elections, let us say this. We can come forward with different models for this election or that election. However, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have heard me say in Committee, whatever the arguments about direct elections, the Government’s model is at totally the wrong level of accountability. I do not get people queuing up at my surgeries to say, “Do you know what, Mr Coaker? Nottinghamshire police’s counter-terrorism strategy”—or its fraud strategy or trafficking policy—“is wrong.” People come to my surgery to say, “Mr Coaker, we’re absolutely fed up with the kids at the end of our street,” or, “We’re totally fed up with the drug dealing going on from cars in a car park down the road.” I am sure that that is true for most hon. Members.

That neighbourhood, street-level accountability is what people want, which is why, to be fair to the hon. Member for Cambridge, his party proposed elections at a very local level. Whether that was the right model or the wrong model, if we are looking at where we need to strengthen accountability arrangements, it is precisely at that neighbourhood and street level where we need to do so. We can have neighbourhood policing, community meetings, beat meetings, and so on—all the things that have happened in a calm and measured way, and which have made such a difference to confidence at that level.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have discussed that idea in another venue, along with how important ultra-local policing is and how it is different from governance at a higher level. However, I am trying to understand where he is heading. In Committee he proposed directly elected chairs of police authorities, so I am glad that he now prefers the Lib Dem model—I do not remember him saying that before the election, but it is nice to hear that he is moving our way. Why does he think that having a directly elected chair of a panel would be so different from having a single directly elected person who would also act across a whole area?

[Vernon Coaker]

We are opposed to directly elected police and crime commissioners as set out in the Bill. Having said that, the Bill will presumably go through—unless Government Members vote against their own Whip—so then what should we do? The proper and responsible thing to do is to acknowledge that fact and propose another model—the hon. Gentleman will have seen our amendments. If we are to have a directly elected individual, then as well as saying that we are opposed to that in principle, what we as a responsible Opposition should do is say how we would improve it. The amendment that we moved in Committee—the hon. Gentleman knows this, but I am repeating it for the benefit of other Members—would have made that directly elected individual the chair of the police and crime panel, and thereby would have introduced proper checks and balances in the system.

The proposal that we are putting before the House today offers another way forward. What we are saying is, “Keep them as two distinct entities”—that is, have a police and crime commissioner as a figurehead, but also have a police and crime panel with significantly enhanced powers. These are all things that, with a proper inquiry and proper research, we could check to see whether they might be more appropriate, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman this. If he was stood where I am and he was opposed to something that the Government of the day were doing, he would say that he was opposed to it, but he would also seek to improve and adapt it, to take some of the edge off. That is what we did in Committee and that is what we are doing now.

It is not just the Opposition; hon. Members will no doubt have read Lord Imbert, the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and a former commissioner, setting out his opposition in The Times today. He will not be alone, although it is easier for him, as a non-serving police officer and a noble Lord, to say why he is opposed. He says:

“If passed unamended, this Bill will undermine”

the policing model that we have had in this country for years,

“threatening the crucial political independence and non-partisanship of the police and the Rule of Law itself.”

Yesterday, Liberty published the results of a survey conducted on its behalf by YouGov, which showed the lack of public trust in elected police commissioners. In answer to the question “Who would you trust more to protect your family from crime?”, 65% chose “A Chief Constable reporting to a Police Authority, as now” as their preferred option. “A Chief Constable reporting to an individual politician elected as a Police and Crime Commissioner” was the preferred option of just 15%. Just to show that that goes across the length and breadth of the country, I found out that a survey had been conducted in Hampshire showing that only 5% of the public there support having a single elected police and crime commissioner.

That is just the sort of evidence that any inquiry would have to look at. However, the Government’s response is simply to stand back and pretend that those people are all dinosaurs who would inevitably say that, because they are looking to protect their own interests, when in fact they are trying to say to the Government, “You need to slow down a bit and look at the consequences of what you’re trying to do.” All the Minister says is, “We believe it’s the right thing to do.” I have said to him before that, with respect, simply asserting that something is the case is not the same as arguing the case. Where is the evidence for this change to policing, which will make such a fundamental difference to governance arrangements?

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall saying when he was Police Minister:

“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical,”

and if so, did he have any evidence for saying that?

[Vernon Coaker]

The model of policing governance that we were considering at that time was exactly the sort of model that I was describing to the hon. Member for Cambridge. We were looking to see whether direct elections at a neighbourhood and local level would lead to improved governance arrangements, but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. When all those people lined up to oppose the idea, I took the view—as did the Home Secretary at the time—that if everybody opposed something that we were trying to do, we should sometimes step back and reflect on whether we had got it wrong and whether, in all honesty, we should change direction. Some say that that is a sign of weakness or not knowing what we are doing, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot propose to do something, have a public consultation and then say, “We don’t care what the public consultation says. If we disagree, we’re not going to take any notice.” What the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) described was something that was proposed at the time to deal with governance issues, but it was also something that we withdrew because we listened to what people were saying.

We could look at other issues, but I will leave the evidence there. Any inquiry that HMIC conducted would need to consider a range of other matters, but the Minister—and others on the Committee, given that we did not manage to carry the day—had no concerns about politicisation. We will come later to the debate on operational independence and the code of practice—it was a memorandum of understanding, but it has now become a protocol. Whatever: the serious point is that, given that the Government have agreed to the protocol, they must be worried that having a directly elected individual who is responsible for policing in an area risks politicising the role of chief constable. Many people have raised that issue at great length with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

ACPO, the hon. Gentleman tells us, has suggested that there are issues with checks and balances in the new system, but is not the real issue in the current system, with the lack of checks and balances on both the Home Office and the chief constable, and with the weakness of the police authority leg of the tripartite process? Is it not right that we do something, such as introduce direct elections as proposed in the Bill, to bolster the power of that third, local, democratic pillar?

[Vernon Coaker]

Nobody has said that the existing system is absolutely flawless or does not need improving. I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge that it is important for police authorities to improve their visibility, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood that we are discussing the Government’s proposals for the future. If ACPO tells us that the Bill’s checks and balances are simply too weak, should we not then say, “We need to look at this, think about it and try to understand what we should do to further improve the system that we want”?

The Minister gets very upset when I say this, but I am going to say it again. The police and crime panels are one way in which the police and crime commissioner is supposed to be held to account, but the panel is a completely toothless watchdog with no real power. It has two vetoes: one on appointments, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood knows, but only with a three-quarters majority; and the other on the precept, in respect of which the hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment, but again with a three-quarters majority. That is it.

The Minister will say, “The panel has to be consulted, referred to and involved,” but how can it be right that there will be a police and crime commissioner, without anybody able to do anything about what he does, providing obviously that what he does is within the law?

Then we come to the huge number of representations about the size of the area that that one person will have to cover. Again, the Government do not think this is a problem. They say, “Oh, there’s no problem with this; it’s fine,” but there is no evidence to support that, and that is why the House should adopt the new clause so that we may have an inquiry and the HMIC can look into the matter.

The Welsh Local Government Association points out that the system in Wales works very well, and it does not believe that replacing between 17 and 19 members of the individual police authorities in Wales

“with a single elected commissioner will…improve public accountability of the police”.

The association does not believe that one individual can properly reflect all

“the divergent communities that exist in police force areas”,

and it cites the huge area of Dyfed Powys, where one individual will cover the whole area.

We can cite other examples. The Avon and Somerset area covers 1,855 square miles, from Thornbury to Yeovil to Minehead. It has a population of 1.6 million and large rural areas such as Exmoor, major urban areas such as Bristol and Bath and significant market towns. One individual will represent all those areas. That police authority area and one or two others that I will mention across the country all point out the difficulty, and we should listen to them.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

As the only representative from the Dyfed Powys area here, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that there is very little connection between the voters in our area and the general policing priorities? The indication that I get, which I wonder whether he agrees with, is that an elected police commissioner for the Dyfed Powys area is in fact likely to bring us closer to the policing process, rather than removing us from it. That is the feeling that I, as the only representative from the area that the shadow Minister cites, get.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not see any evidence for that at all, and there have been no such representations. On the situation that the hon. Gentleman mentions, people in Dyfed Powys, in other parts of Wales and throughout the country have a problem getting police at a neighbourhood level to deal with the issues that they think are important, and that is why in Dyfed Powys and other areas throughout the country, through the introduction of neighbourhood policing, panel meetings and town and village hall meetings, people want accountability improved at that very level. I fail to understand how one individual representing that huge area will be able to do that. The hon. Gentleman knows the area far better than I do, but how will somebody in St David’s, in that beautiful part of the country, know about that and then be able to compare it with something 40 or 50 miles away?

We talked about moving an amendment in Committee to require this one individual to attend all the parish and ward meetings in an area, so that they really had local and detailed knowledge. These are huge issues, and one person will simply not be able to do the work. Police authority after police authority has made that point to us.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I was fortunate enough to sit in Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he recalls the evidence given on 19 January by Ian Loader, a professor of criminology from All Souls college, who said:

“We have gone through a decade or so of trying to run the police from 10 Downing street, and a broad move to try to reorganise the police under the rubric of local democratic accountability seems to me to be important.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2011; c. 47, Q 5858.]

That runs exactly counter to the hon. Gentleman’s argument now.

[Vernon Coaker]

My point is that the system the Government are seeking to introduce will not deliver the improved accountability that we want. The hon. Gentleman does not agree, as I said in Committee, but, to return to the point I was making, at least he has tried to use a piece of evidence—a small piece, but a piece none the less. Where is the massive amount of evidence that contradicts all the evidence that I have brought forward? The Government made great play of evidence-based policy when they came into power, and the main driver of our new clause is that an HMIC inquiry would allow policing experts to collect evidence to understand whether these improved governance arrangements would lead to the improved accountability that we all want.

The Devon and Cornwall, Cumbria, West Midlands and Greater Manchester police authorities all say that one person in charge of policing in their area will mean far too much work.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a good piece of evidence is the fact that such a system is already working in London?

[Vernon Coaker]

First, if the system in London was working so well, why would the Government want to change it? Secondly, the change that the Government are making is to a completely different system from that which operates at the moment. The Metropolitan Police Authority is being abolished. The person who, through primary legislation, is going to be put in charge of policing in London through the Mayor’s office for policing and crime will be an unelected individual appointed by the Mayor of London. They will not be a directly elected individual as per the rest of the country, but an appointee of the Mayor following the abolition of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The hon. Gentleman asked why, if the system works so well, we should not expand it to the rest of the country. If the system in London is working so well, why are the Government changing it? Why not just leave it as it is? We are not changing the system in London to that in the rest of the country—we are completely changing the system in London to another system.

The inquiry would also need to look at the arrangements between a police and crime commissioner and the local democratic framework. One of the great successes of the current policing arrangements has been the introduction of the neighbourhood policing model, with the development of community safety partnerships in Wales and crime and disorder reduction partnerships in other parts of the country. Those arrangements have brought together all the various partners at a local level in order to try to tackle crime and improve confidence. The police and crime commissioner is not a responsible authority under the terms of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

What, then, is the relationship of the police and crime commissioner with the police and crime panel? Again, we do not understand that, and the Bill is unclear about it. I have referred to the complete lack of power that a police and crime panel has, leaving an omnipotent individual in charge of policing. Police and crime panels will have one person from each local authority—if there are not 10 authorities, we can make up the number with another couple—and a couple of independent members. If there are more than 10 local authorities, we can have a few more so that we stick to the basis of one person per authority. There is no reference to how many people might be in that local authority area or to its size—the reference is just to one person per authority, so it could be a tiny district council and a massive local authority area. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned Northumbria, which is a huge area covered by one council and a very small, highly populated area covered by another.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that under the current system district councils such as Cambridge city council have no representation on the police authority at all?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a fair point. We can, of course, make changes and improvements to the current system. However, the point is that we are introducing police and crime panels when we have not had a proper debate about what their constitution should be; we have merely said there should be one member per authority. The size of the district council area in terms of population is not mentioned. These are clearly things that we need to understand.

We have had numerous representations from people saying that they are concerned about this. Cumbria and Surrey police have expressed their reservations. Cheshire—I do not know if there is anyone here from Cheshire, but I might as well go round the country—says that the police and crime commissioner

“must be able to influence relevant partners if their Police and Crime Plan is to be effective in delivering improvements in community safety and crime reduction. However, if the PCC is not a ‘responsible authority’ they have no statutory role and could, therefore, be ignored.”

That is a serious flaw in the Bill that the Minister needs to address.

Another aspect that members of the Committee reflected on, as would many others, is the cost of the introduction of police and crime commissioners. That will be a particularly important area for HMIC to look at. Different police authorities across the country tell us that there will be a significant cost involved. A police and crime commissioner will have people supporting them—a chief finance officer, a chief executive and other staff. A police and crime panel will presumably need resources to be able to carry out its function properly. A chief constable will become a corporation sole—in other words, a legal entity—and able, unless the Bill is amended as the Liberals tried to do, not only to control staff but own property and assets and so will presumably need more staff to be able to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have now to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to local government, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 187, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

New Clause 5

Memorandum of Understanding

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a Memorandum of Understanding on the Operational Responsibility of Chief Constables detailing where their actions shall be independent of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument bring into force the Memorandum of Understanding published under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.—(Vernon Coaker.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Vernon Coaker]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 149, page 2, line 44, clause 2, at end insert—

‘such that the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations and arrests.’.

Amendment 155, page 4, line 15, clause 3, at end insert—

‘(8A) The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime must not ask, require or encourage the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to act in a manner which could—

(a) put the Commissioner in breach of his attestation under oath in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Police Act 1996; or

(b) conflict with the Commissioner’s exercise of direction and control under section 4(3).

(8B) If the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis reasonably believes that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has asked, required or encouraged him to act in a manner that is prohibited under subsection (8A), he may notify the London Assembly police and crime panel.

(8C) For the avoidance of doubt, any purported direction by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime under subsection (8A) has no legal effect.’.

[Vernon Coaker]

This group of provisions is smaller, but none the less important. It is difficult for us to discuss new clause 5 without a draft of the code of practice, memorandum of understanding or protocol, as we are now to call it. He will know that in Committee I consistently and persistently asked for a draft to be ready for our consideration. To be fair, he did not say that one would be ready for Report, and I am not suggesting that he did, but I expected that a draft of a draft of a draft would be available, and I think that most members of the Committee would have expected the same.

A huge change to policing is being made. The Minister and the Government have accepted what I said and what was in the Home Affairs Committee report, which was that such is the importance of the protocol detailing the responsibility of the police and crime commissioner vis-à-vis the chief constable—others, for example, the police and crime panel, could be included, as has been suggested—we should have it, yet we are discussing it without knowing even what shape it will be. We do not even know what things might be included in it. The Minister will say, “Don’t worry, it will be ready for the House of Lords.” Why should this House not have a draft available to it, so that it can consider what is in the protocol and make representations about it?

We have no way of knowing what will be in the protocol. Let us suppose it contains things that members of the Committee think should not be in it. I do not know what influence the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have, but what happens if he does not agree with what is in it? He will have no opportunity to say anything about it. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) served on the Committee with the hon. Member for Cambridge. What happens if he thinks that the protocol should not include one thing but should include another? Why should we not be able to look at it?

If the Minister was stood where I am and I was sat where he is, he would be saying exactly the same thing to me. He would be saying that it is impossible for us to legislate properly because we simply do not know what we are legislating about. It is not good enough to say, “Don’t worry, it will go to the House of Lords.” We have the most fundamental change in policing before us and we have no idea what the Government’s protocol is, although they have accepted that we should have it—that is not good enough. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the House would think, either in public or in private, that that is acceptable either. How does, “It will be ready for the Lords” help us to discuss this?

New clause 5 states that any such protocol must have some statutory force. The Association of Chief Police Officers believes it should be enshrined in primary legislation. The Minister said that would be very difficult, so we looked at whether an order-making power could be introduced to allow us to consider the protocol, as it would then be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House and the House of Lords.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause, as drafted, is in pretty poor shape? Even if we accepted it into the Bill, could not the Minister publish a memorandum under subsection (1) containing the word “none”?

[Vernon Coaker]

That might be a good debating point, but as a Bill goes through the House we need to debate its principles and the right legislative approach. We do not have the Queen’s counsel support that is available to the Minister, so the odd drafting error might occur, but that does not alter the thrust of what we are trying to do through the new clause. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here for the earlier debate he would know that the Minister, even with his bank of lawyers, supporters and helpers, has had to propose a number of amendments to correct drafting errors. So it is not only me who makes the odd drafting error, but I am doing it on my computer. Notwithstanding any drafting error, if we regard as right the principle that a protocol or memorandum of understanding should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House, we should support it.

In its evidence and the report it issued yesterday, ACPO said that

“there are three broad areas where we believe improved safeguards are required”.

I shall deal with only the first of those three, as it relates to the new clause. ACPO said of the first area:

“Clarity on the responsibilities of the PCC”—

the police and crime commissioner—

“and Chief Constable. The proposed ‘protocol’ is still early in its development. We believe such a key document will need to be specific and legally binding—such as through a Code of Practice founded in law.”

That was ACPO’s advice yesterday. It continued, at paragraph 50:

“ACPO has real concerns that the Bill does not fully recognise the uniqueness of the tripartite system between the Home Secretary, Chief Constables and local democratic governance. It is considered that the Bill places too much emphasis on local considerations giving disproportionate power to the PCC to the detriment of the necessary national and legal responsibilities placed upon the Home Secretary and Chief Constables. Our concern is to ensure that Chief Constables have sufficient operational independence safeguarding their impartiality to balance the various duties and accountabilities they face. Currently, it is at best uncertain that the safeguards under development in parallel with the progress of the Bill will achieve that aim.”

I think ACPO is clearly telling the Minister that he needs to amend the Bill in a similar way to that suggested in my new clause.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Gentleman is telling us what ACPO said yesterday, but it is not easy for the Minister because ACPO has previously taken an entirely different line. Sir Hugh Orde told the Home Affairs Committee that he did not want anything entrenched in legislation.

[Vernon Coaker]

No doubt members of ACPO, including Sir Hugh Orde, its hugely respected president, will have considered the discussions on the Bill and will have continued to discuss it with colleagues in deciding on the most appropriate advice and guidance to give the Government. ACPO has regularly said that it is for the Government to determine the governance structure, but it will do its best, whatever structure is finally decided, to implement it and deliver the policing that we would all wish to see. However, it also has a responsibility to point out to the Government where there are problems, and it has done so in guidance. There is a serious need for clarity from the Government regarding the memorandum of understanding, code of practice or protocol.

It is not acceptable for this issue not to be subject to a legislative process, and I should be interested to learn whether the Minister agrees. He has agreed that there should be a protocol, and a draft is in the throes of production—no doubt, a group is working on it and discussions are under way. I suspect that there are disagreements, which is why it has not been issued yet—it is proving more problematic than the Minister expected.

We need a protocol, because we need to clarify the role of the police and crime commissioner vis-à-vis the chief constable. In Committee, we debated at length what their respective roles should be. The police and crime commissioner is elected on a local mandate and will make certain promises, but what is their mandate vis-à-vis the chief constable? Where is the line drawn between what the commissioner would wish to do and the chief constable’s operational responsibilities?

It is interesting that an amendment has been tabled by some of the Minister’s colleagues, who are as concerned as I am. Indeed, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), has added his name to amendment 149. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is the lead Member for the amendment, and he is clearly concerned. The amendment has a great deal of merit, and it tries to deal with the issue. The hon. Gentleman is trying to clarify whether a police and crime commissioner has the opportunity to tell a chief constable to investigate a crime. Is it any crime, or no crime? Is that just a matter for the chief constable? Does the commissioner have any power over that?

What about the funding of units? Can the commissioner tell the chief constable what units they should have? On the apportioning of resources, the Minister looked very upset when I quoted the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which showed that only 5% of police and community support officers were not in the back office. What about the commissioner’s ability to say what the correct mix of staff is? They might not want to see as many people doing a particular job, and may want to civilianise. The Minister’s favourite thing at the moment is looking at outsourcing. What if a commissioner does not believe in that? Whose responsibility would it be?

What about the reorganisation of policing? Who has a say on that? What equipment can or cannot be used? It may be an operational decision to use horses or dogs in a public order situation, but does the commissioner have any jurisdiction or say in whether the police have a police or horse section? Is that an operational responsibility? If we had a draft protocol, we could begin to understand the differences in those areas.

We have just seen the police do a very good job overall at the weekend, and I praised the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for it. However, when I recently saw him we discussed containment. What right does a police and crime commissioner or someone else have to tell a chief constable that they had dealt with such a situation wrongly? Does the police and crime commissioner have the right to do more than express an opinion? Police and crime commissioners are directly elected. We are not talking about a police authority. Police and crime commissioners will not be appointed by the Mayor and unelected, as in London. Who has the responsibility for making such decisions? These are hugely serious issues that worry many people across the country.

The Minister’s response is, “It won’t be a problem. Don’t worry about it. Good sense will prevail. Why should the doomsday scenario presented by the shadow Minister happen?” That is a pretty poor way to legislate when we are dealing with such a serious matter. It is not enough to say, “Don’t worry. It won’t happen. Everybody’s good sense will prevail.” The amendments before us are important. Clearly, I am not the only one who is worried.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend noticed the lack of enthusiasm for the concept of police and crime commissioners? A good test in the House of Commons, as he knows full well, is whether, on a free vote—which obviously is not going to occur—the Government’s project would command a majority.

[Vernon Coaker]

No, on a free vote, I do not think the measure would go through. I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be even more interesting to see whether, on a free vote, the new clause, which seeks to give a legislative base to the protocol between police and crime commissioners and chief constables, would be supported by a majority. I suspect it would.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

My recollection of the discussion that took place in Committee is that the Minister repeatedly claimed that one of the arguments for a police and crime commissioner was that the public would know who to go to and who to complain to. There would be a single point. He cited the rise in the number of complaints when the Mayor of London took on that responsibility. Is it not the clear message of amendment 149 that the public will go to the commissioner with the expectation that he can intervene in investigations and cases? Unless it is spelled out in new clause 5 or in the amendment, we will be electing people on a false prospectus because the expectation will be that the commissioner has that power. This illustrates the dilemma that the Minister has created.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree. That is the point I am making. An individual will stand for election in a police force area, saying, “I will ensure that there are X number of officers in this area and that area. I don’t want to see Tasers used. I don’t want to see such-and-such equipment used. I want to see the police patrolling not in pairs, but singly. I don’t want to see police in cars.” It will not be possible to stop someone saying that in their election manifesto. They are not going to stand for election saying, “I think everything’s wonderful. Vote for me.” What sort of election slogan is that? They would not get elected.

Candidates will stand on an exciting, impassioned, inspirational agenda for change in policing in that area. My hon. Friend is right. That is the nub of the dilemma that the Minister faces—what happens when that individual, enthused with their election victory, or determined to be re-elected, tries to influence what the chief constable does?

[Mark Tami]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the scenario that he describes will be worse when there is a second round of elections? The police commissioners will be trying to stay in the job and others will be saying how incompetent they are and trying to introduce change. It will be the constant agenda of candidates to run down the police and offer change—sometimes change for the sake of change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a very real danger. The Minister will no doubt try to say that he will address that through the protocol because it will lay out what can and cannot be done. It would have been extremely helpful if Members had even a draft to consider. Without it, it is very difficult for us properly to consider and debate the new clause. Having said that, the new clause is extremely important.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend considered the dilemma of a member of a political party being elected and the same police force being requested to investigate election irregularities of another party member—for example, a Member of Parliament who is re-standing in that police area—if the decision on whether the issue should be investigated by the police is marginal? Has he considered that dilemma that the Government are about to create?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is another interesting dilemma that might arise. No doubt there are many other such examples in which we could point out the dangers.

I cannot stress enough how important the police feel this is and how important I think it is. I am sure that we will all listen to the Minister when he responds not only to the lead new clause but to the amendment tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood.

[Mark Reckless]

I should first declare an interest as a member of the Kent police authority. I thank the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for his testimonial to my work in that role, which—who knows?—might find its way into one of my election leaflets.

We have heard about the protocol—let us call it that, so that we use common language—and I note that the shadow Minister refers to operational responsibility in the new clause. It would be great to have a clearly agreed definition for operational independence or responsibility as it is, but it is enormously difficult to do that. ACPO’s position has changed on that, which does not necessarily assist us. The Home Affairs Committee visited ACPO two days ago, and it seems that the draft protocol is bouncing between it and the Home Office. ACPO had no objection to the draft being shared with the Committee when we asked for it. Will the Minister give the Committee sight of the protocol, even if it is still an early draft?

Amendment 149 is a probing amendment, because it is very important to get the views of the House and of the Minister on the record. I have tried to emphasise a point that arose from the 1962 royal commission, which is that there is an important distinction, as I put it in the amendment, that the elected commissioner

“shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations and arrests.”

That is an important constitutional protection. The Minister spoke quite strongly on that both on Second Reading and in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I am slightly concerned that one remark he made in the Committee, regarding the potential for too strict an interpretation of what Lord Denning said in 1968, should not be taken out of context. The context, as the Home Secretary said on Monday, is that we anticipate that it will be the elected commissioner who is in charge, as with the Mayor of London.

The Minister was very clear on Second Reading and when he gave evidence to the Committee on the role and importance of the elected commissioners and that what we are doing is rebalancing the tripartite system, moving from a police authority leg that has traditionally been too weak and bolstering the role of the democratic and local element with the directly elected commissioner.

I raised that point with the Minister in the Committee on 27 July last year, and asked whether there was any possibility of an incompatibility between what we intended with the legislation and what Lord Denning said in ex parte Blackburn in 1968. The Minister’s reply was important. He said:

“It is often stated, quoting Lord Denning's dictum that the police should be answerable to the law and the law alone. I think that is right in the sense of when they are exercising their powers of arrest and so on that that should not be subject to any kind of political interference. We would all agree about that but, clearly, somebody has to set the police budget and the strategic direction of the police, so there has to be accountability to someone, and our premise is that that should no longer be to the centre, to a faceless bureaucrat, to the Home Secretary; it should instead be to local people through the election of the police and crime commissioner.”

That is what we intend to achieve with the Bill, and it is a distinction that is consistent with what we saw back in the 1962 royal commission.

As the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) knows, the Select Committee received some helpful legal advice on this matter that read:

“This part of Lord Denning’s judgment is not strictly binding as it went beyond the range of issues that had to be decided in that case, and is therefore obiter.”

We then had an assessment from our legal advisers on a leading academic text in this area by Richard Clayton QC and Hugh Tomlinson QC, whose conclusion on Lord Denning’s judgment was:

“The doctrine is an exorbitant one and its legal foundations are very slight”.

I had a look at that leading text and some of the academic debate on the difficulty of defining operational independence and what it was considered to mean. Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson referred to section 6(1) of the Police Act 1996, which the Bill carries over, and wrote that it

“appears to create a specific sphere of responsibility for the police authority”.

They go on to state that section 10(1), which deals with the direction and control of the chief constable, is subject to that provision, and

“only covers immediate operational direction and control but does not bear on the question of the extent to which the chief constable is under supervision of the police authority.”

The Committee went into the academic literature in more detail. We heard from Rick Muir, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, who has done much work—from the left—on this key issue. He agreed with me when I asked whether there was a distinction

“between the individual cases, where clearly the police should have independence in terms of arrest and investigation in those individual cases, and the broader spectrum of setting priorities, determining where budgets are spent and setting policy in general, which is properly the field of elected politicians”.

He observed that unfortunately confusion had arisen because wrongly there had been a

“tendency of chief constables to take Denning to mean that they are in charge of strategy”.

We do not have before us this protocol that the hon. Member for Gedling referred to, but the Committee was able to draw out some of the key issues.

My amendment emphasises the position in 1962. Unfortunately, when Denning made his judgment, he did not have the advantage of being able to refer to proceedings in the House. Judges have been able to do that only since Pepper v. Hart in, I think, 1994. The key 1962 royal commission, which set the consensus on operational independence, was summarised by the legal advisers in a report to the Committee. They wrote:

“The Royal Commission on Police emphasised the need for impartiality and operational independence of the police in relation to ‘quasi-judicial’ decisions”.

The royal commission included in those quasi-judicial decisions

“inquiries with regard to suspected offences, the arrest of persons and the decision to prosecute,”

adding:

“In matters of this kind it is clearly in the public interest that a police officer should be answerable only to his superiors in the force and, to the extent that a matter may come before them, to the courts. His impartiality would be jeopardised, and public confidence in it shaken, if in this field he were to be made the servant of too local a body.”

The commission said in respect of other duties:

“It cannot in our view be said that”

they

“require the complete immunity from external influence that is generally acknowledged to be necessary in regard to the enforcement of the law in particular cases.”

As our legal advisers point out, those other duties include

“general policies in regard to law enforcement…the disposition of his force, the concentration of his resources on any particular type of crime or area, the manner in which he handles political demonstrations or processions”

or

“his policy in enforcing the traffic laws and…dealing with parked vehicles”.

That clear distinction has therefore run all the way through, from the royal commission in 1962 to the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee has taken. That is what I am trying to emphasise with my amendment 149; indeed, it is also what the Minister emphasised when he appeared before the Committee. I would therefore be grateful if he confirmed that he does not resile from any of those remarks.

The other important point to make about Denning’s judgment in 1968 is that it related not to what a police authority could do in terms of a chief constable, but to what a single individual, Mr Blackburn, who as a publicly spirited gentleman came to court with a judicial review, could do. The question was about the extent to which he as an individual could require the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to implement policing in a particular operational manner. That distinction is made clear by further material, including the 1988 case of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, in which it was clearly drawn. In that case, Lord Templeman said:

“The question for determination in this appeal is whether an action for damages is an appropriate vehicle for investigating the efficiency of a police force.”

He concluded:

“A police force serves the public, and the elected representatives of the public must ensure that the public get the police force they deserve.”

It is clearly right that there can be no interference in individual investigations or arrests, but it is important to look at the issue from both sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

That is a very good example, which helps to elucidate the point. It would not be appropriate for the elected commissioner to say, “On this particular individual investigation I would like fewer”—or more—“police”, or, “You should investigate it in this way rather than that.” We do not look to the elected commissioners to do that, but I see a strong role for them in ensuring that justice is colour blind and that the police do not make assumptions about a witness or potential suspect on the basis of ethnicity or any other inappropriate basis. We have seen strong progress by the police in that area, but, with the Macpherson inquiry and the way in which some measures have been rolled out, there has not necessarily been the sensitivity that there might have been. The elected commissioner will have a relationship with the wider electorate, however, so they will sometimes be in a position to lead the police in particular areas regarding social attitudes.

I have huge respect for the police, given my work with them in Kent, but there are particular traditions in policing and the work force are made up in a particular way. Those things have changed, with a very welcome and greater number of women now working as police officers, and there has been a significant improvement in black and minority ethnic representation. In Kent, we had the first black chief constable in Mike Fuller, who did an extraordinary job of engaging with the public and involving them closely with the work of Kent police. The police have a significantly smaller proportion of graduates, although it is higher than it was, and the elected commissioner will be able to lead in those areas. I look to him to do so.

I emphasise to the House that the distinction I draw, going back to the 1962 royal commission at least, works both ways, and I am very concerned about budget setting, priorities and some of the management of public protest. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) asked some probing questions of various witnesses, but the question of whether there should be a presumption that police officers will travel in pairs, and the extent to which officers might be on bicycles, on foot or in cars, are very properly areas for elected oversight, and inevitably political decisions. If we do draw that distinction, the Bill will help chief constables.

[Vernon Coaker]

May I be clear about what the hon. Gentleman just said? Did he say that an elected individual should be able to try to influence the chief constable in terms of patrolling in pairs, individually or whatever, and in terms of the other examples he used? Or did he say that he thought it should be open to the police and crime commissioner to direct the chief constable on those matters?

[Mark Reckless]

In almost all those areas, there will invariably be agreement. There is give and take, and that has been my experience on a police authority. I am sure that in most instances it will apply to the elected commissioner and to the chief constable. I am not convinced that “direct” is the right word, but there might be public concern, as there was a few years ago in my area, about the police spending too much time in cars and not being available on the beat. Indeed, I have often heard it said that two officers who go out on the beat together will naturally tend to talk and enter into exchanges with each other, whereas one police officer on patrol might have a greater tendency to engage with the public.

I think that we would look to elected commissioners to reflect the public view, although I would not necessarily be comfortable with that in individual instances. It would be right for the elected commissioner to say, “Previously we’ve had this presumption that officers should patrol in pairs, but I think in future the presumption should be that where possible officers patrol individually,” and I would expect the chief constable to give effect to that. However, if there were issues regarding safety, I would look to the chief constable to have those considered appropriately within the discussion.

I do not agree with the view of ACPO, nor do Conservative Members or members of the Committee necessarily accept it, that police officers operate in a sort of political vacuum where they can, without reference to the elected authority, make the decision themselves. I think that people will campaign on these issues to become the elected police and crime commissioner. In many respects, it is entirely proper that the chief constable should then implement proposals with a democratic mandate behind them, as in the case of the Metropolitan police service following what Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, said about a stronger emphasis on knife crime and having more officers on public transport, particularly buses. The Metropolitan police did then implement that, and that is perfectly proper.

I should emphasise that this point goes both ways. We need to ensure that chief constables recognise the appropriate and entirely proper role of the elected commissioner in making such decisions, but there is also the other side of the coin. My experience on a police authority is that I often get asked about operational matters. A sergeant may ask me whether I thought that a particular police community support officer should be deployed from one area to another, or a constable may ask me whether I am happy about how they have dealt with a particular offence, or whether I think that a particular individual should be charged or dealt with in a certain way. It has then been incumbent on me, as a member of the police authority, to say, “Hang on a minute, this is not a proper area for an elected politician to be determining what happens within the police.” I have always been very clear about that, and when there has been an issue that is a shade of grey I have referred it to our excellent area commander in Medway, Steve Corbishley. Such sensitive issues need to be dealt with at that higher level. One cannot necessarily expect every constable, sergeant or even inspector to be totally au fait with where this line should be drawn. I am echoing the emphasis that the royal commission, and the Minister in Committee, put on this complete protection in relation to individual investigation and arrest. That is an important safeguard, and it should work both ways.

The Bill uses the phrase “have regard to” in relation to the police panel as against the commissioner for the budget, the commissioner in respect of a strategic policing objective, and the chief constable’s need to have regard to the policing plan determined by the Minister. We may be firing the starting gun for litigation, but if so, I hope that Members, particularly the Minister, have given a clear steer to the courts as to the role that we see elected commissioners having and the need to rebalance the tripartite relationship. Lord Hoffmann, in the case of Regina v. Chief Constable of Sussex ex parte International Trader’s Ferry Ltd, said that, even under the current arrangements, where regard must be had to the policing plan, the chief constable’s discretion was therefore “subject” to the statutory plan. Together with the roles of the chief constable and the Home Office, we have a rebalancing of the tripartite system. We are bolstering the democratic local element by having direct election, and that should provide a far stronger voice for the public in setting policing policy and priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is clearly a grand master when it comes to playing to the gallery. I must say, I was rather worried for his health, or indeed his sanity. I wonder whether he actually believes his doom-mongering vision of the world, but he is certainly very effective at getting across his concerns. He will be very disappointed about this, but I suggest that he should not hold his breath while he waits for the coalition to collapse, because 2015 is a long way away.

I now turn to the new clause and the amendments. It is clearly welcome that the protocol, or the memorandum of understanding, is being discussed and drawn up.

[Vernon Coaker]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have a draft of that to consider, even if it is a draft of a draft? It really is not good enough that it will be available to the House of Lords to consider without our having had it in front of us.

[Tom Brake]

I think that the Minister and I would probably agree that in an ideal world it would have been useful to have a draft, but I do not think it is essential. I am sure that the House of Lords will deal with the matter in the professional way that we would expect.

It is interesting to note that initially senior officers had strong reservations about whether they wanted a protocol, so a degree of flexibility will be needed. I have some sympathy with amendment 149, but I suspect that the Minister will make it clear that there is every expectation that the police and crime commissioners will have no involvement in decisions on individual investigations and arrests. That will be a clear requirement.

The one point that may require clarification is what would happen in a case that actually involved the police and crime commissioner. For instance, if they had been assaulted, would the amendment prevent them from taking a decision about whether charges should be pressed? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) considered that in tabling the amendment, and if he has a response I would be very happy for him to intervene on me at this point. If he is not going to, the Minister might want to pick up on that point when he responds.

In an ideal world we would have been considering a draft protocol, but clearly a lot of work on it is still going on. I am sure that means that when it is put into the public domain, it will be strong and satisfy Members. As I said, I understand where the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood is coming from on amendment 149, but it is clear that there will be no expectation whatever that the commissioners will get involved in individual decisions. One would expect that the police and crime panels would have forceful things to say if they did so.

--- 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.

[Mark Tami]

Given the sort of person who is going to be elected to the panels, might it not lead to an adversarial relationship almost from day one? Indeed, the person might have stood on a platform in order to take on the chief constable for something he had done.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is exactly the point. Concerns have rightly been raised about who will be elected and the mandate and manifesto on which they are elected, and particularly about the possibility of its being imposed on the chief constable. Those are very real concerns. The Minister knows that there is a general acceptance of trying not to define in statute too rigidly. I say sincerely that I appreciate he is acting in good faith. I did not say that he had promised to bring the matter before us on Report. My expectation was that he might have been able to do so, but he did not say that and I know that he has acted in good faith.

The Minister seems to have moved again in respect of this new clause. To be fair, it shows the difficulty of trying to navigate through this area, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. None the less, I noted that the Minister said that he “may” decide that it is necessary to include a statutory legislative provision on which to base the protocol. I agree with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Lywyd): it is essential for the Bill to contain a requirement with regard to the protocol.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I am going to finish now. If Canada has done this and is doing it, I see no reason why England and Wales should not do it as well.

[Vernon Coaker]

I start by saying that we support the Government on the clause. It is strangely placed in this Bill, as it deals with a foreign policy and justice issue, but our foreign policy team has made its support clear. The provision is essential to maintain universal jurisdiction: it allows for the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity anywhere in the world. We also support continuing with private prosecutions.

We do not believe that there should be any weakening in the standards for and likelihood of prosecution, as that would be completely wrong. However, there is a difference between the standards and procedures for arrest and the standards and procedures for prosecution. For prosecution, a higher standard of proof and the agreement of the Attorney-General are needed, whereas for arrest they are not. That means that there could be cases where people are arrested but there is no likelihood of prosecution, because the evidence is not there and the Attorney-General will not give agreement, perhaps because of campaigning on international issues in this country. We do not believe that that is appropriate, especially if it deters people from coming to Britain for purposes associated with diplomacy or peace. So it is essential to make the change that the Government propose, which would bring arrest better into line with prosecution but would not affect the chances of a prosecution. However, if the Director of Public Prosecutions is to take these decisions, he will need to do so swiftly. Justice must not be denied by being delayed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That would have been a real danger with the initial proposal concerning the Attorney-General—my hon. Friend is right to highlight that concern—but when the DPP gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee he was very clear about the thresholds that he would use and the way in which he would conduct his business. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, but the moving of responsibility for this area from the Attorney-General to the DPP is a significant step forward.

[Mr Love]

The core of this matter is that the DPP will consult the Attorney-General about the public interest test, and that will be the subject of debate, not the standard of evidence that is available. I return to the same question. As that process will take place behind closed doors, is my hon. Friend not concerned about the politicisation of the process?

[Vernon Coaker]

The point that I am making is that the DPP’s involvement is to prevent that politicisation, and I was reassured by what he said when he gave evidence to the Committee.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am disappointed in the shadow Minister’s line of argument, because on the question of arraigning someone for crimes against humanity or war crimes, he appears to be saying that there has to be a foreign policy consideration. Surely the decision whether to grant an arrest warrant should be made solely on an evidential basis within international law. It should not be about the perceptions or otherwise of this country, or any other, about foreign policy.

[Vernon Coaker]

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this, but we are supporting the amendment because this is not only about arrest but about securing prosecution and increasing the likelihood that people can be prosecuted. That is why we support what the Government propose, now that the DPP is involved.

[Mr Offord]

I am sure that the shadow Minister will recall the DPP’s evidence to the Committee. He said:

“We have people who can work around the clock and…enough trained people so that someone is always available.”—[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 126, Q241.]

That would prevent anyone from fleeing justice in this country.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is one reason why I said that if the DPP is to take decisions he will need to do so swiftly. As I have said, justice must not be denied by being delayed. We believe that the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police should play a strong role, as they have in the past, and must not be hit by the cuts. That is why we tabled amendment 154—to ensure that there is no delay and that wherever possible things are dealt with as speedily as possible so that the arrest warrant is granted where appropriate, and we can secure a prosecution.

[Dr Huppert]

I shall try to be brief because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I have written an article today for “Liberal Democrat Voice” if anyone wants my comments in full—I am sure that hon. Members read it frequently. [Interruption.] There is only one version—unlike what happens with the Labour party, whose members seem to give different messages from the back, the front and the side.

I want to talk about how the system would work, and I urge hon. Members to look at the transcript of the DPP’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee, which was very detailed and very reassuring for those of us who want to make sure that prosecutions go ahead. He made it clear that a team was available, as has just been mentioned, and that it would be ready to act. He understood the issue of timeliness and advanced the idea of using a lower threshold test when there is not enough time to gather evidence. Importantly, he also offered to look in advance at evidence about people who we know should be prosecuted, so as to be ready to go at very short notice—to update what would be required and to be able to go ahead. I was very encouraged by that.

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

Lord Coaker Excerpts

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.