Police Federation Reform (Normington Report)

Debate between Crispin Blunt and David Ruffley

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

May I express my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who was its principal proposer, and to my 12 colleagues and both Front-Bench speakers who have contributed to it?

I contribute as a former special adviser in the Home Office during the rocky times with the Police Federation in 1992-93, when the then Home Secretary was trying to push through the Sheehy reforms. More recently, I was shadow police Minister in the previous Parliament. I am also contributing, and I declare an interest, as a friend and supporter of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), whose treatment by certain elements of the Police Federation led ultimately to this debate and to discussion of the Normington report.

The Normington report is a scathing and searing deconstruction of a deeply dysfunctional organisation, and if there is a more critical report commissioned by a body of itself, I have yet to see it. The “top-to-bottom” overhaul of the organisation—those are the words of Normington—refers to

“its cultures, behaviours, structures and organisation”,

and I wish to emphasise at the start of my remarks that we should not allow this matter to become a cosy understanding with the Police Federation that it will reform itself. I have been in this place too long to see well-argued and important reports lost. Everyone agrees that the recommendations should be carried out, but then they plough into the sand. That is why I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that he would not shrink from using the legislative tools at his disposal to ensure that the necessary reforms and recommendations in the report are implemented if the federation does not get on with doing that itself.

The report refers to

“a phased programme of reform over the next two to three years,”.

I would like the federation to publish a clear timetable that we can come back to and debate in this Chamber, to see how quickly it is implementing the reforms. The reason we need that is that Fiona McElroy, a former principal private secretary to the Attorney-General, no less, was sacked because she had “serious concerns” about the management of the federation’s accounts. Most troubling is that—this was only a few days ago—she was opposed by a “vocal minority” who were resisting attempts to implement the changes recommended by the Normington report. I am afraid I am not as sanguine as many colleagues who have contributed today about the ability of senior members of the Police Federation to reform themselves. Who are these individuals and to whom are they accountable? Given the evidence I have cited, they seem to be a roadblock to reform.

[Mr Blunt]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Ruffley]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way as I am aware of the time.

The report mentions many things, but it begins by mentioning the police reform proposals—not just those by our excellent Home Secretary, but I think this would also apply to some of the reforms at the end of the previous Parliament—and states that the federation was

“a weak voice in the discussions around reforms.”

Speaking from experience, I found that too many senior leaders of the Police Federation were—and I regret to have to say this—much more interested in pay and rations, remuneration and pension changes, important though those are, than in changes to police working practices, reducing police bureaucracy, and all the things that are central to modernising the police service today.

On accountability and ethics, Normington has quite a bit to say:

“Throughout our inquiry we have heard allegations that some Federation representatives…have personally targeted successive Home Secretaries, Andrew Mitchell, Tom Winsor and others”,

Colleagues have mentioned that issue, but I was particularly struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said. He reminded us of the constitutional position that the police service—and, by extension, the Police Federation—has in this country. It has a constitutional responsibility to be utterly impartial, to make judgments and decisions free from political interference or bias, and to do so without fear or favour. It should be beyond politics, but the history of the Police Federation over the past few years shows that that constitutional obligation to which my hon. Friend referred has not been fulfilled.

Then there are the views of the elected representatives and the people who run the organisation. Normington states:

“There was considerable evidence of distrust among elected representatives, exacerbated by divisions and mistrust at Head Office”

in Leatherhead.

What about the professionalism that we need to engender in the Police Federation and the change of culture? That is the subject of recommendation 1, which hon. Members have drawn attention to, and which I think is worth reading into the record:

“The Federation should adopt immediately a revised core purpose which reflects the Police Federation’s commitment to act in the public interest, with public accountability, alongside its accountability to its members. This should be incorporated in legislation as soon as practicable.”

I disagree with only one bit of that: it should not be “as soon as practicable” but now.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said in his outstanding opening speech that we need an early adoption of the report, not this May when the Police Federation’s triennial elections are held. Before those elections we need a clear statement from anyone seeking to stand for office in May that they will adopt and sign up to every one of the Normington proposals. Without that, I think we are entitled to feel that they are not acting in good faith. There is unanimity across the party divide, including from the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) speaking for the Opposition, and who made a helpful speech, and from Conservative Members. It is perfectly clear, beyond peradventure, that no one can have any doubt about the necessity of these proposals.

We also need to remember the phrase “Follow the money”, although we should not read too much into the fact that it comes from the Watergate scandal. If I have gleaned anything from the debate, it is colleagues’ comments—they have obviously read the report—on the financial opacity and the scandalous lack of accountability, not only in respect of members’ subscription fees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, but of the taxpayer money that goes into the Police Federation, which, as has been mentioned, is a statutory body. Surpluses have been generated at national level and substantial reserves have been amassed. They put the organisation on a sustainable footing, but, by the way, that is largely the result of an increase in subscription charges of more than 23% in 2010 alone.

That is not the end of it. The 43 branch boards operate as separate businesses. Together, they have reserves of approximately £35 million. The report raises concerns about the lack of accountability. After its publication, I heard Sir David Normington say that although he was brought in by the Police Federation to undertake an independent forensic review, he was denied access to the No. 2 accounts. Who denied him access? We should be told. Why were there any bars on his looking into the No. 2 accounts? It is why recommendation 31 is:

“All accounts including Number 2, group insurance and member services accounts, funds, and trusts to be published. A general financial transparency clause is needed in regulations”

for which, I might add, the House will have responsibility,

“including a requirement to publish and report all income that derives from and funds Police Federation activity.”

Normington also says that all branches should be required to publish full accounts online. Those of us who are subject to the rigorous Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority regime will say that it is about time they did that. I very much look forward to that so I can look up the accounts of the branches in my part of East Anglia.

Recommendation 36, on finance, states:

“There should be a 25 percent reduction in subscription levels for one year in 2015 financed by the reserves of the rank central committees. An extension of this one-off reduction should be reviewed for subsequent years on the basis of existing reserves, reserves in unpublished accounts, and an estate strategy once the reform package is complete.”

The report demonstrates that a review could mean further reductions in the subscription levy. I believe that members of the federation should actively consider that and hold their elected representatives to account. In that respect, I want to steal a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) who, in an excellent speech, reminded us of a great tradition of the Police Federation and some of its good history, but also said that now is the time for its members to reclaim their federation. Subscription levels would not be a bad place to start.

On the estates strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that, ultimately, the sale and disposal of that palace of varieties, which has cost excessive amounts of money to build and run, could be a sign of true culture change on the part of the federation—the kind of change of ethos for which the report so powerfully calls.

I should like to comment on a few of the speeches that have been made in the debate that are worthy of note. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) repeated something that many colleagues have said. He said that recent events have shown that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has been completely vindicated. The right hon. Gentleman also questioned whether it was remotely sensible, appropriate or seemly to continue suing members of the public, including my right hon. Friend.

We heard eloquent contributions from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway). My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate reminded us that there could be a £500 per member dividend, but asked whether restitution could be made to the British taxpayer, who will have an interest in those huge sums, many of which are not accounted for.

My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) spoke from huge experience as forensic members of the Home Affairs Committee. Both talked about the lack of accountability in financial accounting. They also said that many public services have been reformed, but that the way in which the police do business has not been reformed. I pray in aid a phrase used in 2006 by the current Prime Minister. I was speaking to Police Federation Members when the Prime Minister said that the police service is

“the last great unreformed public service”.

My word, they did not like that, but reform should be a reality. They should not fight history but embrace the future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who pointed out that reform of the interoperability of the blue-light services requires the Police Federation to get with the programme.

I conclude with one observation. The Police Federation must not be a roadblock to reform. It must not block either Her Majesty’s Government’s policy programme of reform or reform of itself.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Independent Review of the Police Federation conducted by Sir David Normington and calls upon the Government to take action to implement the report’s recommendations and to reform the Police Federation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and David Ruffley

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She will be as pleased as I am to hear that there has been a change in the clinical policy within prisons in regard to how detoxification is undertaken, resulting in a much stronger emphasis on abstinence than on maintenance. We now need to get right the transition of drug-addicted offenders from custody to the community.

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

7. Whether he plans to extend the use of private companies in the management of prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Our plans for competing custodial services are set out in the “Competition Strategy for Offender Services”, published in July 2011. That involves the competing of eight prisons, seven of which are currently in the public sector. We are considering bids from seven providers, including the public sector Prison Service, which has partnered with Mitie and with the Shaw Trust and Working Links in the third sector. That means that even if the public sector-led bid wins all the contracts, the use of private company management will have been extended as a result of this round of competition. We will announce the services selected for phase 3 of the prisons competition in November this year.

[Mr Ruffley]

I congratulate Ministers on introducing private sector disciplines into the Prison Service faster than any of their predecessors. Payment by results will mean that contractors will be rewarded if they cut reoffending rates when prisoners leave jail, and penalised if they do not do so. When does the Minister expect the first benefits of that policy to be seen?

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend has finely summed up the positive benefits of our policy. The first benefits are already being seen in the payment-by-results programmes in the Peterborough and Doncaster prisons. We should remember that the Doncaster prison proposal came forward from Serco, which is rebidding to manage a prison that it already runs. It is proposing to put part of its contract price at risk against its performance in driving down the reoffending rate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and David Ruffley

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I would be slightly more inclined to take lessons from the hon. Gentleman if he was even vaguely on the money. Within two weeks of the contract going nationwide, the Ministry of Justice was right across the problems and put in place an action plan to address them. The idea that we are not interested in the matter, when we are making £18 million of savings in the provision of interpreters under a process that was commenced under the previous Administration and after interpreters had been grossly overpaid and had taken advantage of the system that was in place under that Administration, is beyond belief.

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

T5. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Prime Minister said on 25 January of the European Court of Human Rights that,“we are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity—the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally.”Does the Secretary of State agree with me that subsidiarity should start and end with votes for prisoners in this country?