Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Ms Ali, on your chairmanship and I look forward to serving under you. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this crucial debate. I would like to echo the shadow Home Secretary’s thanks to our UK service personnel and all those who served in Afghanistan and assisted with the evacuation efforts from Kabul and Operation Pitting. No one can doubt their bravery and courage in the most challenging of circumstances. Their actions saved thousands of desperate people from untold suffering and, for many, death. It is nearly five months since the fall of Kabul and the harrowing scenes at Kabul airport as thousands of Afghans attempted to flee the Taliban. Those tragic scenes marked a failure of Government foreign policy in Afghanistan, and that is why the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and today’s debate is so important.

It is about standing by those who desperately need our support at a time when, dare I say, our failure has helped to put them in an intolerable position. It is also about basic decency to those who believe in our most fundamental values of a free and democratic Afghanistan, no longer a base for terrorism. We simply cannot let down those who trusted in our country and who now deserve nothing less than our full support in their time of dire need.

I welcome some of the steps that have been announced today, including in respect of the resettlement scheme. Having said that, it is shameful that it has taken five months from the fall of Kabul—144 days and thousands of hours—for our constituents with loved ones stuck in Afghanistan to finally be given details of the resettlement scheme, how it will operate and who exactly will be eligible. How can it have taken so long?

Instead, what we saw as Members of Parliament was constituents with loved ones in Afghanistan who were desperate to talk to them, get them out and support them. A constituent of mine, Abdul Latifi, went through purgatory before eventually he was able to get out of Kabul with his six children, one of whom is disabled. While these constituents would hang on every word from the Home Office, because they wanted to bring their loved ones to safety, Departments seem to be engaged in briefing wars against one another. It is alleged that the promised 20,000 target for the scheme will be bodged, and there needs to be clarity on this going forward.

The Government promised that under the resettlement scheme they would bring to safety 20,000 of those who could not make it out of Afghanistan in time and who now fear for their lives under the Taliban. Allegedly, the Government want to now roll back on their pledge so that those already evacuated to safety under the ARAP scheme or by other methods will be transferred into the resettlement scheme to meet the 20,000 target.

The Minister said earlier in the House that British nationals evacuated from Afghanistan should and would receive a level of support for the trauma they experienced during the evacuation. I agree, but that support should be given outside of the resettlement scheme. The Minister went on to say that the Government have

“now granted the first people indefinite leave to remain under the ACRS”

and that that included British nationals evacuated from Afghanistan. Is the Minister really saying that British nationals, who have a special status, are being included in the resettlement scheme to the detriment of Afghans who are not British citizens? What is the point of the resettlement scheme if it is not wholeheartedly meant for them? This would be a serious breach of trust, and we will not support any watering down and bodged counting that undermines our moral commitment to the Afghan people.

When the Minister responds, I hope she can clear up the confusion emanating from the Home Office. I hope she can give a clear commitment that the resettlement scheme will be meant for those in the here and now still suffering under the Taliban. Can she please confirm that the Treasury will fully fund the resettlement scheme to ensure that those 20,000 places are filled with Afghans who are not already protected by ARAP or other schemes? Can she also confirm that there will be family reunion provisions that work for those families separated from each other during the chaotic scenes at Kabul airport, so that they do not ultimately have to end up in dangerous dinghies crossing the freezing English channel to be reunited with their families? This matters not just to those desperately seeking safety, but also to our country’s international reputation.

Our country has a proud history of providing a safe haven to those fleeing persecution. Any watering down of the resettlement scheme would be contrary to our most fundamental values of decency, honesty and fairness. That is why the Labour party believes that we should and can do better. The resettlement scheme, which is right in principle, must not be watered down or delayed any further.

It is also critical that the Government listen to the concerns that colleagues have raised here in the House about the operation of the scheme. Concerns were raised by the hon. Members for Strangford, for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and by other SNP colleagues. Concerns were also raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). Members have real concerns and have been desperately trying to support those in dire circumstances in Afghanistan who are separated from their families and friends here in this country.

In conclusion, the bravery of our service personnel and Government officials who stayed on the ground in Kabul, at great personal risk during Operation Pitting, represented the very best of Britain. The Government must match their clear moral sense of purpose, do the right thing by the Afghan people, and without delay ensure a resettlement scheme of integrity—not watered down, not further delayed—that will genuinely help those left behind. If today has seen some welcome steps in the right direction, there are still some fundamental questions that the Minister needs to answer.

Stop and Search: West Midlands

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

On 31 May this year, a fine young man, Dea-John, was hunted down and knifed to death on the streets of Kingstanding. The following day, I met his distraught mother, and the weekend following, I was with thousands of others both to celebrate his life and to bring the community together in opposition to the rising threat of knife crime.

Only today, the police are carrying out a major operation—a knife search, as they call it—in the Finchley Park area. I regularly talk and work with our local police service on how they use stop and search on the one hand, and on initiatives such as knife arches in a number of local secondary schools, on the other. There is no question but that stop and search remains essential to effective policing, acting as a valuable tool in combating pervasive, violent crime and keeping our communities safe as a consequence. The key is that the use of stop and search has to be appropriate. The need for the police to carry communities with them remains paramount. Historically, that has not always been the case, which has damaged police-community relations. Stop and search remains, however, an important tool in our armoury, with the caveat that its successful application requires ongoing dialogue with communities. I am pleased that the West Midlands police and crime commissioner has made clear commitments to that end.

Although I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) has secured the debate, I disagree with her interpretation of what the police and crime commissioner said. There has also been no mention thus far of the single biggest problem facing the police service, to which I will return. The police and crime commissioner has given no direction to the chief constable to reduce or scale back stop and search. It has been suggested in some quarters that he has, but that is simply not true.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

How does the hon. Gentleman interpret the parts of the police and crime commissioner’s plan where he quotes reports that say that stop and search does little or nothing to tackle crime, and where he says that the measure of whether “reasonable grounds” have been met should be whether at least 50% of stop and searches result in further action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

Point made. The police and crime commissioner has said clearly in his plan:

“Stop and search can be an appropriate and necessary tool to detect and investigate crime and remove weapons from our streets.”

I was with him on the streets of Erdington for most of the day on Saturday last week. He was sending an unmistakeable message that we should use whatever tools we have in our armoury to protect the public, but that crucially, we must get the use right and ensure that there are not counterproductive consequences as a result of getting it wrong. His plan is about making stop and search more efficient and effective with the intention of removing more dangerous weapons from our streets.

The single biggest problem confronting the police service is the loss of more than 20,000 police officers. Only last week, the police and crime commissioner wrote to all hon. Members in the west midlands—Labour and Conservative—to ask us to act together. He detailed the unfairness of funding for the West Midlands police, which is attributable to a decade of devastating austerity for the police service. For example, over and above the cuts that have been made to the police service, because of the damping formula, it has lost out by an additional £40 million. The west midlands is treated unfairly compared with some of the leafy southern shires.

The facts are undeniable. Since 2010, the West Midlands police service has lost £175 million and 2,221 police officers—25% of the workforce—as a consequence. Many examples stick in my mind, including the several hundred A19 officers whom I will never forget. Seven years ago, just when crime was rising, people such as Tim Kennedy, an outstanding detective constable, and Mark Stokes, an outstanding inspector and expert in designing out crime, were forced out of the police service in their prime at 52 or 53. It was a catastrophic mistake by the Government of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East that should never have been made.

The truth is that there has been a devastating impact on the west midlands and my constituency in particular. The hon. Lady pointed to the impact on her constituency too. Those cuts by a Conservative Government have had a severe impact on neighbourhood policing. Time and again—all hon. Members will have experienced this —members of the public, who are overwhelmingly supportive of the police service, say, “We rang and they took forever to come out.” Or, “We rang and they told us they could not come out.” Or, “Where are they? We never see them on the streets any longer.”

That is the impact of years of Tory cuts to neighbourhood policing. In parallel, there have been huge cuts to services that really matter to crime prevention, for example, youth services, youth clubs, mental health facilities and the probation service. The human consequences are sad and all too obvious: knife crime up, 17%; possession of weapons, up 28%.

The contrast with what a Labour Government did could not be more stark. That Government, under Blair and Brown, saw 17,000 extra police officers, 16,000 police community support officers, the development of neighbourhood policing, and crime falling in this country by 43%. As a consequence of the cuts made, that era of progress has been thrust into reverse.

[Nicola Richards]

While we are all enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s reminiscences of the good times, what is the police and crime commissioner’s plan to get the positive outcomes up to 50% on stop-and-search cases? We have not heard that; it is not in his plan. It has not been mentioned today. How do we get there?

[Jack Dromey]

There are two things. First, on stop and search, it would happen in exactly the way I have said—I have quoted the police and crime commissioner’s own words and I have heard him say it personally. It is about the vigorous but appropriate use of stop and search—getting it right; avoiding counterproductive outcomes. Secondly, he cannot put right all the wrongs of the past era since 1997, but he is committed to recruiting an additional 450 police officers, which I welcome.

[Mike Wood]

Why does the hon. Member think that Labour police and crime commissioners in the west midlands have seen rapid increases in the recorded crime rate over the past 12 months, where Labour police and crime commissioners and Mayors in other urban areas, such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester, have seen falls during the pandemic? Why is the west midlands different?

[Jack Dromey]

The size of the cuts that have been made to the police service is one answer to that. Can I throw a question back? If it is right, as is undoubtedly the case, that the police service has been starved of the necessary resources—and what the Government are proposing will still leave us 1,000 short in the west midlands—why do Government Members not join us to speak with one voice and say to the Government, “Back our police service; invest in our police service. We want to see a return to 2010, and an end to an era where the public have been put at risk as a consequence of those cuts.”? I throw that question back.

It is right for the hon. Member for West Bromwich East to bring this debate. Are we simply going to focus on a crucial issue, and then have no regard to the cost and consequences to the police service of being starved of the necessary resources, and all that has flowed from that? That cannot be the case. Hon. Members must make up their minds, because we will probably have the police grant settlement before Christmas. We need to stand together to influence the Government. Would any hon. Member like to respond to that? Why not unite with Labour colleagues to put the safety and security of the people of the west midlands first?

[Mike Wood]

I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s appeal to put partisan political point scoring to one side. He may remember that back in the distant days of January 2016, we had a similar debate in this very Chamber—I was sitting here, and he was sitting nearby as shadow Policing Minister—at a time when the previous Labour police and crime commissioner for the west midlands had asked us all to come together on a cross-party basis to support a £5 increase in the police precept for the west midlands. I did so, and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) also did so. Can the hon. Gentleman remember how he briefed the local media after Conservative Members had supported the Labour police and crime commissioner’s increase in the precept?

[Jack Dromey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but was there universal support from Tory colleagues at that point in time? No, there was not. Were there some truly honourable hon. Members who took a stand in support of proper funding of the police? Yes, there were, and I welcome that.

I say this one final time: all Government Members are going to have to make their mind up. The case for additional resources and a reversal of the cuts of the past 10 or 15 years is overwhelming, and the consequences being felt by our communities are likewise overwhelming. Therefore, we need to stand together and say to the Government that we badly need additional investment of resources in our police service, not least because the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. The Government often talk tough on crime, but the reality is sadly the opposite. Our priority must be to return the police service in the west midlands to 2010 levels.

[Nicola Richards]

The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are not tough on crime, but what I am saying is that the police and crime commissioner wants to get a positive outcome for 50% of stop and searches, with no plan to achieve that. It is fine to speak warm words about working with the community and better communication, but what I am asking for is a plan, and until a plan is produced on issues such as stop and search and others that we are concerned about, we are not going to lobby for more money to go into the Labour police and crime commissioner’s bottomless pit. Will the hon. Gentleman join us in asking his colleague to explain what the plan is?

[Jack Dromey]

I can say without hesitation that I want to see a vigorous and proportionate use of stop and search—there is no doubt about that. That is what the police and crime commissioner was arguing for in Erdington only last Saturday. Crucially, the hon. Lady has just said that she will not give a commitment to stand up to the Government and argue for the necessary additional resources. In a matter of weeks, a decision of immense consequence will be made for the safety and security of our citizens in the west midlands. We need to influence that decision, so I urge all Members, irrespective of party, to come together and make the case to Government to back our police service through proper investment in it. There is no question that we have to increase activity in crime prevention, and a commitment to rebuild neighbourhood policing will also be crucial.

The Dea-John killing is one of many that will always stick in my mind. As Members of Parliament, we have all seen the heartbreaking consequences for our communities of what has been happening in recent years, in particular the growth of violent crime as the number of police officers has decreased. Of course, there are different views, but the communities that we represent want to be able to live in safety and security. That means—I stress this one final time—putting the public interest first and backing the call for fair funding for the west midlands. I hope that all Members of Parliament from the west midlands will join together to do precisely that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gary Sambrook]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I do not have the figures to hand, but that £30 million would have gone a long way to providing local police stations. Even if it is not an entire police station that is open in the constituency—somewhere on the high street, in the community, in an impact area—that money could have been spent in local communities across the west midlands, particularly in my section of Birmingham, rather than being spent on a city centre office.

I have listened to the impassioned speeches of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington since I was a young man—or boy, even. However impassioned he is, that does not make his point any more right than anybody else’s. He has portrayed doom and gloom since 2010, and there is a reason why people, including me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, rejected his doom and gloom argument. People do not believe the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has deployed over the last 11 years, because there is always a void between the rhetoric and the actual doing. We have had a Labour police and crime commissioner in the west midlands from day one. When the hon. Gentleman goes around knocking on doors, giving TV interviews and blaming the Government all the time, they can see the gap between the rhetoric and the actions locally. That is why they did not believe him during the elections, and that is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East are in this Chamber at the moment.

It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that our police force has the political leadership.

[Jack Dromey]

First, the hon. Member talks about what the police have to say. If one listens to the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, they all speak with the same voice about the importance of additional resources over and above what the Government have thus far committed to. Secondly, does he agree with me that, rather than engaging in political games, the thing that matters is the safety and security of our citizens? Is it or is it not true that as the numbers of police have radically diminished in the west midlands, crime has significantly risen?

[Gary Sambrook]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) pointed out, that is not replicated in other areas. Local decisions are made that have local consequences. That is the void between rhetoric and reality that I am talking about, which we see across all our constituencies in the west midlands.

Finally, stop and search is an invaluable tool. It is needed to make sure that our streets are safer, and the political leadership needs to make sure that the police know that, when it is required, we have got their backs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Rees. I shall be very brief.

My father was a constable with West Midlands police for 29 years and was stationed for much of that time in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), working in Aston, Handsworth and some challenging parts of the city at a particularly challenging time in the late ’70s and early ’80s. An awful lot has changed about policing since he retired, but it is still the case that stop and search remains a vital tool for combating the scourge of serious violence and keeping people safe. We do not need to hear politicians saying that. The public know that that is common sense. The police know it to be true. Deputy Chief Constable Adrian Hanstock, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for stop and search, said:

“The authority to stop and search people in appropriate circumstances is a necessary power that allows police officers to tackle violence in our communities and prevent people from becoming victims of crime. Every day officers across the country seize horrifying weapons and are preventing further injuries and deaths by using their search powers.”

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) referred to parts of the police and crime commissioner’s crime plan for 2021 to 2025. The commissioner is right in one regard: stop and search is clearly an intrusive process. However, on the scale of interventions open to the police, it is very much at the lesser end of intrusion. Given its impact on both individuals who are stopped and searched and on perceptions of policing and fairness in the wider community, we must ensure that the powers are used appropriately, as the deputy chief constable said.

Certain individuals or groups of individuals should not be repeatedly targeted and stopped such that it almost becomes harassment. However, I fear that the language used by the police and crime commissioner in his plan sends out a signal to the many hard-working constables and officers in our communities across the west midlands, and to our neighbourhood policing teams in particular, that they should be extremely nervous of stop and search and use it only if they have almost seen a person carry a knife around a town centre—they need such a high level of certainty.

The commissioner writes in the plan:

“If searches are based on a reasonable suspicion of finding something or some other action following, then at least half would need to generate a positive outcome. This is not the case.”

That 50% positive searches test is not generally shared by practising barristers or criminal solicitors, and it is certainly not shared by the majority of police officers, yet by putting that in his formal plan for the police force area, he introduces such a note of caution that, in circumstances where an officer has good grounds to believe that an individual may be carrying an offensive weapon in one of our streets, town centres, communities or pubs, they are more likely to avoid stopping and searching than to carry out a stop and search. Even if there were positive results in only 20% of cases, that could be a significant amount of harm avoided and, indeed, lives not lost.

Proportionality is central to how appropriate the measures are. Inevitably, as the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police force, Sir Stephen House, said, if such powers are being used properly and in the areas with high crime rates, certain groups are far more likely to be stopped and searched than if people were being stopped and searched in St James’s park—the outer edges of the police force area—and the same applies in the west midlands. We know that parts of the region have far higher levels of crime and that, if we took a random sample in those areas, we would find that on a demographic, ethnicity or socioeconomic level, certain groups would be likely to be stopped more often than if a similar exercise were done on the streets of Pedmore in Dudley, or perhaps in parts of Meriden. We must ensure that these powers are not being used discriminatorily. We have to ensure that our police are comfortable and confident in exercising these powers when they are needed—when they feel that they have good and solid reasons to think that an individual may be carrying a weapon. We have also to ensure that police will have people’s backing, and that they will have the backing of decision makers and politicians. Sadly, some sections of the police and crime commissioner’s plan damage that confidence. They threaten to make our region less safe. I hope that he will reconsider and edit his plan.

[Jack Dromey]

On that last point about making the region less safe, the simple fact is that, as the police service’s resources have substantially diminished, crime has risen. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore be joining fellow Tory colleagues and Labour colleagues to make strong representations to Government to reverse the cuts that have been made to our police service since 2010?

Birmingham Pub Bombings: Legal Aid

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

We may just be talking semantics. I certainly agree that it is important for families with legal aid representation to be able to do what their lawyers think is necessary to conduct their affairs at the inquest properly. If the right hon. Lady is simply saying that the amount of money must be exactly the same for all, I do not think the system would ever work in that way. My own experience of appearing at inquests, as I have in the past, and of appearing in cases is that different rates of pay can be given to different lawyers, but the important thing is that the lawyers should be doing what is necessary, in a competent and effective way, to represent their clients. From what I know of the solicitors who have been granted a legal aid certificate—I am not in a position to say who they are—I do not think that is an issue.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

First, I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her outstanding speech—she spoke passionately about a grotesque injustice. As the shadow Minister for Policing at the time, I was involved in the discussions on the Policing and Crime Bill and the Hillsborough inquest. It was indicated then that there was sympathy for proper representation for the Birmingham families, based on the Hillsborough model. Why has it taken so long that, just three days before the process starts, there is at last movement? Why can the Minister not give the simple assurance that the Hillsborough principle will be replicated in the Birmingham case?

Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I will be brief. We will soon come to the substantive issues, but the Opposition agree with the proposed procedure. We have agreed what measures should be considered today, and on the second day—that will now be on a carry-over Bill, following the Queen’s Speech—we will return to the further issues as outlined. The amendments are clear today, and we want to focus particularly on the proposals on fire and volunteers.

Question put and agreed to.

Policing and Crime Bill

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

On the politicisation of the police force, that may have been driven by low turn out. Even though the Labour party opposed the office of police and crime commissioner in its last manifesto, I note that it is standing a candidate in every division. At the last election there were many independent candidates standing as police and crime commissioners. At the evidence session of the Bill, we had the independent police and crime commissioner for north Wales, Mr Roddick, come to give evidence. He was excellent. If I lived in North Wales, I would probably vote for such an excellent individual with a fantastic vision for policing. If he were a Conservative, I would definitely vote for him. Many independents have been successful.

[Jack Dromey]

(Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman says that we need the highest possible turnout. Of course, historically turnout at police and crime commissioner elections has been low. Does he therefore share our surprise that the Home Office has committed to spend the grand total of £2,700 on advertising for this year’s PCC elections?

[Jake Berry]

I have a lot of respect for the shadow Minister, but I think it is slightly disingenuous to say that the turnout was low, because it was the first ever such election, it was held in November and it was not coterminous with other elections. Given the interest in the local elections in all our constituencies, I think that the turnout will be slightly higher. With regard to the £2,700, I am surprised that the Home Office has spent so much. I do not think there should be any state funding for political parties or elections, so he will not find me lobbying the Home Office to spend more.

Let me return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) about politicisation of the police. Support for our police and crime commissioners has grown, including for excellent independent police and crime commissioners. In Lancashire we have a police and crime commissioner who I think is very much at the beck and call of the chief constable. Although there needs to be a close working relationship between the two, I think that the police and crime commissioner often needs to be a critical friend, because he is not there to fight only for the interests of the police and police officers, as important as that is; he should be there to fight for, and put forward the voices of, people across Lancashire who want an improved policing service.

As I said in an intervention, one of the things I would like our police and crime commissioner to prioritise after the May elections, whoever he may be and whichever political party he may be from, is rural crime. That is driven not by Preston, Blackburn or Blackpool, the major conurbations in the county, but by villages such as Tockholes, Hoddlesden, Weir, Cowpe and Waterfoot in my constituency, where rural crime has a major impact on people’s lives. I hope that whoever wins the election is listening to this debate and will prioritise that. I think that can be the role of a police and crime commissioner: not to push the police’s agenda, but to push the people’s agenda in the area they represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes an important point and I can assure him that appropriate training will be given.

Government new clause 32 clarifies that designated community support volunteers or police support volunteers may be subject to inspection, just like any other member of a police force, and can be served with a notice requiring information or access to premises. As with other members of a police force, they would have no right of appeal against such a notice.

As I said, I will respond to the other amendments in this group when winding up the debate.

[Jack Dromey]

May I start by giving the apologies of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), as to why he cannot be here today? He is at the Hillsborough inquest. Twenty-seven years ago a terrible wrong was done. Ninety-six husbands, wives, fiancés, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters died. The fact that today justice was done is due both to the remarkable persistence of the families to ensure justice for those who died, and to the outstanding leadership of my right hon. Friend who, in his courage, persistence and championing of a noble cause, has served the people not just of Liverpool, but of this country well.

We welcome many of the proposals before the House today, which follow our exchanges in Committee. I do not intend to speak to them all in detail. We welcome the move on pre-charge bail to prevent terrorists, such as Dhar, from ever fleeing the country before charge. We welcome the protection of police whistleblowers. We welcome moves to improve the way that the police deal with people suffering a mental health crisis, such as no longer considering a police cell to be a place of safety. We welcome moves to ensure that 17-year-olds detained in police custody are treated as children, which is something my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has fought very hard for.

We support changes to the Fire Arms Act 1968 that will tighten our gun laws in line with recommendations made by the Law Commission. We support the duty on emergency services to collaborate. We will deal with many of these issues in some detail on the second day on Report. We also welcome moves made by the Government on other issues that emerged during our consideration of the Bill. For example, agreement has been reached following the excellent campaign run by David Jamieson, the police and crime commissioner for the west midlands, on the banning of those hideous zombie knives, whose only purpose can be to kill or maim.

However, given that the Bill purports to complete police reform, I am bound to say that there are a number of issues that should have been in the Bill but are not. The Bill does not help the police to adapt to a world in which crime is changing and moving increasingly online. There is a gaping hole in the Government’s policing policy on the failure to tackle—or even to acknowledge in the Bill—cybercrime, or to help the police deal with the consequences of the Government’s swingeing spending reductions. On child sexual exploitation and abuse, although the one clause is a welcome step, for a Bill that purports to be focused seriously on this grotesque manifestation of all that is worst in our country, one clause alone is not enough. The Bill does not go far enough on some of the issues it seeks to address, such as police accountability, but we will return to some of those on day 2.

Having spelled out those areas of the Bill that we agree with, I am bound to say that there are critical areas with which we fundamentally disagree. We have just had a debate, led by my formidable hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), opposing the compulsory takeover of fire authorities by PCCs. Our strong view, as she indicated, is this: yes to greater collaboration; no to hostile takeovers that take place regardless of what local elected representatives and local people think.

The other highly controversial proposal that we are debating today is about giving police powers to volunteers. Let me make it absolutely clear that there is a long and honourable tradition going back 150 years of special constables. There is a more recent tradition, but one that is profound within the communities we serve, of volunteer engagement in neighbourhood watch. For example, the admirable Maureen Meehan, chair of the Stockland Green neighbourhood watch in my constituency, does outstanding work to ensure that the community is safe, working with the police. Indeed, in this House we have the police parliamentary scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) has had a fascinating insight into policing in the Met and in south Wales, and subsequently he has waxed lyrical about the work he has seen, for example on mental health, but also working with volunteers.

We are strongly in favour of enhancing citizen engagement and voluntary efforts. As the great Robert Peel said,

“the police are the public and the public are the police”.

Therefore, the role of the citizen in policing is key. But the public demand that police functions are discharged by police offices, which is essential. We are extremely concerned that the proposals contained in the Bill are an attempt by the Home Secretary to provide policing on the cheap.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Most people outside Parliament will see through this, because they are seeing the number of police officer and PCSOs in their own neighbourhood policing teams cut, and the Government are proposing to hand those powers to civilians.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In all the surveys of public opinion about the visibility of the police over the past couple of years, the public have complained more and more that they no longer see their police officers or PCSOs, that they no longer have contact with them, that the police no longer have roots in the community and that neighbourhood policing is being progressively hollowed out. People want neighbourhood policing—the bedrock of British policing—to be rebuilt, but not using volunteers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, although I do not agree with him. Does he accept that there are circumstances in which we all have police powers? If I witness somebody committing what I consider to be an indictable offence, I am able, as a citizen, to arrest them without a warrant. Does he agree, therefore, that if we are going to have volunteers among the police—unless he wants to do away with them completely—they should at least be trained? If they then find themselves in a situation of danger where they may have to act as a police officer, they can do so, perhaps using purely that power of citizen’s arrest?

[Jack Dromey]

The problem is that the Government have failed to spell out how they will ensure that these volunteers are properly trained and properly accountable, or how there will be clarity about their role—as I will say later, the Government have ruled out nothing in terms of the role volunteers might play in the next stages. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to come back on that issue, but on the particular point he raised, perhaps he will wait until I get to the relevant part of my speech.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The Labour-run Welsh Government have funded community support officers, who perform a very similar role to the one proposed. What is the distinction? Would the hon. Gentleman’s proposals not prevent the use of such community support officers?

[Jack Dromey]

I am very familiar with what has happened in Wales. All credit to the Labour Government in the Welsh Assembly for funding 500 PCSOs. I was in south Wales but two weeks ago, and I met some of the PCSOs concerned—in south Wales alone, there are 200 PCSOs on the beat, which is very popular with the public. However, they are employed by the police service; what is being proposed here is a new generation of volunteer PCSOs. As I will say later, the issue is not just training and accountability, but that volunteers will be able to use certain powers—I am thinking particularly of the issue of CS gas, and I think the public will be incredulous when it becomes clear exactly what the Government propose.

Vera was right, and no wonder. In the last five years, Government funding to police forces has seen the biggest cuts to any police service on the entire continent of Europe—a staggering 25% cut. For that five-year period, the Government’s alibi was, “Yes, we cut the police, but we also cut crime.” It is not true that they have cut crime. The statistics on police recorded crime, increasingly cleaned up over the past couple of years following criticism from this House, among others, show violent crime up by 27%, homicides up by 11%, a 9% rise in knife crime, and overall police recorded crime up by 7%. The Government continue to rely on the crime survey for England and Wales, but that does not include a whole number of areas of crime. In two months’ time, when cybercrime and online fraud is included in the crime statistics in the crime survey for England and Wales, it will show crime nearly doubling.

[Karen Bradley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is not confusing reported crime with the prevalence of crime. The independent crime survey for England and Wales is very clear that prevalence of crime is down but the reporting of crime is up. I hope that he would welcome the fact that we have more reported crime, because it is only by getting those reports of crimes that the police are able to solve them.

[Jack Dromey]

I agree that proper reporting and recording have been absolutely key—for example, in relation to sexual offences. However, in saying, “We cut the police but we have cut crime”, the Government have relied on the crime survey for England and Wales, where the projections, including those from the Office for National Statistics, are that when online fraud and cybercrime are included, there will be a potential increase of 5 million offences, nearly doubling crime. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, the alibi of five years will be blown apart.

[Karen Bradley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such crime was happening before but was not included in the crime survey under the previous Labour Government, that this Government are making sure that it is included, and that we need to be honest about prevalence so that we can tackle the problem?

[Jack Dromey]

If I agree that it should have been included in the past, I hope the Minister will agree that in future never again will I hear the Government say, “We’ve cut crime.” Crime is not falling; crime is changing.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

This is all very interesting, but surely the central point of the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that clause 35 should be deleted, full stop. All these pussy-footing little amendments that he has tabled are really designed to undermine the concept of the volunteer. He disagrees with the concept of volunteers; the Government clearly think they are a good thing. Why does he not just speak to that argument rather than wasting our time with amendments 11, 12 and 13, which are actually designed to make it difficult for someone to perform the function of a police volunteer?

[Jack Dromey]

With the greatest respect, I would not downplay the significance of this, including to the public out there whom we serve. We will come specifically to two issues relating to amendment 10, on volunteers, and amendment 13, on volunteer PCSOs being able to carry CS gas and PAVA spray.

It is simply not true that crime is falling. Nor is it true that the Government have protected the frontline. The Policing Minister has been good enough to acknowledge that he inadvertently misled Parliament by suggesting that. Nor is it true that police funding has been protected. Last November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

“The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]

Sir Andrew Dilnot has now made it clear that a £160 million cut, in real terms, in this financial year alone would be sufficient for 3,200 police officers. The inconvenient truth for the Government is that 18,000 officers have gone and ever fewer are doing ever more, just when demand is growing. Coming to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), that is crucial in this respect: given the context in which this Bill has been introduced, our amendment 10 would block proposals to grant additional police volunteers until the Government have passed a police funding settlement that guarantees that funding to police forces will be protected in real terms. The Government said that it would be protected last November, but that is not true. We ask that it now be the case, rather than the phoney police promise that we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer last November.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s experience of south Wales and his knowledge of the cuts made to South Wales police by the police and crime commissioner. If he comes to Cheshire, he will see that there have been increases on the frontline in my constituency, where there is a Conservative police and crime commissioner. If he goes to mid-Wales, he will see that there have been increases on the frontline in Dyfed-Powys, where there is a Conservative police and crime commissioner. Surely, the two are not linked.

[Jack Dromey]

The interesting thing about what the hon. Lady says is that the current police funding formula skews funding away from metropolitan areas towards leafy Tory shires. Why is the west midlands hit twice as hard as Surrey? If we ask the police and crime commissioner for Surrey, we find that he agrees. To add insult to injury, the Government finally said, “We admit that the formula is unfair. We will change the formula,” which led to the omnishambles before Christmas when they had to abandon the proposed changes to the formula.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I have been listening with deep fascination to the hon. Gentleman for the last 15 minutes or so, but he is yet to come to amendments 11, 12 or 13. Are there any arguments in support of those?

[Jack Dromey]

Absolutely. Under the current arrangements in the police service, there is an agreement between the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs Council, the College of Policing and the police staff unions that police support volunteers should bring additionality to the workforce but should under no circumstances replace or be a substitute for paid police staff. The Government claim that they have protected police funding and that they are not using the provisions to plug holes left in the workforce from funding reductions. If plugging gaps in our hollowed-out police service is not the Government’s aim in these ill-though-out proposals, there should be no reason whatsoever for them not to support amendment 10.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman needs to realise that he is walking into a cul-de-sac, which may not be of his own making. Independent custody visitors are essentially police volunteers who visit custody suites, and a case could probably be made by a smart lawyer that they substitute for custody officers in their supervisory role. Are they the kind of people that he wants to get rid of?

I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). We have a duty in this House not to create Heath Robinson legislation. Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 10 seem to me to be an extraordinarily roundabout way to disagree with what the Government are trying to do through the previous amendments. Surely the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) should simply vote against those amendments, rather than creating this Byzantine structure to negate what the Government are trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

It is quite right, for reasons that I will come to, that those amendments have been tabled, but the amendment that we will press to a vote is amendment 10. As I have just said, the Government should not plug gaping gaps in the police service with volunteers; the police service should be properly funded in real terms. Not until that happens should the Government proceed with their proposals for a new generation of volunteers—for whom, as I will come on to say, there are no constraints thus far on what they might be able to do.

I turn to exactly that point: the proposal that there should be no limits in law on where the chief constable can place volunteers—no limits on the operational role that volunteers might play, including in some of the most vital, sensitive and demanding areas. The public will be rightly dismayed by the Government’s refusal to rule out the use of volunteers in tackling child sexual exploitation, terrorism and serious crime. There has been no clarity in the Government’s proposals thus far about the role that volunteers should play in those areas. We have asked for clarity, but none has been forthcoming.

I now turn to accountability in relation to volunteers. Under the Bill’s provisions, when police officers and special constables have been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings, their details will be added to the barred list held by the College of Policing, and chief officers will not be able to appoint anyone on the list as an officer, a member of police staff or a special constable. However, the Bill does not provide for volunteers dismissed for misconduct to be added to the barred list, which is why we sought to amend the Bill in Committee. Will the Minister explain what mechanisms are in place to ensure that volunteers who abuse their powers cannot serve again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Does he not also suspect that, perhaps as an unintended consequence, this might place volunteers in very risky situations?

[Jack Dromey]

That is absolutely right. I will mention something similar in a moment. If we have volunteers—I again stress that there is a long and honourable tradition of volunteers working in and with our police service—we must, to be frank, go the extra mile to ensure that they are not subject to risk or harm. If they are ill-trained and there is no framework of accountability, issuing them with CS gas and leaving them to get on with it might lead to very serious consequences indeed, not just for members of the public but for the volunteers themselves.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me; my experience is not with the police, but I know very well that the police service, just like the armed services, would not issue CS gas or the like without very strict controls and very strict training. I am quite sure that volunteers would not be given any less training in the use of such chemicals in pursuit of their duty.

[Jack Dromey]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I used to be chairman of the defence unions. I am proud of my long association with members of our armed forces, of which he was an admirable example. It is extraordinary—I have given some reasons for this, and I will come on to others—that there is no clarity about training and accountability. A proposal has simply been inserted in the Bill for volunteer PCSOs to be issued with CS gas and PAVA spray, which raises fundamental issues of concern. I suspect that if this was raised with members of the public in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, they would say, as was the case in Hove and in my constituency at the weekend, “What planet are they living on?”

[Sir Edward Garnier]

If I can just bring the discussion back to this planet, I accept that the Labour party does not want volunteers to be able to enter our police system in the way proposed by the Bill, but where on earth does the hon. Gentleman get that idea? I hope he is just making it up as he goes along, because if he has thought about his arguments I am even more worried than I was a moment ago. Where in the Bill does it say that anybody is going to be handed a noxious substance such as CS gas or the other spray without adequate training? It defies belief that anyone with common sense would advance that argument, and it is even less likely that a consequence of the measure would be that they would not get that sort of training. It is just bananas.

[Jack Dromey]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should put that question to his Front-Bench colleagues so that the concerns he has just expressed can be allayed. The concerns raised during detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee were heard but not acted on, and that is precisely why we are having this debate today.

On the principle of volunteers in the police service, I went out of my way to say at the beginning of this debate that there is a long and honourable tradition of excellent men and women serving as special constables and in neighbourhood watch teams. Had we won the election in May 2015, we had plans to enhance the role played by local people in having a local say over the policing of their local communities, including greater volunteering and co-operation with the police. The question is where we draw the line on what is and what is not appropriate. Perhaps I could visit the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency and we could ask the first 100 people we meet, “What do you think of volunteer PCSOs being able to carry CS gas?” I suspect that I know the answer we would get.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That, I respectfully suggest, is not a very clever question, because it is loaded to produce the answer that the hon. Gentleman wishes to receive. He is very fond of other volunteers, but he does not like clause 35 volunteers. If I asked anybody in his constituency or in mine, “What do you think about untrained people carrying shotguns, police weapons or CS gas?”, of course they would say that that was not very sensible, but the question removes reality from the practical application of the Bill. No volunteer within the ambit of clause 35 is going to be walking around Market Harborough, still less the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, without having been properly trained in the use of the materials, weapons or instruments to which they will be given access. That is just plain silly, and I wish he would move on to something rather better.

[Jack Dromey]

I agree it is plain silly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleagues have not answered those questions. When they speak today and during the Bill’s subsequent stages, I have no doubt that he will pose those questions and say, quite rightly, that it would indeed be silly for something to happen without proper training or accountability. At the moment, for the reasons I have spelled out, that just is not in the Bill.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Traditionally, matters such as training are not put in legislation, but that does not mean that they do not happen. There is no requirement to include training in the Bill, but it still goes on.

[Jack Dromey]

With respect, I disagree with the hon. Lady. If we look at the training received by the police, PCSOs and police staff, we see that there is guidance and that an agreement has been reached. The existing framework is very helpful, but as the Bill stands there is nothing for the new breed of volunteers that the Government seek to introduce. The hon. Lady might want to put that question to her own Front-Bench colleagues.

It is our very strong view that the use of CS gas and PAVA spray should be undertaken only by officers who are regularly trained in their usage and, importantly, in the law surrounding their use. In the words of Vera Baird:

“We have lost 861 police officers and 940 police staff since 2010 through government cuts which can’t be replaced by volunteers”.

She also said:

“many volunteers want to support the work of police officers—not to do their jobs for them. The use of CS gas and PAVA spray is something that should only be undertaken”

by sworn officers,

“who are regularly trained on their usage and importantly in the law surrounding their use”.

She is absolutely right. She went on:

“Rather than extending the role of volunteers, the Government needs to start funding police forces properly, to allow Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners to recruit more police officers, who can go on the beat and serve local communities.”

The Government need to have a proper conversation with the police and the public about what they see as the acceptable use of force by volunteers, in a context in which institutions such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission have already raised serious issues about the use of force by fully trained warranted officers. With regard to that proper conversation, only today we received a briefing from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has already said about the proposals in the Bill that

“the development of volunteering in policing needs to be driven by a clear vision and strategic direction”

and that the Government have not fully articulated

“what role the reforms will play in moving towards a different and improved model of policing beyond how it may offer forces greater flexibility and reduce costs.”

To return to the proposal on CS and PAVA, our police service has and needs the power to use force where necessary when carrying out its duty to protect the public. It is clear that the public understand that, and indeed, expect and rely upon it. However, under the UK’s tradition of policing by consent, they also expect that those who use force will be properly trained and qualified, and there will be proper accountability. The Government simply have not made the case for the proposal and we will therefore be voting against it.

I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will listen to, for example, Winston Roddick, the chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, who said about the proposal:

“I have serious reservations about it... I think that the proposal raises points of principle about arming members of the public to do something by the use of arms, which goes further than the common law principle of acting in reasonable self-defence.”––[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2016; c. 51, Q67.]

[Bob Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman—he is actually a friend of mine—and I both know that we arm members of the public in our reserve forces. With training, they do exactly the same on operations as any normal regular soldier, and they are sent on operations into really dangerous positions.

[Jack Dromey]

I am very familiar with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am proud to have many friends who are reserves; they play a very important role in the armed forces. Crucially, they are properly trained and equipped, and work within a framework of accountability. That is exactly what has not been proposed—or at least spelled out—by the Government for volunteer PCSOs. That is precisely what we are seeking to draw out, and for that reason we will be voting against the Government’s proposals.

I will say one final thing on volunteering before I move on briefly to other provisions in the Bill. I return to what the NCVO has said; to be frank, it has captured our concern:

“The proposed approach to volunteering, through the creation of volunteer positions that are ‘equivalent’ to or ‘mirror’ paid roles, risks misunderstanding the nature of volunteering and the full contribution it can make. Rather than the language of equivalence we hope the government will recognise this and start to reflect a language of distinctiveness and complementarity. This will help ensure a more successful police volunteering programme.”

The NCVO is absolutely right that the Government have, in this respect, simply got it wrong.

I turn now briefly to other issues dealt with in Committee by my formidable colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. Our new clause 21 and amendments 7, 8 and 9 would help to ensure full cost recovery of the licensing of guns. That is a crucial objective of the Gun Control Network. It is also a goal that the Government profess that they wish to achieve. In Committee, the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims told us:

“We are as one on the fact that the taxpayer should not subsidise licensing.”––[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 12 April 2016; c. 259.]

We will hold him to his words, and so look for an assurance on when the Government will move to full cost recovery. We note that some forces are already moving in that direction. It cannot be right that an overstretched police service that has lost 18,000 police officers and 5,000 PCSOs should have to subsidise gun licences, and we look forward to the Minister’s response on that. He says that the e-commerce scheme will deliver full cost recovery, but we will see. Are we moving to full cost recovery, and when will that be achieved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I totally agree. The new clause would remove that unnecessary duplication of effort and allow the police to concentrate on getting through a backlog of licence renewals, or processing them quickly and effectively.

Let me highlight some of the anomalies behind new clause 9. As a landowner I could lend somebody a gun that is lawfully in my possession and that I am authorised to hold. Many children are taught to walk around with unloaded guns for many years, so that they learn how to use shotguns safely. Those guns are never loaded, but children are taught how to carry one, how to keep other people safe, and how to cross fences. That is a valuable part of training, and it makes a nonsense of the current unclear legislation on the term “occupier”—my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) spoke about how different police forces interpret that term, which indicates that there is something of a postcode lottery regarding where someone lives and how the law is applied.

The new clause brings much needed clarity to the process, and I urge the Minister to consider taking the matter further. If he cannot accept the new clause today, perhaps he will commit to it being considered in the other place. It is clear that these new clauses do not involve further risk—or indeed any risk—to the public.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) mentioned the police funding formula. In many areas, rural policing is like rural schooling and delivery of services. The policing formula does not support delivery of policing in rural areas—indeed, it tends to favour metropolitan areas. I have many examples of that. I know from previous experience that North Wales police were underfunded by £25 a head. It would be quite wrong, therefore, to give the impression that the leafy shires are better funded than metropolitan areas; that simply is not the case. The difference, particularly in Dyfed–Powys or indeed Cheshire, has been the way the PCC has allocated resources to frontline policing.

[Jack Dromey]

With the greatest respect, I have to correct the hon. Lady. If we compare metropolitan forces with areas such as Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire, we will see that the evidence is stark. In addition, after the debacle over the police funding formula, proposals were made for transition arrangements, but all the emphasis has been on helping Conservative areas, which cannot be right.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I simply do not accept that. The “damping” provisions have ensured that metropolitan areas have had substantially more funding, and rurality is not adequately accounted for in the funding formula to reflect the difficulty of policing often very large areas. After all, communities in rural areas deserve to be policed in exactly the same way and to have the same support and cover as those in metropolitan areas. I want to correct the impression that that is not the case.

In Cheshire, the PCC’s approach to services has led to a substantial increase on the frontline in the number of warranted officers. PCCs are making choices about where to allocate resources, but the examples from Cheshire and elsewhere, such as Dyfed–Powys, show that we can protect frontline services and even increase frontline policing using the funding settlements made over the last few years. The examples are out there, and I invite members of the public to check them out.

--- Later in debate ---

The law is clear, and the new code of practice is clear. I want to give an agreement that is not even a month old a chance to work, but I also think that we should bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said about prosecutions. We need to know that, if a prosecution is brought, the courts will have the weapons that they need to secure a successful conviction. I shall be happy to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims, who is sitting next to me. We also need to bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about whether we need to take any action on the supply and delivery of knives.

[Jack Dromey]

May I briefly intervene in support of new clause 1? There is no doubt that welcome steps have been taken, but what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and others have proposed, with cross-party support, is the imposition of clear obligations and responsibilities, in law, to which those engaged in the selling and provision of knives must be held. Are the Government rejecting that approach?

[Karen Bradley]

The law is clear. Selling a knife to anyone under 18 is against the law, and anyone who does so is breaking the law. What we are seeking is the best way in which to ensure that that responsibility is upheld and there is appropriate enforcement of the law, and that means ensuring that retailers adhere to the code of practice. It is a voluntary code of practice, but we want the onus to be on the retailer rather than on the Government. The key issue is effective implementation and enforcement of the law as it exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate pointed out that such matters are not generally covered by primary legislation, and tend to be dealt with in, for instance, codes of practice. I shall be happy to look into whether there are suitable ways of enabling the code to be implemented by prosecution services or others, and I will keep my hon. Friend apprised of developments.

Let me now deal with the new clauses relating to firearms which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has left the Chamber, but I sensed that he was about to support them as well.

The purpose of the firearms provisions in the Bill is to close the most pressing loopholes in the current legislation, which are open to exploitation by criminals. The Government accept that firearms legislation needs a general overhaul, but our priority must be to address the issues that pose the greatest risk to public safety. The Law Commission recommended that firearms legislation be codified, and we are giving careful thought to the case for that. We may be able to consider some of the proposals in new clauses 7, 8 and 9 as part of such an exercise. The provisions in the Bill have been subject to detailed consideration and consultation by the Law Commission, unlike the proposals presented by the British Shooting Sports Council. We need to think carefully about the impact on public safety before legislating on any of these matters, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will do just that.

[Karen Bradley]

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. I understand that he had a productive meeting with officials yesterday to discuss his new clauses. As I have said, our No. 1 priority must be to promote public safety, but I accept that we also need an efficient licensing regime that minimises bureaucracy and inconvenience both to the police and to legitimate holders of firearms certificates. We will study my hon. Friend’s new clauses further, and if there are elements that can sensibly be taken forward without our compromising public safety, I shall be happy to look into whether it might be possible to do that in the Bill. I will keep my hon. Friend informed of progress in advance of the Committee stage in the other place.

I recognise that amendment 1 is intended to enable those with practical expertise to contribute to the development of the guidance to the police. We will consult widely on the first edition of the new statutory guidance, and that consultation will consider the views of shooting organisations as well as of the police. However, this is not a matter for legislation.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has tabled amendments relating to firearms fees. Currently, combined, the authorisation and licensing of prohibited weapons, shooting clubs and museums cost the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 a year. It is our intention that licence holders, not the taxpayer, should pay for the cost of the service. The proposed fees will be set out in a public consultation and the Government must consider any evidence put forward about the impact of the fees on particular categories of licence holders. I cannot pre-empt the consultation but, for example, organisations in the voluntary or civil society sector might put forward a case.

Fees for firearms and shotgun certificates issued by the police are separate and were increased in April 2015. Those were the first increases since 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds talked about the police’s new online e-commerce system. Once that has been introduced across all 43 forces, fees will recover the full cost of licensing.

[Jack Dromey]

I have a very quick question for the Minister. Is she therefore giving us an assurance that we are moving to full cost recovery, and that never again will the police have to subsidise the cost of issuing gun licences?

[Karen Bradley]

Yes. I understand that the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims will write to Opposition Front Benchers with further information when we have further details of the consultation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has tabled new clause 17 on the question of sobriety orders. He and I had a good discussion on this yesterday, and I am keen to explore the areas that he has talked about. He has rightly made the point that it is currently not possible to make offenders pay for the cost of their tags, and to do so would represent a departure from what we are doing in other parts of the criminal justice system. So, if he will allow me, I would like to explore the matter further, check for any unintended consequences and other points and perhaps continue to discuss the issue with him so that we can ensure that we get this measure right if it is appropriate to introduce it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) tabled new clause 19, and I want to start by praising him. He should take great pride in having identified a real gap in the law. He is quite right to say that we do not want to see hundreds of young people—and perhaps not-so-young people—at festivals being maimed by flares. The Government fully support the intention behind the new clause but we need to be sure that there would be no unintended consequences.

It is for that reason that the Home Secretary and I have agreed with my hon. Friend to work together to table a Government amendment on this issue in the other place. I can assure him that when the Bill is enacted, such an amendment will be on the face of the legislation. I can also assure him that we will work to ensure the timely implementation of the amendment so that the law is in force by the time of next year’s festival season. I think I picked up some references in his contribution to a great artist who passed away last week. I can assure him that, at next season’s festivals, people will be able to party like it’s 1999.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 31 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

Police volunteers: inspection

‘(1) In section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (appointment and functions of inspectors of constabulary), in subsection (7) (as inserted by section 34), after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) persons designated as community support volunteers or policing support volunteers under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002;”

(2) In Schedule 4A to the Police Act 1996 (further provision about Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary), in paragraph 6D (as inserted by section 33), after sub-paragraph (1A)(c) insert—

“(ca) a person designated as a community support volunteer or a policing support volunteer under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002;”.’.—(Karen Bradley.)

This new clause makes provision about how the law relating to police inspections under the Police Act 1996 applies to those designated as community support volunteers or policing support volunteers under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The amendment of section 54 clarifies that inspections of police forces may include inspections of designated volunteers. The amendment of Schedule 4A is related to amendment 48 and means that designated volunteers served with a notice under paragraph 6A of that Schedule requiring the provision of information have no right of appeal against the notice (and, hence, are in the same position as constables serving with a police force and civilian staff designated under section 38 of the 2002 Act).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Policing and Crime Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

Briefly, the Government amendments and new clauses in this group are consequential, to ensure that we tidy up any loose ends. I know that the shadow Minister will speak in a moment to new clause 48 and, if I may, I will respond to his concerns when he has done so.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Let me say at the start that we agree with the principle of what the Government are seeking to achieve. We want to raise issues of practicality that were cited, for example, in the evidence given to the Committee by both the National Police Chiefs Council and the chief superintendents.

New clause 48 would make it mandatory for police and crime commissioners to produce an annual assessment of the capability of police forces and other agencies to meet the mandated 28-day pre-charge bail limit. I stress again, as we said on Second Reading, that reform of police bail is absolutely overdue. The current system has been criticised from both sides, on the grounds that it unfairly leaves people under investigation for long periods before they have even been charged for an offence and that it does not offer the necessary safeguards in the cases of people who pose more of a risk to the public. I will say more on that later.

A more targeted approach is therefore needed that does not unfairly restrict the liberty of people whose guilt is far from proven but that has teeth when it needs to. The case of Paul Gambaccini is a stark example of why the system has to change. We are in complete agreement that we need a common-sense approach to cases in which people have been on bail continuously but no evidence is found. Investigations need to be conducted swiftly and fairly, yet a 2013 BBC freedom of information request, to which 40 police forces responded, found that 71,256 people were on pre-charge bail and 5,480 had been on bail for more than six months. Our concern is that the Government are mandating a 28-day pre-charge bail limit, the aim of which is welcome, but are not addressing the root causes of delays in investigations.

Let us start with the key problem with cases such as that of Paul Gambaccini: individuals who are suspected of a crime but who are not ultimately charged can be under investigation for a long time before a decision not to charge is reached. As we are well aware, that can have a hugely negative impact on the lives of suspects and their families, and in cases where charges are brought and suspects are eventually found guilty, we do not want a system that involves prolonged periods before victims see any kind of justice. We therefore need to tackle why these investigations take so long.

Alongside the measures contained in this Bill, the Government need to have a careful look at where the system can be improved, where extra capacity is needed and what impact reductions in resources are having. For example, Home Office workforce figures show that 40,000 police jobs were cut between 2010 and 2015, with a 30% cut in police community support officers, 20% fewer police staff jobs and 13% fewer police officers. The police are therefore juggling carrying out investigations with patrols, immediate response to emergency incidents and life-saving preventive work. Resources will inevitably have an impact on how quickly police forces can get things done and how able they feel to prioritise investigative work.

Do the Government have any considered idea of what impact resource reductions are having on the capability of forces to carry out timely investigations? What resources will be required under this clause? For example, as regards a super structure of police superintendents to oversee the changes proposed by the Government, the point has been made very strongly by the chief superintendents that it would take out several of their number whose job it would be to supervise the new arrangements that the Government seek to put in place. Crucially, our amendment would require an assessment of this question by police and crime commissioners themselves.

Similarly, cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service and to other agencies are being seen to have a knock-on effect, and I will come back to that point shortly. We do not want the outcome of these proposals to be simply that more people are released not on bail. Chief Constable Alex Marshall noted in his evidence to the Committee that, according to the College of Policing’s bail pilot, early indications of the data were that 70% of those released on pre-charge bail

“were bailed for more than 28 days.”

This was because officers were waiting, while

“getting professional statements from doctors and others, getting phones and computers analysed, taking detailed statements from vulnerable victims of crime, getting banking information and details, and getting forensics analysed”.

He went on:

“We agree that the time limits should be closely monitored…The onus will rest on many people across the system to respond much more quickly to requests from the police conducting their investigation.”––[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2016; c. 78, Q45.]

He is absolutely right. We do not want a situation in which, due to factors beyond their control, police have no choice but to release not on bail in order to meet the time limit. Clearly, in cases where bail conditions play a necessary role in safeguarding, this would have serious consequences for victims, witnesses and the general public.

In the Government’s consultation, suggestions from respondents included consideration of the needs of the victims of crime, including safeguarding requirements and special interview requirements. The need to safeguard complex investigations was also raised. Early indications of the College of Policing’s pilot were that, of the 950,000 arrests in a year, about 30% were released on pre-charge bail. If that starts to change dramatically, and many more people are released not on bail due to the proposals in the Bill, the Government will have to reflect on and address that. That is why the part of this amendment that requires an assessment of any changes in the number of people released not on bail is so important. Alex Marshall’s comments relate very closely to new clause 49 and the issue of third-party delays preventing police officers from taking critical decisions within the required timeframe in an investigation.

This amendment would allow the Home Secretary to mandate co-operation of relevant agencies with police forces in conducting investigations, and would allow for scrutiny of whether relevant agencies have the necessary capacity and resource to co-operate within the required length of time. The Crown Prosecution Service, forensic examiners, health authorities, banks and financial institutions, to name but a few, are all third parties that the police rely on in the preparation of a case, so the Government’s proposals in the Bill address only one part of the investigatory process.

In the Government’s own consultation on the proposal, they found that the most commonly raised suggestion was that matters outside police control should be taken into account, such as Crown Prosecution Service timescales, forensic examinations—including digital—and international inquiries.

In the 119 responses—or 40% of those who responded —highlighting the resource implications of each model, the most commonly raised issues were on the need for increased resources, including greater staff numbers. As Committee members will be aware, a number of pieces of existing legislation impose statutory duties on third parties to provide reports or information within a set timeframe, such as the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, the National Health Service Act 2006 and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. However, as we have argued with pre-charge bail limits, the Government must not just mandate co-operation by third parties, they must also assess the relevant agencies’ capacity and, crucially, take a proactive approach to ensuring that agencies have the tools at their disposal to provide relevant information or services within the limit. For example, when consulted on the proposals, the Ministry of Justice highlighted concerns that the numbers of cases that would fall to be considered in the Crown court will exceed the available capacity in Crown court centres. Further to that, the Government proposed to have all pre-charge bail hearings dealt with in the magistrates court. I would be interested in the Government’s assessment of the capacity of magistrates courts and the ability of the Ministry of Justice to accommodate the projected costs of the additional hearings.

The Government need to listen on this important issue. In principle, they are doing the right thing in terms of the direction of travel, but they need to listen to the widespread concerns about the practicalities of implementing their proposals; they need to listen to what the police and other agencies are telling them about the major constraints on timely investigation, address those constraints and take a comprehensive approach to scrutinising the role of all agencies in the investigatory process, including, but not limited to, the police. That is what these two new clauses seek to achieve, and I urge the Government to take further action in parallel with their proposals in the Bill.

[Mike Penning]

May I say at the outset that I acknowledge and understand where the shadow Minister is coming from, even though I disagree on the need for the new clauses? We acknowledge that the new system will put pressures on the forces. We accept that, but at the moment we have a situation where the police can have unlimited police bail. That is unacceptable. We have consulted, listened carefully and 28 days should be the marker going forward. Of course, a superintendent or above can authorise extensions, and magistrates can authorise beyond that. We absolutely accept that the police will need more time in some complex cases and where the crime changes, but they have to explain why, unlike in the present system.

Whether and how the new system is working will be assessed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary within its police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy reviews. That is a robust system. I do not think there is a PCC or chief constable in the country who would argue that Tom Winsor’s regime is not fair and robust. Sometimes they say to me that it is not fair and robust—but it is independent, it is there, and that is exactly right. We will keep the need for further reporting under review, but I do not want to put further bureaucracy on to the PCCs.

I fully understand the inter-agency point. We need to break down the silos so that we work more closely together. However, the shadow Minister referred to the consultation in his comments; a clear majority—two thirds—of consultation responses were in favour of establishing memorandums of understanding between the agencies rather than a statutory review. That is what the consultation said, and that is why we have gone down this route rather than the statutory one. I say again that we will keep that under review—but if there is a consultation where two thirds respond in favour of one way, and they are then completely ignored in favour of the statutory route, they will argue, “What is the point of a consultation?”.

It is so early in the morning to disagree already, but although I understand where the shadow Minister is coming from, the Government, sadly, do not feel the need for new clauses 48 and 49.

[Jack Dromey]

First, the Police Minister is right to be frank: this set of proposals will put pressure on not just the police but a whole range of other agencies. I note what he said of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and its PEEL reports, and I add that the College of Policing and the Home Affairs Committee will keep this matter under review. I also welcome the proposed memorandum of understanding so that we can make the new system work. On that basis, and given those assurances, we will not press our amendments to a vote.

Amendment 148 agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Restrictions on places that may be used as places of safety

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 157, in clause 60, page 68, line 29, at end insert—

“( ) Before a house, flat or room where a person is living is used as a place of safety the patient must first be offered one of the following locations as an alternative place of safety—

(a) a residential accommodation provided by a local social services authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 or under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977;

(b) a hospital as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983; or

(c) a mental health care home.”

This amendment would require that a patient was offered a health-based place of safety as an alternative to their, or someone else’s, home being used as a place of safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who is a brave and doughty champion of those who have suffered from mental illness. There is no question but that real progress has been made in recent years, and he can take credit for the outstanding role that he has played in that process, which we see the benefits of in our constituencies and across the country.

I have seen non-custodial places of safety at the Oleaster suite in Birmingham and in the form of street triage arrangements around the country, including one team of three outstanding police officers in the east midlands. One of them took me to one side and said, “I’m passionate about what I do because my brother was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic eight years ago. I’ve supported him; I now want to support others like him.” The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that a police cell is no place for an ill person. I therefore completely support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has said.

I want to speak only to new clause 50, although we support what has been said in respect of new clauses 11 and 12 and I will briefly refer to them. In our country there is a right to be represented, and that is all the more important in circumstances where there is a vulnerable individual—often one who is going through a terrible trauma in their life—who requires the support and advice that an independent representative or advocate can give. We therefore strongly support what my hon. Friend has said in respect of new clauses 11 and 12.

Returning to new clause 50, I will take this opportunity to repeat the concerns that were expressed across the House on Second Reading—the debate on these issues was excellent—and the concerns of medical professionals and the police. Although we welcome the objective of the proposals, the combination of the changes could put professionals in a difficult position. Assessments of those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 cannot be completed until a bed has been identified. Professionals should not have to choose between breaking the law by exceeding the 24-hour period if a bed cannot be identified and not breaking the law but releasing someone who should be detained. Yet HMIC has found that some of the most common reasons why the police used custody as a place of safety include

“insufficient staff at a health-based place of safety”

and

“the absence of available beds at the health-based place of safety”.

I am sure that the Minister recognises that such problems will not be fixed by the Bill or even by the Home Office. It is therefore essential that, alongside the Bill, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary work together to ensure that health service commissioners open sufficient beds and train sufficient professionals to deliver these welcome new commitments. New clause 50 would make it mandatory for the Home Secretary to report on the impact of the proposals in the Bill on mental health assessment and outcomes.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) spoke eloquently on Second Reading. He said:

“We cannot make demands on the police to change the way they do things in providing places of safety unless we actually provide places of safety.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 59.]

He is absolutely right. There are not enough beds in this country for mentally ill people who are suffering real crises and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has said, where beds are made available, long distances sometimes have to be travelled to take the individual in question to a safe place where they can be looked after. We therefore need cast-iron guarantees from the Department of Health that it is in a position to support police officers in treating those suffering from mental health crises with the dignity and support that they deserve.

The mental health crisis care concordat requires NHS commissioners to commission health-based places of safety for that purpose. It states:

“These should be provided at a level that allows for around the clock availability, and that meets the needs of the local population. Arrangements should be in place to handle multiple cases.”

However, there is not a specific statutory duty to commission health-based places of safety. In theory, the Mental Health Act could be amended to introduce a duty for clinical commissioning groups to commission suitable and sufficient health-based places of safety for persons detained under sections 135 or 136. Have the Home Office or the Department of Health considered that? We understand that, strictly speaking, such legislation is outside the scope of the Bill, but in parallel with the provisions here, the Home Office must have assurances from the Department of Health that they are going to make available the necessary capacity. That is why it is crucial to our amendment that the Secretary of State for Health is consulted. The Home Secretary and the Health Secretary should work together to ensure that the proposals improve the outcome for those subject to police detention and mental health assessment, and that health providers have the capacity to carry out timely assessments and provide any necessary in-patient care.

In conclusion, is there welcome progress in the right direction? On that there is absolutely no hesitation. However, on the issues that I have raised, the Government have yet to give assurances. I urge the Minister to act, to give Parliament, the public and the police whatever assurances are possible to ensure that the proposals in the Bill are not only brought forward with worthwhile intentions but implemented in practice, and that we avoid the possibility that in some cases they will do more harm than good.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to be back from Easter recess; I hope you had a pleasant break. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Durham, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years and who is known as a leading advocate for those suffering with mental health conditions, be they crises or long-term conditions. I respect him enormously; I look forward to meeting him soon to discuss the many points he has raised today and to ensuring that the Government take notice of his experience and expertise and that we can work together on these matters.

I also want to make a point about what we are dealing with here. In a section 135 or section 136 detention, we are not dealing with a long-term condition that is being managed; we are dealing with a crisis—with somebody who, for whatever reason, either for their own protection or that of others, needs to be detained under the Mental Health Act. This has to be a short-term detention, and it should be one in which they are treated with dignity and respect. Somebody who breaks their legs does not get taken to a police cell, and nor should somebody having a mental health crisis. They have committed no crime, but for their own safety and that of others, they need a short-term temporary detention. That is not the same as being sectioned long term under the 1983 Act; it is a short-term issue. It might arise, for example, as a result of alcohol or drug abuse, because of some personal issue that has happened, or—let us admit it—because there has been a failure, where something has been identified from a health perspective but without identifying that the individual may go into crisis. It is about the crisis.

I want to pay tribute to my own police and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis in Staffordshire, who I think was the first police and crime commissioner to identify how much police time was being taken to deal with people in a mental health crisis. He estimated that it was 20%: one in five police days were taken up with dealing people in a mental health crisis. It says a lot about the system that was in place, in which it was easier for police to deal with this than it was for health workers. We know that we are dealing with a problem that has grown up over many years; we are tackling it and ensuring that it is dealt with appropriately.

I want to assure the Committee that this issue is not just dealt with by the Home Office. I work very closely with other Departments: not just the Department of Health, where my right hon. Friend the Minister for Community and Social Care is as absolutely determined as I am to ensure that this matter is dealt with, but the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and others. We need to ensure that we are all working together to identify the signs of mental health issues and ensure they are dealt with so they do not lead to a crisis. That is the important point.

The crisis care concordat, a cross-Government initiative, has led to a halving of the number of people being detained in police custody, but that is not good enough. That is why we are taking the steps in the Bill. We want to see this practice as the very rare exception when somebody in a mental health crisis ends up in police custody. We want the vast majority, and certainly those under 18, to be in a health-based place of safety.

The shadow Minister made a point about the east midlands police officer’s family member. Since I took on this brief, a number of people have spoken to me about their personal experiences of mental health in their families. This is something we are all waking up to in many ways. The issue has not been recognised for many years and I am glad we are talking about it and recognising the scale of the problem and ensuring that support is available.

I will turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Durham. As he said, amendment 157 seeks to introduce a requirement to offer a health-based place of safety before a private home is used. When a person is in a mental health crisis, it is important that they have access to the appropriate medical care at the earliest stage. I know we all agree on that.

In most section 136 cases people will be taken to a health-based place of safety, as is the case today. Usually, that will be a bespoke facility provided by the NHS that meets the national standards set out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The shadow Minister and I and my colleague who previously dealt with mental health have all visited health-based places of safety and been incredibly impressed by the work to provide somewhere safe and secure but also does not feel like a police cell. It feels like a medical setting and is comfortable. I visited one in Sussex—I know I have a Sussex MP behind me—where Katy Bourne, the excellent police and crime commissioner, has done incredible work on ensuring that there are sufficient and appropriate places of safety.

That facility at Crawley hospital has private access; the patient does not walk through the main hospital and A&E. The patient comes through a private door at the back into the mental health unit but in a secure section 136 facility where there is a bed, a private room and a bathroom. That is somewhere where someone can be treated with dignity while they experience the crisis, and can be diagnosed appropriately. Great credit should be paid to the many clinical commissioning groups and police and crime commissioners who are working together to ensure that those places of safety are there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister speaks with authority and sincerity, and we welcome the progress that has been made. Unusually, what we want to do on this occasion is strengthen the arm of the Home Office because, while it is true that there are excellent examples of good provision all over the country, it is uneven and patchy, and too many people who suffer mental illness are still being let down. The crucial point—she may be coming to this—is how the Home Office addresses the reality that, ultimately, it is the Department of Health that funds this provision. Unless the Department of Health is compelled to work with the Home Office, the Home Office will forever have problems.

[Karen Bradley]

I know that it will seem odd to the shadow Minister for a Home Office Minister to refuse further powers, but I will at this stage. I will return to that point later.

I will deal first with whether a health-based place of safety is the most suitable place of safety in every case, which goes to the nub of amendment 157. As the hon. Member for North Durham knows, a private home can already be used as a place of safety for a person detained under section 136 of the 1983 Act if the occupier consents. Clause 60 will make it possible to use a private home as a place of safety after a section 135 warrant has been used to enter those premises.

Where consideration is given to using a private home, it should be because it is the most appropriate place of safety for meeting that person’s needs, and not due to a lack of better health-based alternatives. In determining which place of safety to take a person to, those involved will need to consider all the relevant circumstances in the round. However, if the person concerned is particularly frail or likely to be very distressed if away from familiar surroundings, removing them from a home setting may be judged to be, on balance, more harmful than helpful. Conducting the mental health assessment in the home may therefore prove both quicker and a more satisfactory experience for all concerned. Similarly, it may be preferable to take a young person to their family home, rather than detaining them in a strange place where they know no one.

There is no question of a person being taken to a private residence or forced to remain there against their will. The use of a private dwelling as a place of safety will require the active consent of both the person detained and the occupiers of the residence.

The shadow Minister talked of street triage. When I have met street triage teams across the country and seen mental health clinicians working with law enforcement, the best cases have been where the law enforcement officer has allowed the mental health professional to take responsibility for the necessary decisions. I have seen examples of the mental health professional, rather than the police officer, going into the place where the individual in crisis is, assessing them and determining whether they should be arrested or detained, whether at their own home, at somebody else’s home or in a health-based place of safety.

Anybody who has been in a police custody suite—I hasten to add that it was not as an inmate, in my case—will know that it is stark and brightly lit, with no shade and nowhere to hide. It is a horrible environment for somebody who is ill to find themselves in. Going to a health-based place of safety is a much better option, but it may be that some people can be treated better and get the appropriate care in their own home. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not saying that there is no need for health-based places of safety—absolutely not. We are determined that health-based places of safety will be available as they are needed, but for some people it is better to be treated in their own home. In the majority of cases I genuinely believe that the health-based place of safety is the best place, but for a small number that will not be the case.

The Bill is designed to increase the flexibility that police and medical professionals have to act in the best interests of the person concerned in a wide range of circumstances, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards remain in place to prevent abuses of such a system.

Amendment 159 seeks to provide that the period of detention would commence when a decision to detain was made, rather than on the person’s arrival at a place of safety. As the hon. Member for North Durham will know, sections 135 and 136 enable someone to be removed to a place of safety if that is required. Once they arrive at the place of safety, it is essential that the mental health professionals have sufficient time to conduct the assessment and arrange any further care and treatment that are required. Any individual in such a circumstance must have the opportunity to have a thorough assessment that is not driven by detention deadlines.

Amendment 159 would unfairly penalise both the people in need of care and the health professionals assessing them if the decision to remove them was taken in an isolated place and if getting them to a place of safety would take some time. I know from my constituency that in isolated rural constituencies, things just take more time. As it happens, one also cannot give birth in Staffordshire Moorlands because there is no maternity facility. If one goes into labour, it will take at least half an hour to reach a maternity hospital. That is the reality of isolated rural communities.

Similarly, what about situations in which removal is difficult and risky for all concerned—for example, when someone is threatening to jump off a bridge? An attending police officer would probably make the decision to detain very soon after arriving on the scene, but it might take time to get the individual off the bridge. Would it be reasonable to require the police officer, in that highly pressured situation, to think about the clock ticking towards a time when they would have to release the person, whether or not they had managed to get them to a suitable place for a mental health assessment?

I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intends with his amendment. I think he intends to ensure that the person is transported to a place of safety as quickly as is reasonable. That can be addressed through guidance and the performance management of ambulance response times, rather than through legislation. Front-line professionals need to make the right decisions, taking account of the circumstances and the individual’s best interests.

Amendment 158 seeks to reduce further the permitted period of detention. As far as I can see, there is no disagreement among members of the Committee that the current period of up to 72 hours is much too long. It was put in place to take into account bank holidays, weekends and so on, but that is not good enough. We cannot have a situation in which, because someone has a mental health crisis on the Friday night of a bank holiday weekend, they find themselves in a police cell for 72 hours. That is simply unacceptable. It cannot be right to hold someone who is suffering a crisis and is in urgent need of a mental health assessment against their will for up to three days anywhere, not just in a police cell.

Clause 61 deals with that issue by introducing the concept of a permitted period of detention, and setting that period at 24 hours. We have also allowed for an extension by a further 12 hours if—and only if—the person’s clinical condition merits it. This is not a target time. Just as they are now, we expect that the vast majority of cases will be resolved much more quickly. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recommended, as a matter of good practice, that the assessment should start within three hours of the person being detained, and that has been built into the Mental Health Act code of practice. I want to be clear that 24 hours is not a target. We do not expect that a mental health assessment will start at 23 hours. We want it to start as soon as is reasonably practical, to ensure that the person gets the assessment and treatment that they need as soon as it is required.

We have been told by stakeholders that there will be occasions when the clinical condition of the person is such that they simply cannot be assessed immediately—for example, because they are intoxicated through drugs or alcohol. We have listened to that advice, and the maximum permitted period of detention has been set at 24 hours so that time is built in for the effects of intoxication to wear off. Otherwise, we would risk creating a situation in which the assessment process was made difficult or impossible because the person was unable to participate fully.

Equally, a shorter maximum detention period would risk the person having to be released before they had been assessed because they were not yet clinically fit to participate. Clearly, that would be in no one’s best interests. For those reasons, we have set the permitted period of detention at 24 hours. In the Government’s view, that provides a good balance between keeping periods of detention as short as reasonably possible and making sure that the assessment can be carried out in the most effective way.

The provision for an extension of not more than 12 hours over and above the original 24 hours, is for the very rare cases where the clinician responsible for carrying out the assessment is satisfied that the person’s clinical condition is such that the assessment cannot be started or completed within the 24-hour period. I want to be clear here: the provision to extend beyond 24 hours will be based solely on the person’s clinical condition. There is no scope for it to be used in any other circumstance, such as staffing problems.

In practice, the average period of detention is now less than 11 hours. That time includes the person being detained, the assessment being made and any future care or treatment arrangements arising out of that assessment being put in place. In the majority of cases, the necessary processes are already completed well within 24 hours. Of course, we recognise that the reduction to 24 hours may represent more of a challenge in some areas than others, but the work that is going on across England to improve mental health crisis care services, backed by both the national crisis care concordat and the 94 local concordat groups, is helping to develop services that can respond to the changing needs of the areas they serve.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for North Durham that the 24-hour time limit is not some arbitrary figure that has been chosen for convenience, but a deliberate decision that seeks to establish the balance between compulsion and care that I mentioned earlier.

New clause 11 seeks to introduce an annual reporting requirement in respect of detention in places of safety. The Government agree that the police should be transparent about the use of their powers under the Mental Health Act, so that we can see how often these sensitive powers are used, who they are used for and what further actions are taken. That will enable the changes being made through the Bill to be monitored effectively. It is only through looking at the data that we are in the position we are in. When my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister had responsibility for this area, he was determined to get to the bottom of what was and was not working well, and to make the decisions and changes that were needed to get to things working well across the country.

The Health and Social Care Information Centre and the National Police Chiefs Council publish annual data on detentions under sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act. For section 135, data are provided by health services covering the volume of detentions in which people are taken to a health-based place of safety. For section 136, the data include the numbers of people taken to police custody and health-based places of safety and are provided by the police and health services respectively.

However, we know that police data in this area have varied in quality. As a result, the Home Office is working with forces across England and Wales on a new data collection system for section 135 and 136 detentions to raise the level of consistency across the country. The new data set is voluntary in 2015-16, but will become a mandatory part of the Home Office’s annual data requirement for all forces in England and Wales from April this year—this month.

The annual data requirement will capture not only the number of detentions, but the age, ethnicity and gender of the people detained; the place of safety used, including, where applicable, the reason for using police custody; and the method of transportation and, where a police vehicle is used, the reason why. We intend to publish the data annually to ensure that there is full transparency, so I hope the hon. Member for North Durham will not need to ask written questions at that point.

Policing and Crime Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

It would have to be absolutely exceptional, such as for national security. With that in mind, I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 162, and I will basically do what he is asking for on Report. So that I can formulate it correctly, I ask him not to press amendment 162 but to accept the Government amendments.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Minister has been helpful, so I will be brief. For clarity, we are not yet talking about amendment 155—we will get to that later.

I will not repeat what the Minister said, and I welcome his undertaking. I say for clarity that of course this is about the unions that represent 55% of the workforce, but it is also about the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. In the more testing areas—such as forensics on the one hand and the interface with the criminal justice system on the other—it is about organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Law Society, for which there are sometimes tricky issues relating to client confidentiality. What he has said is welcome, but I stress that, however important it is that representatives of the workforce are included, there is a wider potential ambit for this clause.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the shadow Minister for that. Just to clarify, amendment 155 is in the next group. There are already specific amendments in the Bill to the legislation on the Police Advisory Board, but we will look carefully at the board’s membership, and if people need to be added to it, so be it.

Amendment 131 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The amendment has not been moved formally; we will come to it after these amendments.

Amendments made: 132, in clause 21, page 26, line 34, at end insert—

‘( ) The power conferred by subsection (1) may be exercised only to the extent that the Secretary of State considers necessary for any of the permitted disclosure purposes.

( ) “The permitted disclosure purposes” are—

(a) the protection of the interests of national security;

(b) the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders;

(c) the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings;

(d) the investigation of allegations of misconduct against whistle-blowers and the taking of disciplinary proceedings or other appropriate action in relation to such allegations;

(e) investigations under Part 2 that relate to whistle-blowers;

(f) investigations under this Part;

(g) any other purpose that is for the protection of the public interest.’

The new section 29I of the Police Reform Act 2002, inserted by clause 21, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the IPCC to disclose the identity of a whistle-blower and the nature of his or her concern (without the whistle-blower’s consent). The amendment provides that the regulation-making power is exercisable only for the permitted disclosure purposes set out in the amendment.

Amendment 133, in clause 21, page 26, line 43, leave out “whistle-blowers or to other”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 131.

Amendment 134, in clause 21, page 26, line 47, at end insert—

‘( ) The power conferred by subsection (1) may be exercised only to the extent that the Secretary of State considers necessary for any of the permitted disclosure purposes.

( ) In this section, “the permitted disclosure purposes” has the same meaning as in section 29I.’.

The new section 29J of the Police Reform Act 2002, inserted by clause 21, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the IPCC to disclose information relating to an investigation under section 29E(2) of a whistle-blowers’ concern or its outcome. The amendment provides that the regulation-making power is exercisable only for the permitted disclosure purposes (which are those set out in amendment 132).

Amendment 135, in clause 21, page 27, line 15, at end insert—

‘“( ) section 21A (restriction on disclosure of sensitive information);

( ) section 21B (provision of sensitive information to the Commission);”’—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on NC2.

[Jack Dromey]

We will not press amendment 162.

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 3A to the Police Reform Act 2002

Amendments made: 136, in schedule 5, page 178, line 34, leave out “19ZD” and insert “19ZC”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2.

Amendment 137, in schedule 5, page 179, line 37, at end insert—

‘(4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) may be exercised only to the extent that the Secretary of State considers necessary for any of the permitted non-disclosure purposes.

(5) The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision for circumstances in which (despite sub-paragraph (2)(b)) a copy of the report may be sent to the appropriate authority without the consent of the whistle-blower.

(6) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (5) may be exercised only to the extent that the Secretary of State considers necessary for any of the permitted disclosure purposes.

(7) Where the Commission would contravene section 21A by sending a copy of a report in its entirety to the whistle-blower or to the appropriate authority, the Commission may comply with its duty under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (as the case may be) may exercise its power under sub-paragraph (2)(b) (or under regulations under sub-paragraph (5)) by sending instead a copy of the report after having removed or obscured the information which it is prohibited from disclosing by section 21A.

(8) In this paragraph—

(a) “the permitted non-disclosure purposes” has the same meaning as in section 29HA;

(b) “the permitted disclosure purposes” has the same meaning as in section 29I.’.—(Mike Penning.)

Paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 3A to the Police Reform Act 2002, inserted by Schedule 5, deals with reports following the conclusion of an investigation under section 29E. Currently, it requires the IPCC to send a copy of the report to the whistle-blower except in circumstances specified in regulations. The amendment provides that the regulation-making power is exercisable only for particular purposes (the same as those set out in amendment 131). It also gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations allowing the IPCC to send a copy of the report to the appropriate authority without the consent of the whistle-blower but, again, the regulation making power may only be exercised for particular purposes (the same as those set out in amendment 132). The amendment further allows the IPCC to send a redacted report where it would otherwise contravene section 21A (inserted by NC2).

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22

Disciplinary proceedings: former members of police forces and former special constables

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 22, page 28, line 35, leave out from “paragraph (a)” to “, or” on line 38.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 139.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I often say that I have seen at first hand just how far the police have come over the past 30 years. To be frank, I did not get off to the best of starts with the police service, but then I saw excellent elements in it learning painful lessons about what had gone wrong historically, including from the Scarman tribunal and from Macpherson. The police have come a long way from often having poor relationships with communities throughout the country to being one of the most popular institutions in British society. Indeed, all polling evidence shows that the police are between three and four times more popular than we are as Members of Parliament.

Even if the police have come a long way, we are still learning painful lessons from the past. The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), recently convened a powerful seminar on historic injustices, together with Baroness Doreen Lawrence. I will never forget, in particular, the contributions by the Hillsborough families.

Hillsborough was a disaster, a human crush that caused the deaths of 96 people, and injured 766 others, at a football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough stadium, Sheffield, on 15 April 1989. The 1990 official inquiry into the disaster, the Taylor report, concluded that the main reason for it was the failure of police control. What the families said—it was incredibly moving—on the occasion in question was that they wanted justice and closure, but also accountability from those who presided over some disastrous errors, which led to people being killed on that scale.

As we said earlier in the debate, on Tuesday, we are strongly in favour of a different, more balanced approach towards disciplinary and investigatory arrangements for the police service. For example, I have talked about moving away from a blame culture to a learning culture—a culture that does not take every mistake and every wrong through an investigation and disciplinary process. Having said that, where the police get things badly wrong, of course it is right to act to put them right, because the public interest comes first and the victims deserve nothing less.

The amendment would remove the time limit on the initiating of disciplinary proceedings after an officer leaves the force. We strongly welcome the fact that the Bill provides, for the first time, for disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against former officers in circumstances where misconduct does not come to light until after their time in office. Where the proceedings result in a finding that the officer would have been dismissed had he or she still been serving, that officer will be barred from policing and added to the police barred list.

The Government have stated thus far that matters relating to a former officer’s misconduct must come to the attention of a chief officer within 12 months of an officer leaving the force. Our concern is that the 12-month period could be unduly restrictive. We know from recent experience, such as the Hillsborough inquest, that it may take many more years for campaigners and families to uncover wrongdoing. It is our view that wrongdoing needs to be put right, whenever it occurred, and that the officers concerned should be held to account.

We had constructive discussions earlier this morning, and I hope that the Government will now reflect further on the proposal, not only because of cases such as Hillsborough but to prevent perverse outcomes that might happen when one former officer has been out of the force for 13 months and another has been out for 11. Injustices often take some years to come to public light and scrutiny. There should be accountability in those circumstances.

We have had constructive discussions with the Minister, and I hope that she will consider the clause again and return with fresh proposals. In those circumstances, we would not press the amendment to a vote today.

[Karen Bradley]

I did not say earlier what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, but it truly is.

I understand much of what the shadow Minister said, but there are a few points that are important to make. First, the time limit we want to apply is for matters relating to misconduct in employment, not criminal matters. It will of course always be possible to investigate criminal matters, but the clause is intended to deal with a problem that we know has existed, when police officers have retired from forces and not been held accountable for mistakes and misconduct. By way of comparison with other forms of employment, I am a chartered accountant and I used to work for large accounting firms. If something came to light today on a piece of advice that I gave 10 or 15 years ago, there is very little that my former employers could do, because I have left. We have to put this in context. We want to make sure that mistakes that have been made are shown to be investigated properly, for public transparency and confidence in the police.

There is a risk that removing the time limit completely might breach article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and there is a risk of successful legal challenge. We need to be mindful of that. The shadow Minister has talked privately about the possibility of a time limit for a complaint to be made of perhaps 12 months after the date at which the misconduct came to light. I am happy to look at that and get legal advice on whether something like that can be done, but we do need some form of time limit. In that context, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

That is a helpful response. The Minister is absolutely right to draw the distinction between criminal proceedings, for which action can and should be taken, and actions that might constitute gross misconduct, for example.

[Karen Bradley]

I meant to make another point in my response, which is that the provision can of course be amended by regulation. Should it prove that 12 months is not the right time limit, the Government could change it in any event.

[Jack Dromey]

We are at one on the principle of accountability; somebody should not escape accountability as a consequence of having left the police service. Therefore a 12-month limit is not appropriate. At this stage, I would not like to arrive at a firm view on whether a time limit should be imposed, but there is flexibility on the Government’s part, which we welcome. We are happy to have discussions with the Government between now and Report, and we hope to be able to resolve the matter then.

Amendment 138 agreed to.

Amendments made: 139, in clause 22, page 28, line 45, at end insert—

“(3B) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A) must provide that disciplinary proceedings which are not the first disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness may be taken only if they are commenced within the period specified in the regulations, which must begin with the date when the person ceased to be a member of a police force.”.

This amendment provides for the imposition of time limits on when disciplinary proceedings can be taken against a person who has ceased to be a member of a police force if they are not the first disciplinary proceedings to be taken in respect of the particular alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness.

Amendment 140, in clause 22, page 29, line 16, leave out from “paragraph (a)” to “, or” on line 19.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 141.

Amendment 141, in clause 22, page 29, line 26, at end insert—

“(2C) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2B) must provide that disciplinary proceedings which are not the first disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness may be taken only if they are commenced within the period specified in the regulations, which must begin with the date when the person ceased to be a special constable.”.

This amendment is the same as amendment 139 save that it relates to special constables rather than members of police forces.

Amendment 142, in clause 22, page 30, line 25, leave out “this section” and insert “subsections (2) and (3)”.

This amendment and amendment 143 are consequential on amendment 145, which inserts subsection (8) into clause 22. They allow for the possibility that subsection (8) will be commenced at a different time from the rest of the clause.

Amendment 143, in clause 22, page 30, line 30, leave out “this section” and insert “subsections (2) and (3)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 144, in clause 22, page 30, line 30, at end insert—

“, but only if the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, there could be a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed if the person had still been a member of a police force or a special constable.”.

This amendment limits the extent to which regulations made in pursuance of section 50(3A) or 51(2B) of the Police Act 1996 (provisions inserted by clause 22 of the Bill) can make provision in relation to former members of police forces and former special constables who leave the police after the coming into force of clause 22 but where the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness occurred before that date.

Amendment 145, in clause 22, page 30, line 30, at end insert—

“(8) Schedule (Disciplinary proceedings: former members of MoD Police, British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary) makes amendments of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and the Energy Act 2004 which produce an equivalent effect to the amendments made by this section.”.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment introduces the new Schedule NS1.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Part to be inserted as Part 4A of the Police Act 1996

Amendment proposed: 199, in schedule 6, page 180, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—

“(c) the person ceases to be a civilian police employee by virtue of being dismissed and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal relates to conduct, efficiency or effectiveness;

(d) the person is a former civilian police employee and there is a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed if the person had still been such an employee.”.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment and amendments 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 and 208 make provision for the inclusion in the police barred list and police advisory list of civilian employees of the City of London police force, in addition to members of the civilian staff of a police force for a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 and of the metropolitan police force.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 197, in schedule 6, page 180, line 29, at end insert—

“(e) the person is a former police volunteer of the police force and there is a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed if the person had still been such a police volunteer,

(f) the person was employed by a company or individual which had entered into a contract with a local policing body or chief officer to provide services to a chief officer and there is a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed if the person had still been such an employee.”.

This amendment would provide for police volunteers and privately contracted staff to be placed on the barred list.

Government amendments 200 to 203.

Amendment 198, in schedule 6, page 185, line 35, at end insert—

“(c) the person was employed by a company or individual which had entered into a contract with a local policing body or chief constable to provide services to a chief officer and the person ceases to be so employed by resigning or retiring after a relevant allegation about the person comes to the attention of their employer and the relevant authority.”.

This amendment would provide for privately contracted staff to be placed on the advisory list.

Government amendments 204 to 209.

Amendment 161, in clause 25, page 32, line 35, at end insert—

“(f) community support volunteers and policing support volunteers.”.

This amendment would require guidance concerning disciplinary proceedings issued by the Secretary of State to apply to police volunteers.

Government amendments 210 to 213.

[Jack Dromey]

My apologies, Mr Nuttall; I, too, should have said that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Amendment 197 would provide the ability to place police volunteers and privately contracted staff on the barred list. Under the Bill, where police offers and special constables have been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings, their details will be added to the barred list held by the College of Policing. Chief officers will be barred from appointing anyone on the list as an officer, member of police staff, special constable or police volunteer. That is welcome, subject to the reservations that I am about to raise.

The Bill does not provide for volunteers dismissed for misconduct to be added to the barred list. Such volunteers are therefore not barred from taking up positions with other forces. We understand that police volunteers can be added only to the advisory list, although the legislation could make that clearer. That does not bar them from being appointed, but the advisory list is made available for vetting purposes.

The advisory list is intended to be used in the interim to record information about individuals who are under investigation or subject to proceedings. If the person is dismissed or would have been dismissed, they are effectively transferred to the barred list; however, if the matter is not proven or does not amount to gross misconduct, they are simply removed from the list. Do volunteers wrongly accused of misconduct have an opportunity to be investigated and removed from the advisory list? It is equally troubling that those who have committed gross misconduct cannot be placed on the barred list to ensure that they cannot serve with any force again.

Amendment 197 addresses the issue that the Bill does not provide for private sector staff to be added to the barred list. We find that extremely concerning, given that private sector staff can hold certain policing powers as detention and custody officers. Perhaps the Minister will therefore explain what mechanisms are in place to ensure that privately contracted staff who abuse their policing powers cannot serve again.

In 2012, Deborah Glass, the deputy chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, told The Observer:

“We believe it is vital for public confidence that all those who perform police-like functions and powers are subject to independent oversight.”

We wholeheartedly agree. In that spirit, the purpose of amendment 197 is to ensure that anyone with warranted powers can properly be held to account and, in instances of gross misconduct, can be prevented from being appointed to a police force.

Amendment 198 is closely linked to amendment 197 and would provide for privately contracted staff to be placed on the advisory list. It is therefore a tidying-up amendment, in line with the thrust of amendment 197, to provide for private sector staff to be added to the advisory list.

[Karen Bradley]

The creation of a statutory police barred list and police advisory list will bring greater accountability to the police disciplinary system and ensure that those who are employed by the police but dismissed as a result of serious wrongdoing are prevented from joining another force—something that I think we all agree on. The Bill will also ensure that officers and staff who leave by resigning or retiring before disciplinary proceedings have concluded are not able to evade sanction. The Bill will achieve greater accountability and strengthen public protection in a manner that we consider to be proportionate and workable.

As the shadow Minister has explained, amendments 197 and 198 seek to include police volunteers and those in a contractual relationship with police forces in the provisions for the police barred list and police advisory list. I have concerns about the approach that he suggests in relation to both categories.

I will start with volunteers. We recognise the importance of ensuring that volunteers carry out their functions appropriately and with adequate safeguards to ensure that they are held to account when they fall short of the standards expected. To achieve that, we have introduced measures to ensure that volunteers can be disciplined if wrongdoing occurs. The Bill contains measures to ensure that volunteers are captured in the provisions for the police advisory list. That will ensure that where a volunteer’s designated status is withdrawn as a result of serious misconduct, it will be recorded on the advisory list. That is a proportionate approach that reflects the fact that we are dealing with individuals who are not paid employees and who do not hold full contracts of employment. Amendment 197 would take those protections beyond what we regard as reasonable and proportionate for a volunteering role in policing.

Turning to police contractors, the amendments fail to address the complexities associated with the role and status of contractors who are not directly employed by police forces. Those contracted individuals cannot be treated like police staff or officers for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. As a result of that legal and practical distinction, the responsibilities for employment matters rest ultimately with the companies that employ the contractors, and are governed by employment law.

The provisions of the police barred list, with all its effects and consequences, cannot simply be added to the end of other organisations’ disciplinary processes and procedures, because the full safeguards and protections that have been developed and built into the police staff and police officer disciplinary systems that sit within the police service would be lacking. For example, there would be no guarantee of a fair process for a hearing to consider the sanction or a subsequent appeal, in line with the policies and regulated procedures followed for police officers and police staff.

To bolt amendments 197 and 198 on to the Bill would risk undermining the principles of consistency, fairness and transparency that are at the core of what we are trying to achieve on accountability.

[Jack Dromey]

If specials can be barred, why not volunteers and private contractors?

[Karen Bradley]

It is because of the contractual relationship. A volunteer is unpaid and is doing the job of their own free will. There is not the same relationship. A contractor’s employer is the company, not the police. There are issues about the contractual relationship between the employer and the police, but those are not about the individual.

[Jack Dromey]

I remain unconvinced. First, the fact that private contractors have their own employment and disciplinary arrangements does not mean that the police service, or the policing Minister, cannot discharge the obligations of the Government to the contractor. In a hypothetical but possible circumstance in which there was wrongdoing by a special, a volunteer and a contractor alongside one another, the special could end up barred, whereas the volunteer and the contractor would escape being barred. That is an anomaly that I do not understand.

[Karen Bradley]

Another anomaly is that the special is warranted, while the volunteer and the contractor are not; they do not have the ability to arrest in the same way. We are looking at how to ensure that there is trust and accountability for police and warranted officers. The volunteers are not warranted and neither are the contractors. To try to undo this, and to try to bolt on an additional disciplinary process for an individual who is employed by a third-party company, which has its own disciplinary processes—

[Jack Dromey]

I am grateful to the Minister; she is being very generous with her time. Can she understand why specials would feel hard done by because they are held to certain standards, while volunteers and private contractors are not?

[Karen Bradley]

I do not think this is a case of anyone being held to different standards. We are talking about warranted officers as opposed to those who are not warranted. There is a difference in what they can do; there is a difference in their position; there is a difference in the duties that they carry out. While I fully appreciate and understand what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve—full accountability and public trust in these arrangements—I think that trying to bolt on an additional disciplinary process for volunteers or individuals employed by a third party, who have no warranted powers, simply confuses the matter. I am afraid that I therefore cannot accept amendments 197 and 198.

Turning to amendment 161, I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington that as police forces modernise, including by taking advantage of the greater flexibility to confer policing powers on volunteers, adequate safeguards and arrangements are needed to hold designated volunteers to account when wrongdoing occurs. That issue was raised in the public consultation, which is why we have included appropriate provisions in the Bill, including in respect of guidance. Clause 30 will, for the first time, mean that if a member of the public makes a complaint against a designated volunteer, or if an internal allegation comes to the attention of the force, action can be taken to respond to that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

Although the Opposition amendments are well meant, I am afraid that the Government do not support the approach suggested by the shadow Minister on the basis that to do so for policing volunteers would be disproportionate and impractical. The proposals for contractors would require wholesale changes to both the contracting model and the police disciplinary system. I am similarly confident that the provisions in the Bill on guidance fully cater for the introduction of community support volunteers and policing support volunteers. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister not to press his amendments.

[Jack Dromey]

We have aired the concerns on amendment 197. An anomaly is left in the Bill, and it is rough justice, but we have aired the issue. On amendment 161, I make one point, and one point alone. The Minister has spoken about the capacity for guidance to be issued, and she indicates that such guidance will be issued. In those circumstances, we are content not to press our amendments.

Amendment 199 agreed to.

Amendments made: 200, in schedule 6, page 181, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert—

“(e) in relation to a person falling within subsection (1)(c), the chief officer of police under whose direction and control the person was immediately before being dismissed;

(f) in relation to a person falling within subsection (1)(d), the chief officer of police under whose direction and control the person was immediately before ceasing to be a civilian police employee.”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 201, in schedule 6, page 181, line 20, leave out “member of the civilian staff of a police force” and insert “civilian police employee”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 202, in schedule 6, page 181, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert—

“(5) For the purposes of this section, a person is a civilian police employee if the person is—

(a) a member of the civilian staff of a police force, including the metropolitan police force (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011), or

(b) a person employed by the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as police authority who is under the direction and control of the Commissioner of Police for the City of London.”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 203, in schedule 6, page 181, line 30, leave out “member of the civilian staff of a police force” and insert “civilian police employee”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 204, in schedule 6, page 186, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—

“(d) in relation to a person who was a civilian police employee immediately before resigning or retiring, the chief officer of police under whose direction and control the person was at that time.”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 205, in schedule 6, page 186, line 21, leave out “member of the civilian staff of a police force” and insert “civilian police employee”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 206, in schedule 6, page 188, line 35, leave out “member of the civilian staff of a police force” and insert “civilian police employee”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 207, in schedule 6, page 188, line 40, at end insert—

“‘civilian police employee’ has the same meaning as in section 88A;”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Amendment 208, in schedule 6, page 188, leave out lines 43 and 44.—(Karen Bradley.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 199.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24

Appeals to Police Appeals Tribunals

Amendment made: 146, in clause 24, page 32, line 17, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

“( ) In section 4A of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (appeals against dismissal etc), in subsection (1)(b), for the words from ‘by any provision’ to the end of the paragraph substitute ‘—

(i) by rules under section 85(1A) of the Police Act 1996 or by any provision of Schedule 6 to that Act, or

(ii) by any provision of Schedule 3 to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.’”.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment replaces the amendment of section 4A of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 with one that ensures that the provision made concerning the constitution of appeal tribunals will continue to be equivalent to that made in relation to corresponding tribunals under the Police Act 1996 or the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Guidance concerning disciplinary proceedings and conduct etc

Amendments made: 209, in clause 25, page 32, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

“(d) civilian police employees, and”.

This amendment and amendments 210, 211, 212 and 213 make provision for the giving of guidance to, and about, civilian employees of the City of London police force, in addition to members of the civilian staff of a police force or a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 and of the metropolitan police force.

Amendment 210, in clause 25, page 33, leave out lines 6 to 9 and insert—

“(iii) civilian police employees;”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 209.

Amendment 211, in clause 25, page 33, line 14, after “section” insert “—

‘civilian police employee’ means—

(a) a member of the civilian staff of a police force, including the metropolitan police force (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011), or

(b) a person employed by the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as police authority who is under the direction and control of the Commissioner of Police for the City of London;”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 209.

Amendment 212, in clause 25, page 33, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—

“(c) civilian police employees.”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 209.

Amendment 213, in clause 25, page 33, line 44, after “section” insert “‘civilian police employees’ and”.—(Karen Bradley.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 209.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Powers of inspectors to obtain information, access to police premises etc

Amendment made: 147, in clause 26, page 38, line 20, at end insert—

“Provision of sensitive information to inspectors

6F (1) A person who provides information that is intelligence service information or intercept information to an inspector (whether under a provision of this Schedule or otherwise) must—

(a) make the inspector aware that the information is intelligence service information or (as the case may be) intercept information, and

(b) provide the inspector with such additional information as will enable the inspector to identify the relevant authority in relation to the information.

(2) In this paragraph, ‘inspector’, ‘intelligence service information’, ‘intercept information’ and ‘relevant authority’ have the same meaning as in paragraph 6E.””. —(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment supplements new paragraph 6E of Schedule 4A to the Police Act 1996 as inserted by clause 26 of the Bill. Paragraph 6E imposes restrictions on the disclosure of certain sensitive information by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary. The new paragraph 6F inserted by this amendment is intended to assist inspectors in complying with paragraph 6E.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Powers of police civilian staff and police volunteers

[Jack Dromey]

I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 28, page 40, line 14, at end insert—

‘(1A) A relevant employee, in their capacity as a member of police civilian staff, must not be a member of a private sector company.”

This amendment would ensure that employees of the staff of private sector companies who are police contractors cannot be designated with additional powers under the proposals in the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 191, in clause 28, page 40, line 18, leave out subsection (3) to subsection (11) and insert—

‘(3) An individual designated as a community support volunteer or a policing support volunteer may not be given any powers exercisable by—

(a) a police constable, or

(b) a police community support officer.”

This amendment would allow chief constables to use volunteers in their forces for appropriate tasks, but removes the ability for chief constables to give them powers of a Constable or Police and Community Support Officer.

Amendment 192, in clause 28, page 40, line 18, after subsection (2) insert—

“The chief officer of any police force may not bring under their direction and control the following volunteers—

(a) a community support volunteer,

(b) a policing support volunteer

where such volunteers would either—

(a) replace a police officer or member of staff, or

(b) fill a vacant police officer or member of staff role.”

This amendment would prevent volunteers being placed in roles which would normally be paid jobs.

Amendment 193, in clause 28, page 40, line 18, after subsection (2) insert—

“The chief officer of any police force may not place a volunteer in an operational role in the following areas—

(a) child sexual exploitation,

(b) serious crime,

(c) counter-terrorism,

(d) custody and detention.”

This amendment would prevent volunteers being placed into some of the most sensitive and demanding police staff roles.

Amendment 194, in clause 28, page 40, line 18, after subsection (2) insert—

“The chief officer of any police force may not place a volunteer in any role which may require the use of force or restraint.”

This amendment would prevent volunteers being placed in roles which may require the use of force or restraint and which should only be performed by officers and members of police staff.

Amendment 195, in clause 28, page 41, line 18, leave out from (6) to end of subsection

This amendment removes the provision for volunteer PCSOs to be issued with CS spray and PAVA spray.

Amendment 196, in clause 29, page 42, line 11, leave out “may” and insert “must”

This amendment would make it mandatory for the College of Policing to issue guidance to chief officers of police on training of volunteers.

New clause 15—Scrutiny of volunteer use—

‘Police and crime plans produced under Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), must include an annual assessment of the use of volunteers, including the following—

(a) number of volunteers used,

(b) roles of volunteers

(c) protected characteristics.’

This new clause would make it mandatory for Police and Crime Commissioners to produce an annual assessment of the use of volunteers in police forces to allow for proper scrutiny of volunteer use.

[Jack Dromey]

I want to start by making a wider point. Our approach is not to say “public good, private bad”—far from it—but to draw the distinction between what should properly be done by police officers and what can be done by the private sector in one capacity or another, in support of the police service.

I will take as an example the West Midlands police service, which covers the area where I am proud to be a Member of Parliament. Four years ago, the Home Office ran a pilot, together with Surrey and the West Midlands police service, in which the radical transfer of a number of police functions to the private sector was proposed. It was strongly objected to, and was eventually dropped by Government and, indeed, the West Midlands police service which, however, then entered into an intelligent arrangement with Accenture on the 2020 modelling of the police service. That is an example of saying, “Let’s look at how we meet demand in 2020.” Accenture, with its excellent professional expertise, has been invaluable in working with the West Midlands police. That has been widely welcomed in the west midlands.

The Bill enables chief officers to designate a wider range of police powers for police staff. The amendment would prevent those provisions from allowing additional policing powers to go to employees of private sector companies, such as the G4Ss of this world. We will not support any further moves to allow private companies to carry out police activities that require warranted powers. The amendment is a probing one, designed to ensure that employees of private sector companies cannot be designated as community support officers or policing support officers. We want to get on record the Government’s assurance that the additional powers of a constable cannot be designated to be carried out by private sector staff.

The former Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), said in 2012:

“No front-line police officers will be contracted out to the private sector.”

He went on to say:

“The Government are clear that the private sector can help the police service achieve cost savings and better services for the public.”

I agree. That is what Accenture did in the west midlands. The right hon. Gentleman continued:

“Every pound saved means more money for front-line services. Only police officers have the power of arrest and they will continue to patrol the streets, respond to 999 calls and lead investigations. There is no intention to allow private companies to carry out police activities which require warranted powers”.—[Official Report, 27 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1129W.]

That was clear and succinct, and we hope that the Government stand by what he said in 2012.

I do not think it is necessary to catalogue the failings of the private sector. G4S and the Olympics is the classic example, but only today on a separate but related matter comes news that four in 10 planned deportations are being cancelled as a consequence of the failure of the private sector. I stress again that it is not that the private sector should never have a role, but that it should never be allowed to discharge the functions of a police officer. Only warranted police officers should be able so to do. Will the Police Minister stand by the assurances that his predecessor gave?

I will move on to amendment 191. Winston Roddick, the impressive police and crime commissioner for North Wales, has served his community well and is standing down—we wish him all the best for the future—but he waxed lyrical in front of the Committee about the role of volunteers, and I do the same. As we said on that occasion, in the immortal words of Robert Peel,

“the police are the people and the people are the police”.

There is a long and honourable tradition of volunteering. The specials go back more than 150 years, but I have seen the tradition at first hand in my constituency. In Castle Vale, for example, there is the tasking force, the tackling of antisocial behaviour and the excellent relationship between local people, local volunteers and the police service, which are all making Castle Vale a safe place to live. In Witton Lodge, the admirable Linda Hines, like her counterpart in Castle Vale, Lynda Clinton, is the backbone of volunteering with the police and the police community watch. She sits on the police and crime panel. I remember doing a presentation recently to Maureen Meehan. She has been responsible for 29 years for the taskforce in the Stockland Green area, the community watch and the neighbourhood watch. They have been highly successful in working with the police and tackling a range of crimes and antisocial behaviour.

I stress in the strongest possible terms that the police could do not do their job without a voluntary army, but a voluntary army should not do the job of the police. The amendment would allow chief constables to use volunteers in their forces for appropriate tasks, but remove chief constables’ ability to give them the powers of a constable or a police and community support officer. The Bill enables chief officers to designate a wider range of police powers to police volunteers. The amendment leaves the option open for chief constables to use volunteers in their forces as they must, but would remove the option of giving them powers and jobs that should be those of warranted officers.

Forgive me for saying it one more time, but there is common ground across the Committee in support of that long and honourable tradition of volunteering, which goes back 150 years and more. That volunteering includes the special constables and the excellent work done by neighbourhood watches and police and crime panels. That is all true, but the public demand that police functions be discharged by police officers. We are extremely concerned that this measure may be an attempt by the Home Secretary to provide policing on the cheap. Instead of completely removing the clause, our view is that volunteer roles should be formalised in legislation to allow for proper scrutiny of volunteer use and accountability of volunteers. However, we fundamentally oppose giving policing powers to volunteers to fill the gaps left by the drastic reduction in officer and staff numbers over the past five years. If the Government do not agree, we intend to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It would be appropriate for the shadow Minister to indicate that Winston Roddick said that in a personal capacity, not as chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. He said that quite specifically when giving evidence.

[Jack Dromey]

I would not for one moment downgrade his role or the significance of what he said. He is a police and crime commissioner who is highly respected throughout the police service. That is why he has been elected as chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.

[Mike Penning]

I was not in any way deriding the fact that he has been elected. He specifically said in evidence to the Committee that he was speaking in a private capacity, giving his personal views, and not as the chair. That is what he said.

[Jack Dromey]

The power of what he said speaks for itself. He is highly respected throughout the police service. I know that view is shared by other PCCs, Conservative and Labour. Winston Roddick went on to say, and it could not have been clearer:

“I think that the proposal raises points of principle about arming members of the public to do something by the use of arms, which goes further than the common law principle of acting in reasonable self-defence. You have to be very careful before you extend the right of one person to attack another by the use of any means.”––[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2016; c. 51, Q67.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I will try to cover as many of the shadow Minister’s concerns as I can, but I feel that we will probably have a few Divisions in the next half-hour or so. I will touch quickly on some of the less controversial points—controversial to the shadow Minister, although not necessarily to Her Majesty’s Government.

Amendment 190 seeks to prevent employees of private sector companies who are police contractors from being designated additional powers in the Bill. The Bill says specifically that it cannot do that.

Incidentally, the powers for private contractors were brought in in section 39 of the Police Reform Act 2002—I do not think we were in Government in 2002—and parts 3 and 4 of schedule 4 to that Act relate to prisoner custody and escort functions, which are carried out today by private contractors in many forces. I have seen them in operation and in many cases they are exceptionally professional. There is no extension of powers whatever in the Bill, so amendment 190 is not necessary.

I think amendment 191 is about whether the powers given volunteers would go beyond a constable’s existing powers and extend them. The designated powers of a warranted officer are set by Parliament. If they were to change—they are not changing in the Bill—we would have to come back to Parliament, and there are no plans to do so. I agree with my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, that we are 100% behind the warranted powers of a police officer and that includes specials, who I believe are volunteers.

Just to correct the shadow Minister who made what I am sure was a slip of the tongue, specials have been around for 180 years, not 150, and they have done exceptionally fantastic work.

Amendment 192 would make it very difficult for chief constables and police and crime commissioners, but particularly chief constables, to allow volunteers to do the work that we will ask them to do. Volunteers have been around for 180 years in the police force and the Government believe it is important to address some of the concerns—the shadow Minister alluded to this—in the core of the Bill. The core powers will remain, but we will need to use the skills of members of the public who want to help us but—this arises in my constituency—do not want to be a special in a uniform. They want to bring their other skills to policing, with appropriate training and scrutiny, which are vital.

This is not about taking police officers off the street and replacing them with volunteers or of saying, “You’re not good enough at your job, so we are bringing someone else in.” We are saying that we need to use all the skills we have in this great country of ours to help us with policing, particularly in respect of new technology. I am sure that there were concerns when specials were introduced 180 years ago. Perhaps they were similar to the concerns of the Opposition today. I think that they are unfounded. Having powers that help us to catch criminals and make people safer in their homes and workplaces is surely what this is all about.

Amendment 195 is interesting. Lincolnshire has already lined up and trained soon-to-be volunteer PCSOs and is just waiting for the legislation to be on the statute book. PCSOs have told me that the Herberts out there who may cause problems or attack PCSOs, particularly if they are under the influence of something, often know that PCSOs have no way of protecting themselves. They have asked me face to face, “Why won’t you let us have a pepper spray or a CS spray so we can protect ourselves?”.

[Jack Dromey]

PCSOs?

[Mike Penning]

Yes, and now we will have volunteer PCSOs. The powers already exist for chief constables to give those weapons to PCSOs, but if we are going to have volunteer PCSOs, why would we not allow them to have the same protection? Why would we not let someone, after training, protect themselves and other members of the public in the exceptional circumstances when CS and PAVA are used? It is astonishing that we would not want to give the public and our volunteers as much protection as possible.

We may divide on this. I want to protect the public and our volunteers as much as possible, and to have the correct training that tells people what they are able to use in the circumstances.

[Jack Dromey]

I cannot say that this was a scientific study, but over the past three weeks, I have asked five PCSOs for their views on this matter. One said, to quote the immortal words of John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious.” I know that the Minister tours the country all the time talking to police officers and PCSOs, but has he had PCSOs and police officers on the ground saying to him, “We want volunteers and for them to be armed in this way”? I find it hard to believe he has.

[Mike Penning]

In which case, the shadow Minister does not believe me, and I will take that in good faith. If, when I stand up as a Minister and say something, people do not believe me, so be it. I am slightly disappointed, however, that he thinks I would say such a thing if it had not actually happened.

The principle is whether we enable—“armed” is such an emotive word, is it not? This is about giving people the protection that they might need after suitable training. It is already on the statute book for PCSOs, but we would not then give it to volunteer PCSOs—how could we in this Committee and in this House do that?

I fully understand exactly where the shadow Minister is coming from on the issue relating to the College. However, Her Majesty’s Government, who drafted the clause, have not instructed the College on anything. We have asked it, as an independent body, to issue guidance. The Bill would insert new section 53F into the Police Act 1996, which will for the first time enable the College to issue guidance on the experience and qualifications that are necessary for a person who is being designated with certain powers.

Not every chief constable in the country is going to take up these powers. For instance, powers of detention for PCSOs are on the statute book now and some chiefs decide they do not want their PCSOs to use them. Some have gone way beyond that, as we have heard. The hon. Member for North Durham is not in his place, but in North Durham, we have seen PCSOs go way beyond that in areas that we would probably not have expected—and very successfully. I am not going to instruct the College, but it will have heard what is said today and it will issue guidance, of course.

I do not think new clause 15 is required. The data will be collected through the annual data requirement process, under the responsibilities of the PCC. There is no point asking us to collect more and more data. They will be collected and they will be evaluated. It is, of course, absolutely crucial that we know what is going on and how many volunteers are being used. As the Minister introducing this legislation, I will be absolutely fascinated to make sure that enough volunteers come forward, and I will ask questions in areas if they are not coming forward. We know that we have a substantial amount of volunteers ready and waiting for this legislation. In Lincolnshire, for example, we have volunteer PCSOs trained and ready to go. They are just waiting for the Bill to receive Royal Assent.

I understand where the shadow Police Minister and the Opposition are coming from, but particularly on allowing us to protect our volunteers with the correct training and on other points that were made, I think we will beg to differ. We may have to divide the Committee, which is sad, because we agree on 99.9% of the Bill, but on this particular point, we probably will not. I hope I might have convinced the shadow Police Minister, but probably not.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister is right. Actually, some of the things he has said are helpful. First, I note what he said about the College guidance. Secondly, it is welcome that a repeat of the assurances that were given by the then Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, is now on the record. Thirdly, I note the point that was rightly made about the normal process of data collection in respect of what new clause 15 proposes.

I have to disappoint the Minister by saying that we will divide the Committee on these issues. Given the time, may I make two simple points? First, the Minister referred, quite understandably, to the 2002 Act, but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 2002. The problem now is that the police service has lost 18,000 police officers, including 1,300 in the last six months alone, as well as 5,000 PCSOs and thousands of members of staff at a time of mounting demand, on the one hand—I spoke earlier about child sexual exploitation and abuse, and the sheer scale and cost of it—and diminishing resources, on the other. I do not say this as a criticism, but chief constables at the sharp end are finding it increasingly difficult, and our concern is that we might end up with gaps being plugged by volunteers as more and more police officers and PCSOs go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

But if we were to tell 100 people in the Dog and Duck, “By the way, a full-time, paid PCSO can have it, but a volunteer PCSO can’t. An operational, full-time police officer has it, and so does a volunteer special,” they will scratch their head and say, “Why aren’t you protecting the volunteer PCSO?”

[Jack Dromey]

I think they would say that volunteers should never be put into a front-line policing role where such a risk might be encountered. That is simply not appropriate. Ultimately, there are also issues about the accountability of volunteers because, by definition, there is a clear line of accountability for warranted officers or PCSOs, but there is not in quite the same way for volunteers.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 191, in clause 28, page 40, line 18,  leave out subsection (3) to subsection (11) and insert—

‘(3) An individual designated as a community support volunteer or a policing support volunteer may not be given any powers exercisable by—

(a) a police constable, or

(b) a police community support officer.”.—(Jack Dromey.)

This amendment would allow chief constables to use volunteers in their forces for appropriate tasks, but removes the ability for chief constables to give them powers of a Constable or Police and Community Support Officer.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Policing and Crime Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Karen Bradley]

Thank you, Mr Howarth.

Almost three quarters of people who complain to the police are not satisfied with how their complaints are handled. The current arrangements are seen by the police and public alike as too complex, too adversarial, too drawn out and lacking in sufficient independence from the police.

The Bill will amend part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to make the police complaints system more transparent and robust. It will give the police a new duty to resolve complaints in a reasonable and proportionate manner, while giving them greater flexibility in how they meet that duty. We will inject a greater level of independence into the system, strengthening PCCs’ oversight role and making them the appellate body for appeals that are currently heard by chief constables. PCCs will be able to take on responsibility for other aspects of the complaints handling process, including the recording of complaints and keeping complainants informed of the progress of their complaints.

The definition of a complaint will change. We are extending the definition of a complaint beyond conduct matters to make the system less about apportioning blame and more customer focused. We are retaining and clarifying the focus on immediate resolution of customer service-related complaints where appropriate.

We will enable the Independent Police Complaints Commission to initiate investigations more quickly, ensuring that crucial evidence is not lost and that the public perceive the IPCC as being responsive to events that may attract significant public attention. We will allow the IPCC to reinvestigate a complaint, recordable conduct matter, or death or serious injury matter if it is satisfied that there are compelling reasons to do so.

The Bill also provides for volunteers with policing powers to be captured under the police complaints and discipline systems. We are simplifying the decision-making process so that the IPCC will always make decisions about disciplinary proceedings following its investigations, which will speed up the process, and we are providing that the IPCC must lead independent investigations into certain matters that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Definition of police complaint

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 160, in clause 11, page 13, line 27, at end insert—

“(d) a member of the civilian staff of a police force in relation to whom the conduct took place when in the capacity of a private citizen.”

This amendment is to allow police staff to make complaints to the IPCC in relation to police conduct which impacts on them when not at work and in their capacity as a private citizen.

First, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, the shadow fire Minister, for her epic efforts in holding the Government to account throughout what has been, at times, a lively debate?

We tabled the amendment following discussions with representatives of both the police service and Unison, the principal union that represents police support staff. It would allow police staff to make complaints to the IPCC when they are not at work—there is an existing procedure through which they must go—in their capacity as private citizens.

We seek an explanation from the Government as to why, when off duty, police staff who suffer a case of police misconduct should not be able to raise it with the IPCC. There could be a range of issues where they live, socialise and shop. Sadly, incidents sometimes take place and they should have the right to pursue a complaint and use the IPCC’s machinery.

Unlike police officers, police staff are not sworn into office, so they are not limited as police officers are in respect of activities such as political campaigning during their free time. That is reflected in officer pay and employment contracts for the police service. However, under the current provisions, police staff are essentially denied an opportunity that is freely provided to members of the public. It is our view that in accepting a job, a member of police staff should not have to sign away their right to make a complaint to the IPCC regarding a member of the force with which they take the job.

In conclusion, other than where there are legitimate restrictions, for example in respect of police officers and their existing contract of employment, we cannot see a reason why police staff should be so constrained, and we therefore very much hope that the Minister will move on the matter.

[Karen Bradley]

The shadow policing Minister knows that a number of levels of complaint can be made against police staff and servicing police officers, and the IPCC is there to investigate the most serious cases of wrongdoing—almost the final arbiter, one might say. The police complaints system should be there for members of the public who want to express dissatisfaction with their interaction with the police. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are existing provisions regarding recordable conduct matters and whistleblowing for when a person serving with the police needs to raise a conduct issue about someone else in their force. Every police force has a professional standards department, with strong powers to investigate wrongdoing. Officers and staff members can report concerns directly to those departments, most of which offer an anonymous online reporting system.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister comprehensively catalogues the arrangements as they stand in respect of a member of police staff, their terms and conditions of employment, and their rights and responsibilities in the course of their employment, but we are talking about events outwith the course of their employment. Why should Joe or Josephine Soap, a member of police staff, be constrained in making complaints to the IPCC when there are grounds so do to?

[Karen Bradley]

I remember Joe and Josephine Soap from the Serious Crime Bill last year. I seem to recall that they featured prominently in many of our discussions.

The point I was coming on to is that the Bill significantly strengthens people’s ability to make complaints. For example, clause 21 provides the IPCC with a new power to initiate whistleblowing investigations when a concern is reported directly to it, without waiting for a referral from the police force. In cases where they cannot raise a complaint, members of police staff are explicitly covered by the new definition of a whistleblower.

It is important to repeat, however, that the IPCC cannot and should not handle all complaints at any level of seriousness raised by police staff in their capacity as private citizens. Its role is to investigate the most serious and sensitive cases. All other complaints, whether made by a member of the public or a member of police staff, should be handled by the force or a local policing body. Through the reforms, I want to see the IPCC be the best it can be at ensuring that those serious cases are dealt with. I do not want it to be distracted by issues, albeit important ones, that can be dealt with at a local force level, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

Briefly, the clause means that we have a category of citizen who works in support of the police but is denied the opportunity to make complaints about the police in their private life. That situation is deeply unsatisfactory, but we have had an exchange in which we have aired the issues.

[Karen Bradley]

I also make the point that the IPCC has a dedicated phone line and an email address for people serving with the police who wish to report something to it. What I am suggesting is that the IPCC should perhaps not take on cases that could be dealt with at police force level. We want the IPCC to deal with the most serious wrongdoings of the police.

[Jack Dromey]

I agree, but the problem remains that police staff in their private lives will not be able to make complaints like every other citizen is able to do. I regret that, but we have had an exchange on the issue and I very much hope that the Government will look at it again before Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Amendments consequential on the amended definition of police complaint

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 37, in schedule 3, page 154, line 32, at end insert—

“2A (1) Section 16 (payment for assistance with investigations) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(a)—

(a) before sub-paragraph (i) insert—

‘(ai) an investigation of a complaint where the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the other force,’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (i), after ‘investigation’ insert ‘of a recordable conduct matter’.

(3) In subsection (2)(b)—

(a) before sub-paragraph (i) insert—

‘(ai) an investigation of a complaint where the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with a force other than that force,’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (i), after ‘investigation’ insert ‘of a recordable conduct matter’.”

This amendment is consequential on the changes to the definition of complaint in section 12 of the Police Reform Act 2002 that are made by clause 11 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

The amendment would ensure that, when members of police forces are honest in admitting their mistakes, the Independent Police Complaints Commission gives them credit for that in any subsequent investigations or complaints. The purpose of the amendment is to promote the importance of creating a learning rather than always a blame culture in the police. I will start with a rather unusual parallel.

I remember the first time I ever went to the Ford plant in Dagenham. There were 3,000 inspectors. Eventually, a “right first time” culture evolved, through team working and engaging the workforce. In particular, at the heart of that culture was the encouragement, “If you get it wrong, own up; if you can think of a better way for the job to be done, say so.” I think that that was absolutely right. Indeed, that culture of continuous improvement is at the centre of the success of the automotive industry, and we see it elsewhere in the private sector. As I will say in a moment, the Government are also proposing it for the public sector, so we must move towards a situation where members of police forces feel supported to speak out when mistakes happen. We therefore want to start a conversation with the Government about how they can take a proactive role in developing it.

The police are told in the police code of ethics that

“you must never ignore unethical or unprofessional behaviour by a policing colleague, irrespective of the person’s rank, grade or role… You will be supported if you report any valid concern over the behaviour of someone working in policing which…has fallen below the standards expected.”

However—this point pre-empts new clause 8—members of police forces have very little understanding of what, if any, protection is on offer. According to the Government’s consultation on the subject:

“Police officers feel unable to admit to a mistake without fear of being subject to disciplinary proceedings.”

We therefore want to build on what is already starting to happen in the police service, such as the good work of the College of Policing on learning from mistakes.

On where the police service is now, however, in evidence to the Committee, police leaders contrasted the police complaints system with the systems in the airline and nuclear industries, where a real effort has been made in the interests of public safety to develop a learning-based approach to accidents and mistakes. On the one hand, pilots are encouraged to report if they overshoot the white mark; and, on the other hand, the nuclear industry, with which I am very familiar—I dealt with British Nuclear Fuels and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for many years—has placed a huge emphasis on, “If you get it wrong or if you make a mistake, own up, because we need to learn from those mistakes if we are to ensure that we maintain the highest standards of safety.”

Indeed, it is interesting that the Secretary of State for Health has just announced his intention to encourage such a learning culture in the national health service to institute:

“An NHS that learns from mistakes.”

His recent statement to the House should inform the nature of our debate:

“In addition to greater and more intelligent transparency, a culture of learning means we need to create an environment in which clinicians feel able to speak up about mistakes. We will therefore bring forward measures for those who speak honestly to investigators from the healthcare safety investigation branch to have the kind of ‘safe space’ that applies to those speaking to the air accident investigation branch.”

That is precisely the parallel with airlines that I drew a moment ago. The statement continues:

“The General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council have made it clear through their guidance that where doctors, nurses or midwives admit what has gone wrong and apologise, the professional tribunal should give them credit for that, just as failing to do so is likely to incur a serious sanction.”

The Secretary of State is saying, and rightly so, that medical professionals should be given credit for admitting mistakes, which of course does not defend anyone who has done something unacceptable that deserves disciplinary action, but in terms of the culture that he is trying to create, he rightly argues that credit should be given where people own up. The statement continues:

“The Government remain committed to legal reform that would allow professional regulators more flexibility to resolve cases without stressful tribunals.

NHS Improvement will ask for the commitment to learning to be reflected in all trust disciplinary procedures and ask all trusts to publish a charter for openness and transparency so staff can have clear expectations of how they will be treated if they witness clinical errors.” —[Official Report, 9 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 17-18WS.]

It is not often that I praise the Secretary of State for Health, but he is absolutely right on the kind of culture that should apply in public services. I have seen it apply in the private sector. Of course it is early days following the announcement by the Secretary of State, and we do not know how successful the project will be at the next stages, but we very much hope that Police Ministers will take serious note of his political will to institute a culture of transparency and openness.

Finally, I draw a strong distinction between on the one hand serious matters that have to be properly pursued through the investigatory arrangements and on the other what happens in the world of work—in the public and private sectors—where mistakes are sometimes made. It is far better that those mistakes are owned up to and lessons are learned, rather than having a culture where people fear that if they own up, they might suffer as a consequence.

[Karen Bradley]

May I start by saying that I agree with the spirit of new clause 9? Police officers and police forces should be encouraged to honestly acknowledge their mistakes, and they should be commended for doing so with the aim of ensuring that they do not make the same mistake again. That is why the Bill introduces a range of reforms to simplify the complaints system and, importantly, to make it less adversarial. The Bill redefines a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction” against a police force, moving away from linking every complaint with an individual. It also provides forces with much greater discretion in how they can resolve complaints in a reasonable and proportionate manner, encouraging them to seek swift resolution with the complainant.

For allegations below the threshold of gross misconduct, regulations already provide for management, rather than disciplinary action, to be taken where appropriate, but our reforms will go further. We will bring forward regulations to integrate the recommendations of the independent Chapman review into the disciplinary system. That will refocus the system back on learning lessons, ensuring that necessary managerial interventions short of dismissal are focused on transformation.

None the less, we are clear that where a police officer commits an act of misconduct, the public and his or her fellow officers have a right to expect that that officer is held to account and that his or her actions are fully and transparently investigated. A blanket assurance that any police officer should always receive protection from facing the consequences of their actions will not achieve that. I hope that we would all agree, given the conversations we have in surgery appointments, that constituents want to see their complaints properly and fully investigated with full transparency. It is incredibly important that we deliver that.

It is not the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to determine protection for those who admit or apologise for committing misconduct. For the IPCC to consider an officer’s contrition would be inappropriate, not least as the IPCC only investigates the most serious and sensitive allegations. The IPCC must establish the facts of the complaint and other matters and then put forward an assessment of whether there is a case to answer. Following any investigation, an appropriate sanction taking into account any mitigating factors should rightly be considered by the force or, in cases of gross misconduct, by a disciplinary panel chaired by an independent qualified person. The College of Policing is developing benchmarking guidance for chairs of disciplinary panels to assist them in making judgments about mitigating and aggravating circumstances. That also implements a recommendation of the Chapman review.

Chief officers have an important role to play through their leadership, setting the organisational culture within their forces and supporting the learning and development of their officers and staff. We heard last week from Chief Superintendent Irene Curtis that there should be a

“sense of proportionality in how we deal with conduct issues in policing.”––[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2016; c. 19, Q16.]

Our package of reforms will achieve that, without compromising the need to ensure that misconduct is dealt with fairly and robustly to maintain public confidence in the police. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

First, for the avoidance of doubt, we are absolutely not seeking a blanket exemption. Where police officers are guilty of misconduct and deserve disciplinary action, that action should be taken. We are focused on having a culture that is not a blame culture, but one of continuous improvement that improves how the police operate. The Minister gave a tantalising hint that regulations will be introduced in due course. If they are combined with the work being done by the College of Policing, I hope that we can move towards something that is more akin to what has been successful elsewhere and that commands the confidence of the police service. We will discuss it in more detail shortly, but that is the final point I want to make: the public want to have confidence in the complaints and disciplinary arrangements, but so, too, does the police service.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Complaints, conduct matters and DSI matters: procedure

Amendments made: 51, in schedule 4, page 157, line 26, at end insert—

‘( ) In sub-paragraph (6)(b), for “a possible future investigation of the complaint” substitute “an investigation of the complaint (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”

This amendment amends paragraph 4(6)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred to the Commission a complaint that is already being investigated by an appropriate authority.

Amendment 52, in schedule 4, page 158, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert—

“(2C) The appropriate authority must comply with its duty under sub-paragraph (2A) by making arrangements for the complaint to be investigated by the authority on its own behalf if at any time it appears to the authority from the complaint, or from the authority’s handling of the complaint to that point,”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 53.

Amendment 53, in schedule 4, page 158, leave out lines 27 to 33.

This amendment removes new sub-paragraph (2E) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. This provision is not needed. A complaint referred to the Commission which the Commission considers should be investigated will be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act.

Amendment 54, in schedule 4, page 158, line 35, leave out from “exceptions” to end of line 36

This amendment is consequential on amendment 53.

Amendment 55, in schedule 4, page 159, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

‘( ) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the Commission must determine that it is necessary for complaints referred to it that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be investigated.

(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may provide that the duty on the Commission applies only in relation to complaints relating to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that are of a description specified in the regulations.

(1C) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may also provide that, where the Commission is required by the regulations to determine that it is necessary for a complaint to be investigated, paragraph 15 is to apply in relation to the complaint as if sub-paragraphs (4)(a), (4A) and (5A)(b) were omitted.””

This amendment and amendment 57 have the effect that where the Secretary of State by regulations requires that there be an investigation of complaints referred to the Commission that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (or specified descriptions of such complaints), the investigation need not take the form of an investigation by the Commission. The form of the investigation will be determined in accordance with paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 but regulations may provide that the investigation is not to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority on its own behalf.

Amendment 56, in schedule 4, page 159, line 21, at end insert—

‘( ) In sub-paragraph (3)(b), for “a possible future investigation of the complaint” substitute “an investigation of the complaint (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”

This amendment amends paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred back to the appropriate authority a complaint that is already being investigated by the authority.

Amendment 57, in schedule 4, page 159, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4)

See explanatory statement for amendment 55.

Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 159, line 33, at end insert—

11A In paragraph 13 (reference of conduct matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for “a possible future investigation of that matter” substitute “an investigation of that matter (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”

This amendment amends paragraph 13(6)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred to the Commission a conduct matter that is already being investigated by an appropriate authority.

Amendment 59, in schedule 4, page 159, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

‘( ) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the Commission must determine that it is necessary for recordable conduct matters referred to it that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be investigated.

(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may provide that the duty on the Commission applies only in relation to recordable conduct matters relating to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that are of a description specified in the regulations.

(1C) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may also provide that, where the Commission is required by the regulations to determine that it is necessary for a recordable conduct matter to be investigated, paragraph 15 is to apply in relation to the matter as if sub-paragraphs (4)(a), (4A) and (5A)(b) were omitted.””

This amendment and amendment 61 have the same effect as amendments 55 and 57 but in relation to recordable conduct matters rather than complaints.

Amendment 60, in schedule 4, page 160, line 5, at end insert—

‘( ) In sub-paragraph (3)(b), for “a possible future investigation of that matter” substitute “an investigation of that matter (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”

This amendment amends paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred back to the appropriate authority a recordable conduct matter that is already being investigated by the authority.

Amendment 61, in schedule 4, page 160, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4)

See explanatory statement for amendment 59.

Amendment 62, in schedule 4, page 160, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

‘( ) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the Commission must determine that it is necessary for DSI matters referred to it in relation to which the relevant officer is a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be investigated.

(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may provide that the duty on the Commission applies only in relation to DSI matters in relation to which the relevant officer is a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that are of a description specified in the regulations.

(1C) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may also provide that, where the Commission is required by the regulations to determine that it is necessary for a DSI matter to be investigated, paragraph 15 is to apply in relation to the matter as if sub-paragraphs (4)(a), (4A) and (5A)(b) were omitted.””

This amendment and amendment 63 have the same effect as amendments 55 and 57 but in relation to DSI matters rather than complaints.

Amendment 63, in schedule 4, page 160, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (4)

See explanatory statement for amendment 62.

Amendment 64, in schedule 4, page 161, line 28, after “determines” insert “under sub-paragraph (4C) or (5B)”

This amendment clarifies under which provisions of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 a determination that an investigation is to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission could be made.

Amendment 65, in schedule 4, page 161, line 31, leave out from “whether” to end of line 37 and insert “that form of investigation continues to be the most appropriate form of investigation.

“(5A) If, on such a review, the Commission determines that—

(a) it would be more appropriate for the investigation to take the form of an investigation by the Commission, the Commission must make a further determination under this paragraph (to replace the earlier one) that the investigation is instead to take that form;

(b) having regard to the seriousness of the case and the public interest, it would be more appropriate for the investigation to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority on its own behalf, the Commission may make a further determination under this paragraph (to replace the earlier one) that the investigation is instead to take that form.”

This amendment will enable an investigation under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 that takes the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission to be changed by the Commission into an investigation by the appropriate authority on its own behalf. This is in addition to the duty (in particular circumstances) to change the form of the investigation to an investigation by the Commission which is currently provided for in the Bill.

Amendment 66, in schedule 4, page 162, line 9, at end insert—

(c) the person to whose conduct the investigation will relate.”

This amendment adds the person to whose conduct the investigation will relate to the list of persons who must be notified of a determination of the form of an investigation made under paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.

Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 163, line 34, leave out second “the” and insert “a”

This amendment, and amendments 68, 69 and 70, clarify the process for appointing, and replacing, an investigator of a directed investigation under paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 in cases where the investigation relates to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 163, line 36, at end insert “(and approved for appointment in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) (if required) or (2D)(a))”

See explanatory statement for amendment 67.

Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 163, line 44, leave out second “the” and insert “a”

See explanatory statement for amendment 67.

Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 163, line 46, at end insert “(and approved for appointment in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) (if required) or (2D)(a))”

See explanatory statement for amendment 67.

Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 164, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

This amendment is consequential on amendments 55, 57, 59, 61, 62 and 63.

Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 166, line 47, at end insert “and

(i) the other matters (if any) dealt with in the report (but not on whether the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B) are satisfied in respect of the report),”

This amendment requires the Commission, under paragraph 23 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, to seek the views of the appropriate authority on matters dealt with in a report in addition to the matters described in new sub-paragraph (5A)(a)(i) and (ii).

Amendment 73, in schedule 4, page 167, line 10, leave out from “as to” to end of line 13 and insert “any matter dealt with in the report, being a determination other than one that it is required to make under sub-paragraph (2)(b) or paragraph (b) of this sub-paragraph,”

This amendment seeks to clarify the type of determination that the Commission will be able to make under paragraph 23(5A)(c) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.

Amendment 74, in schedule 4, page 167, line 44, at end insert—

25A In paragraph 24 (action by the appropriate authority in response to an investigation report under paragraph 22), after sub-paragraph (6) insert—

(6A) Where the report is a report of an investigation of a complaint and the appropriate authority is a local policing body, the appropriate authority may also, on receipt of the report, make a recommendation under paragraph 28ZA.””

This amendment enables a local policing body, when it is the appropriate authority considering a report of an investigation of a complaint under paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, to make a recommendation, with a view to remedying the complainant’s dissatisfaction, under new paragraph 28ZA of that Schedule (as inserted by paragraph 41 of Schedule 4 to the Bill).

Amendment 75, in schedule 4, page 167, line 48, leave out from “as to” to end of line 2 on page 168 and insert “any matter dealt with in the report, being a determination other than one that it is required to make under sub-paragraph (4) or that the appropriate authority may be required to make by virtue of paragraph 24C(3).”

This amendment seeks to clarify the type of determination that the Commission will be able to make under paragraph 24A(5) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.

Amendment 76, in schedule 4, page 169, line 4, at end insert—

“( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about recommendations under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (b).

( ) The regulations may (amongst other things) authorise the local policing body making the recommendation to require a response to the recommendation.”

This amendment confers power on the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations about recommendations made by local policing bodies on a review of the outcome of a complaint under new paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review where no investigation).

Amendment 77, in schedule 4, page 169, line 6, after “paragraph” insert “and of its reasons for the determination made under sub-paragraph (4)”

This amendment requires a relevant review body, on a review of the outcome of a complaint under new paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review where no investigation), to notify certain persons of its reasons for determining whether the outcome of the complaint is a reasonable and proportionate outcome (as well as notifying them of the outcome of the review).

Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 170, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

(a) make its own findings (in place of, or in addition to, findings of the investigation);”

This amendment seeks to clarify that findings of the Commission made on a review under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 may be replacement findings or additional findings.

Amendment 79, in schedule 4, page 170, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—

(b) sub-paragraphs (4) to (8) and (9)(b) of paragraph 27 apply in relation to the recommendation as if it had been made under that paragraph.”

This amendment is consequential on the repeal of paragraph 28 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 95. See also the explanatory statement to amendment 82.

Amendment 80, in schedule 4, page 171, line 46, at end insert—

“( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about recommendations under sub-paragraph (4E)(a), (b) or (c) or (4G)(b).

( ) The regulations may (amongst other things) authorise the local policing body making the recommendation to require a response to the recommendation.”

This amendment confers power on the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations about recommendations made by local policing bodies on a review of the outcome of a complaint under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review following an investigation).

Amendment 81, in schedule 4, page 172, line 7, at end insert—

( ) after “paragraph” insert “and of its reasons for the determination made under sub-paragraph (4A)”;”

This amendment requires a relevant review body, on a review of the outcome of a complaint under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review following an investigation), to notify certain persons of its reasons for determining whether the outcome of the complaint is a reasonable and proportionate outcome (as well as notifying them of the outcome of the review).

Amendment 82, in schedule 4, page 172, line 27, at end insert—

32A After paragraph 25 insert—

“Information for complainant about disciplinary recommendations

25A (1) This paragraph applies where, on the review of the outcome of a complaint under paragraph 25, the Commission makes a recommendation under sub-paragraph (4C)(c) of that paragraph.

(2) Where the appropriate authority notifies the Commission under paragraph 25(4D)(a) that the recommendation has been accepted, the Commission must notify the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section 21 of that fact and of the steps that have been, or are to be taken, by the appropriate authority to give effect to it.

(3) Where the appropriate authority—

(a) notifies the Commission under paragraph 25(4D)(a) that it does not (either in whole or in part) accept the recommendation, or

(b) fails to take steps to give full effect to the recommendation,

the Commission must determine what, if any, further steps to take under paragraph 27 as applied by paragraph 25(4D)(b).

(4) The Commission must notify the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section 21—

(a) of any determination under sub-paragraph (3) not to take further steps, and

(b) where the Commission determines under that sub-paragraph that it will take further steps, of the outcome of the taking of those steps.””

Sub-paragraph (4D)(b) of paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (as inserted by the Bill) can no longer apply paragraph 28 of that Schedule (see the explanatory statement to amendment 95). The new paragraph 25A inserted into Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act by this amendment reproduces the effect that applying paragraph 28 would have had.

Amendment 83, in schedule 4, page 173, line 2, at end insert—

‘( ) For sub-paragraph (5) substitute—

(5) The Commission shall notify the appropriate authority of any determination that it makes under this paragraph and of its reasons for making the determination.

(5A) The Commission shall also notify the following of any determination that it makes under this paragraph and of its reasons for making the determination—

(a) the complainant;

(b) every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section 21;

(c) the person complained against (if any).

(5B) The duty imposed by sub-paragraph (5A) on the Commission shall have effect subject to such exceptions as may be provided for by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5C) Subsections (6) to (8) of section 20 apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5B) as they apply for the purposes of that section.””

This amendment requires the Commission, when it determines under paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 what form a re-investigation following a review should take, to notify certain persons of the reasons for the determination (as well as notifying them of the determination itself). It also makes notification of everyone except the appropriate authority subject to exceptions provided for in regulations.

Amendment 84, in schedule 4, page 174, line 20, leave out “6A or”

This amendment has the effect that section 15(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002 will only be extended by the Bill to apply in cases where the Commission is carrying out a review, following an investigation, under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to that Act (and not where it is carrying out a review under paragraph 6A of that Schedule where there has not been an investigation).

Amendment 85, in schedule 4, page 174, line 34, at end insert—

39A In section 16 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (payment for assistance with investigations)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), for “in such a connection to the Commission.” substitute “to the Commission in connection with an investigation under this Part or a review under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3.”;

(b) in subsection (2)(b)—

(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), for “in such a connection by a police force (“the assisting force”) to the Commission” substitute “by a police force (“the assisting force”) to the Commission in connection with an investigation under this Part or a review under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3”;

(ii) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);

(iii) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert “, or

This amendment is consequential on the amendments of section 15 of the Police Reform Act 2002 at paragraph 39 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.

Amendment 86, in schedule 4, page 174, line 38, leave out “6A or”

This amendment has the effect that section 18(1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 will only be extended by the Bill to apply in cases where the Commission is carrying out a review, following an investigation, under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to that Act (and not where it is carrying out a review under paragraph 6A of that Schedule where there has not been an investigation).

Amendment 87, in schedule 4, page 175, line 4, after “23” insert “, 24”

This amendment is consequential on the insertion of new sub-paragraph (6A) into paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 74.

Amendment 88, in schedule 4, page 175, line 17, after “23(5F)” insert “or 24(6A)”

This amendment is consequential on the insertion of new sub-paragraph (6A) into paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 74.

Amendment 89, in schedule 4, page 175, line 19, leave out “(3) or (5)”

This amendment is consequential on the insertion of new sub-paragraph (6A) into paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 74.

Amendment 90, in schedule 4, page 175, line 37, leave out from “2002,” to end of line 39 and insert “after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(3A) Where this paragraph applies—

(a) by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) and the report is a report of an investigation of a complaint, or

(b) by virtue of sub-paragraph (2),

a recommendation made under sub-paragraph (3) may not be a recommendation of a kind described in regulations made under paragraph 28ZA(1).””

This amendment is in place of the amendment of paragraph 28A(3) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 that is currently in the Bill. It takes account of the fact that paragraph 28A is capable of applying in cases where new paragraph 28ZA of that Schedule does not apply.

Amendment 91, in schedule 4, page 175, line 42, at end insert—

( ) in section 15—

(i) in subsection (3)(a), omit “, 17”;

(ii) in subsection (5), in the words after paragraph (c), omit “, 17”;”

This amendment is consequential on the repeal of paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 made by paragraph 16 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.

Amendment 92, in schedule 4, page 176, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (iv)

This amendment removes amendments of paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 because that paragraph is repealed by paragraph 23 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.

Amendment 93, in schedule 4, page 176, line 34, at end insert—in paragraph 21A(6)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”

(i) in paragraph 21A(6)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”

This amendment is consequential on the amendments of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 made by paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.

Amendment 94, in schedule 4, page 176, line 47, at end insert—in paragraph 24B(3)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”

(i) in paragraph 24B(3)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”

This amendment is consequential on the amendments of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 made by paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.

Amendment 95, in schedule 4, page 177, line 2, at end insert—omit paragraph 28;”

(i) omit paragraph 28;” .—(Karen Bradley.)

Given the repeal of paragraph 27(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, paragraph 28 of that Schedule (information for complainant about disciplinary recommendations) is no longer needed. This is because paragraph 27 recommendations will now only be capable of being made in the case of an investigation of a DSI matter.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14

Initiation of investigation by IPCC

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Initiation of investigations by IPCC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I agree substantially with what the Minister has said. These are sensible arrangements designed to make investigations quicker and more effective, which is in everyone’s interests, in respect of both the police service and the public, not least because time and again we hear complaints from the public and the police that they drag on forever. We are content with the proposals.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 14 disagreed to.

Clause 15

IPCC power to require re-investigation

Amendments made: 97, in clause 15, page 19, line 27, at end insert “, in which case the Commission must determine that the re-investigation is to take the form described in that subsection”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 99.

Amendment 98, in clause 15, page 19, line 31, leave out from first “Commission” to end of line 32.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 97.

Amendment 99, in clause 15, page 19, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) Where—

(a) the Commission determines under subsection (3) or (6) that a re-investigation is to take the form of an investigation by the Commission, and

(b) at any time after that the Commission determines that subsection (4) applies in relation to the re-investigation,

the Commission may make a further determination under this section (to replace the earlier one) that the re-investigation is instead to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission.”

This amendment will enable a re-investigation that takes the form of an investigation by the Commission to become instead an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission.

Amendment 100, in clause 15, page 19, line 33, after “determines” insert “under subsection (3) or (4A)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 99.

Amendment 101, in clause 15, page 19, line 44, after “subsection” insert “(4A) or”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 99.

Amendment 102, in clause 15, page 19, line 45, after “(5A)” insert “or (5B)”.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment takes account of the fact that further determinations under paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 may be made under sub-paragraph (5A) or (5B) of that paragraph (see paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Bill).

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Delegation of functions by local policing bodies

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 17, page 22, line 4, at end insert—

“(4) In section 107 of the Local Government Act 1972 (application of sections 101 to 106 of that Act to the Common Council)—

(a) in subsection (2), omit the words from the beginning to “and” in the first place it occurs;

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) The Common Council may not, under section 101(1)(a), arrange for any person to exercise a function that the Common Council has under or by virtue of Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (see instead section 23(2)(pa) of that Act and regulations made under that provision).””.

This amendment makes equivalent provision in relation to the Common Council as that made in relation to police and crime commissioners and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime by clause 17(2) and (3) of the Bill. It is consequential on the new regulation-making power at section 23(2)(pa) of the Police Reform Act 2002 inserted by clause 17(1).

This is a technical amendment.

Amendment 130 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Review of the police complaints system—

“(1) Within two months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of the police complaints system.

(2) The evaluation must consider the—

(a) efficiency of the complaints system,

(b) clarity of the complaints process, and

(c) fairness of investigations.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament by 1 January 2018.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a comprehensive review of all aspects of the police complaints system.

[Jack Dromey]

I remember saying in a debate on the Floor of the House that I bow to no one in my admiration for the British police service and for the British model of policing, which is celebrated worldwide. Of course it is right that we constantly seek to raise standards in the police service and that we seek to hold the police to the highest standards. To this end, the work of the IPCC is crucial. It was established originally to ensure both independence and confidence, but it has not fulfilled its historic purpose. To be blunt, there is a widespread perception that the IPCC has been a failing body. Indeed, reference was made earlier to three quarters of those surveyed expressing dissatisfaction with how their complaint had been processed.

In the last Parliament, the Government took some steps, including throwing additional money at the IPCC by way of top-slicing the police service. It was clear from the evidence that the Committee heard last week that there remains, in the words of one of the police witnesses, a crisis of confidence in the IPCC. Indeed, Dame Anne Owers, an outstanding public servant, was refreshingly candid when she said that a view had been expressed that one might start with a blank sheet of paper.

The Bill does not start with a blank sheet of paper; it seeks to rename and rebadge the IPCC. Let me make it clear that the Government have proposed some welcome measures. We support, in particular, the efforts to make the system easier to understand and the widening of the definition of complaint under clause 11. We support the requirement under clause 13 for all complaints to be recorded. We strongly support the introduction of the super-complaints system under clauses 18 to 20, so that harmful trends, patterns and habits in policing can be identified and groups of people adversely affected can join forces to address such institutional issues.

We also support the duty under clause 12 to keep complainants and other interested persons updated on the progress of the handling of their complaint. That is crucial for public confidence. All of us, as Members of Parliament, will have had cases where people have made complaints but have not heard about the outcome or, indeed, where the investigation has reached.

If, in the previous Parliament, a noble concept did not work in the way in which it should have done, we cannot allow that to continue in another Parliament. It is too important to the public and the police that we have an investigation machinery that works and has confidence. The purpose behind the new clause is to seek an independent evaluation of the efficiency of the complaints system, the clarity of the complaints process and the fairness of investigations for both the public and the police. We therefore hope that the Government, in seeking to improve the current arrangements, will agree that there should be an independent evaluation of the new arrangements as they take root. I stress again that we do not want to have another five years like the last five years, when fundamental problems were not properly addressed.

[Karen Bradley]

The reforms set out in the Bill will overhaul the complaints system to ensure that complaints made against the police are responded to in a way that restores trust and builds public confidence. They are the product of extensive consultation over two or more years and will result in a more simple, flexible and independent complaints system.

Of course, we will want to evaluate the success of the reforms, but there are already a number of ways in which that evaluation will happen. Section 10 of the Police Reform Act 2002 includes a duty on the IPCC to maintain and review the arrangements for the handling of complaints and enables the IPCC to recommend change if necessary. Clause 26 of the Bill will extend HMIC’s remit to include any person involved in the delivery of policing functions, including PCC staff and other organisations. That means that HMIC has the ability to inspect and evaluate all aspects of the police complaints system. In the normal way, there will be a post-legislative review of this legislation three to five years after Royal Assent. The Home Office will submit a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee, which will then decide whether it wishes to conduct a fuller post-legislative inquiry into the Act.

An early review of the complaints system, commencing within two months of the Act coming into force, would therefore not accurately reflect the impact of the reformed police complaints system. In short, I believe that there are already adequate mechanisms in place to review the effect of legislation without the need for an expensive independent evaluation of the kind envisaged by the new clause.

[Jack Dromey]

I am not impressed, with the greatest of respect, at the IPCC looking at the IPCC, but the Minister made the point that there is a mechanism involving HMIC, and that is welcome. She also says that there will be a review. The thrust of what we are arguing for is not that there is a review within two months, but that within two months a timetable and a process are laid out as to how the review will be conducted. We will hold the Government to that at the next stages, because it is important that this time we get it right.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Charlie Elphicke)]

We have made excellent progress today and enjoyed the amazing oratory of the hon. Member for West Ham. With the rest of the Committee now desiring a rest, I suggest that the Committee now adjourn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Charlie Elphicke.)

Policing and Crime Bill (Third sitting)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. I am sure colleagues are aware that there is an ongoing terrorist incident in Brussels, and I would like to put on record that our thoughts and prayers are with not only the victims but the emergency services, which yet again will be going in the opposite direction to everybody else. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government are giving all assistance possible to the services in Belgium and the rest of Europe. It is important to put that on the record, as we are debating such an important Bill on the emergency services.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Howarth. May I strongly support what the Policing Minister said? We stand united in opposition to terrorists, whether in our country or on the continent of Europe. We are facing a uniquely awful threat, and the last thing we should be is divided. We are not divided; we are united. I am with the Minister in giving 101% support to the emergency services and the police, which are at the sharp end in what must be the most difficult of circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Amendment 156 is a probing amendment; I will not divide the Committee on it. As I said on Second Reading, I welcome what the Government are doing through the Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983, in particular ensuring that people in mental health crisis do not end up in police cells. I have a little bit of sympathy for the police in terms of how they deal with such individuals. The police are not the appropriate people to deal with those in mental health crisis, but sadly they are sometimes the only ones available. The dedication of our policemen and women is such that they will not turn away people in that type of crisis. The purpose of my amendment is to probe whether we can get more collaboration between the police, the health service and other agencies, including local government.

In February 2014, the mental health concordat was agreed between the third sector, the police, local authorities and the NHS. It is important to read the joint statement, which states:

“We commit to work together to improve the system of care and support so people in crisis because of a mental health condition are kept safe and helped to find the support they need—whatever the circumstances in which they first need help—and from whichever service they turn to first.

We will work together, and with local organisations, to prevent crises happening whenever possible through prevention and early intervention. We will make sure we meet the needs of vulnerable people in urgent situations. We will strive to make sure that all relevant public services support someone who appears to have a mental health problem to move towards Recovery.

Jointly, we hold ourselves accountable for enabling this commitment to be delivered across England.”

I accept that there is no statutory basis for the concordat, which is a problem, but I think it is important to draw the Committee’s attention to the final sentence of the joint statement:

“Jointly, we hold ourselves accountable for enabling this commitment to be delivered across England.”

Well, currently there is no mechanism by which those organisations—I am not criticising any individual—are held accountable for delivering what they promised in the concordat. There is a desperate need for that.

The concordat’s aims are very good. I have seen some very good examples of joint working between all services, including the police, fire service, ambulance service, NHS and local authorities up and down the country. There are examples of mental health professionals being co-located with police officers and triage teams, and that is certainly working very well. In my local NHS trust, community psychiatric nurses are appointed in A&E because, unfortunately, A&E is one of the places to which people in mental health crisis turn because they are unable to get help elsewhere—even though, as everyone knows, that is the last place they need to be. Having a mental health professional has clearly helped in my local hospital by ensuring that people in mental health crisis do not sit around for hours on end getting no form of treatment.

I accept that this is not necessarily just a police problem; it cuts across other Departments including Health. The amendment questions whether we can use the Bill to put the concordat on to some type of statutory basis and to provide for a presumption that local authorities and others should work together locally to deliver the concordat’s aims, to which most people would sign up. Is the amendment about money? No, it is not. Properly implemented, it could save money. Time that the police spend dealing with people in mental health crisis is time that they are not spending doing other things that they are perhaps better qualified to do. Perhaps the Minister could look at this issue and talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health, so that on Report we can have an indication of how this operation could be enforceable. I do not think that it should fall solely on the shoulders of the police.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this crucial issue. He makes the point about police time. The Oleaster centre in Birmingham, a collaborative venture between the NHS, the police and the local authority, has seen the average police time spent on a section 136 incident reduced from 14 hours to five hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a powerful argument, regarding not just appropriate treatment of those suffering from mental illness, but the efficient use of police time, for having such facilities nationwide? What he proposes would be very helpful towards that end.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do. The example to which my hon. Friend refers is replicated in other parts of the country where the police have in many cases taken the lead, working jointly with the NHS to set up those facilities. They make the experience better for those individuals who are in crisis. As he rightly says, they provide a more efficient way to deal with police time. Without a provision to enable this, I fear we will do all the work in the Bill on changes to the Mental Health Act 1983, which I welcome, but end up saying, “This is what we want to happen but will it happen in practice?” The example in his constituency shows that where there is a will and local drive, this can happen. My fear is that we will get a patchwork quilt of provision across the country. It would be helpful if we could make co-operation to deal with these issues statutory. I will come to another point later when we talk to amendments relating to the Mental Health Act.

I commend the Government’s aim to prevent people in mental health crisis from going to police cells. However, unless there is alternative provision in place, that will not happen. The need to monitor what happens to individuals should be recognised. If we reach the point, which we all want, of having no one in police cells, but without the people concerned getting adequate care elsewhere, we will have failed them. I will address that point later. I am now interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

It is not an FBU line, and I really, really resent that suggestion. In previous discussions, the Minister and I have managed to be courteous to each other. I urge him not to diminish my political concerns by telling me that they come from someone else. They do not; they come from my being a local councillor for 18 years and my belief that local councillors and local democracy matter. The Minister has done the Committee no favours at all with his very short answers in response to the comments and concerns that my hon. Friends and I have expressed. Perhaps he would like to take some time and do it again.

[Jack Dromey]

Like my hon. Friend, I am disappointed that, a powerful case having been made, there should be such a cursory reply. The point was made earlier that PCCs are elected. Yes, they are, but so too are local authority representatives on fire authorities—they are elected, and they are accountable. Why is it that a PCC, with the support of the Home Secretary, could take over responsibility for the fire service against the will of locally elected representatives? That cannot be localism by any description.

[Lyn Brown]

I totally and utterly agree with my hon. Friend. I think the Minister has done this Committee a disservice by not answering our questions properly. I urge him to get back on his feet and give us a much more reasonable and considered answer to the points that we have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order.

[Jack Dromey]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. This part of the Bill is too important to rush, so I propose to the Government that we take this afternoon to deal properly with legitimate concerns. I also ask that the Minister gives a considered response this afternoon to the powerful points that the shadow Fire Minister is making.

[The Chair]

The timing of debate on this part of the Bill is a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that the Opposition Whip will make that point to his opposite number, but that is a matter for them. Whether the Minister chooses to speak is a matter for him, not for the Chair, but I am sure he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Policing and Crime Bill (First sitting)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. I would like to ask questions on four parts of the Bill, starting with part 3 on the police workforce. In your view, what issues are raised by what is proposed in the Bill, including potentially to arm directly employed and volunteer police community support officers with CS or PAVA spray?

Steve White: We have some concerns in relation to mission creep to a degree and the current accountability in relation to community support officers, and certainly in relation to volunteers. The proposal raises a question of accountability and how that would work. There is absolutely no doubt that many volunteers who work with the police service up and down the country do excellent work. There also needs to be recognition that we have a fully regulated special constabulary, with all the powers and accountability that that responsibility comes with.

We have police community support officers with varying degrees of powers, depending on their deployments and chief constables. It is very important to recognise, for example, that the use of CS is at a lower point of the force continuum than Taser. Are we suggesting that perhaps Taser would also be given to PCSOs, because it is a lower use of force? I do not think that is being suggested, but putting PCSOs in positions where they would have to deploy CS was never envisaged as their primary role as community support officers. When it comes to the use of force, and the current accountability and powers that fully attested police officers have, there is a huge degree of accountability, training and experience that goes with the deployment of that kind of device.

It would be interesting to hear Unison’s point of view on what the PCSOs think of the proposal. I know that Unison has been doing some work around that, but I do not think the picture is particularly clear. We definitely have some reservations about that.

Ben Priestley: As Steve has mentioned, Unison has some concerns about this proposal. The major concern is that the Bill’s proposal around the arming of police community support officers with gas was not part of the Government’s consultation that preceded the Bill. That is surprising for such a major step in quite a different direction. Given that there has not been any public consultation or consultation with stakeholders, our view is that this particular element of the Bill—the proposals around CS gas and PAVA gas—should be removed from the Bill. We would argue strongly for that, because in the public interest there is clearly a need for consultation in respect of volunteers being issued with CS or PAVA spray.

That keys into a much bigger debate around the Government’s proposals to create in the Bill two new specific, designated, volunteer roles: community support volunteers and policing support volunteers. I am sure we will get on to that in the debate here, but Unison’s view is certainly that it is not appropriate, for a range of reasons, for volunteers to be granted through designation a whole range of policing powers that could extend, it seems from the way the Bill is currently drafted, to virtually every power currently available to a police officer, with the exception of the five or six reserved powers that the Bill sets out. That would be a real step change in the use of volunteers. Unison agrees that volunteers can be used proportionately within policing, but this is, as Steve has mentioned, a mission creep too far and we are certainly opposed to the vision for volunteers to be granted those powers.

[The Chair]

We have limited time available. I intend to move on and, if there is time left at the end, to deal with any additional questions then. Before moving on to a different line of questioning, is there anything that any of the witnesses wants to add to what has already been said that is in any way different? Otherwise, I will move straight on to the next questioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay. Can you respond to that and I will then bring in Jack Dromey who has several points to make. Then we can take it from there.

Steve White: In my experience, we already work incredibly effectively, certainly in my own force of Avon and Somerset. The recent floods in Somerset are a prime example of where excellent work is done through collaboration. Whether or not it needs to be mandated through legislation is a matter for yourselves, I suppose. The police service is a can-do organisation; we make things work.

[Jack Dromey]

Q Thank you for your sharp-end experience answers on parts 1 and 3 of the Bill. You have been very helpful. May I ask you to turn to part 2 of the Bill on police complaints, discipline and investigation? Is the IPCC fit for purpose?

Chief Superintendent Curtis: There is absolutely no doubt that the police service needs an independent, effective organisation that can act on behalf of the public to ensure that police complaints are dealt with effectively. We and our members have had some concerns over many years around the quality of investigations from the IPCC and the timeliness of investigations. Those concerns have not been allayed in recent years. We have many meetings with senior members of the IPCC where these issues are raised, and we are still not satisfied that the IPCC is delivering a good service to members of the police service and, more importantly, to the public.

Steve White: In short, the answer is no. In terms of the faith that the service and our members have in the IPCC, there are significant concerns. There is a recognition, from a Police Federation of England and Wales perspective, that there is no room in the service for people who are corrupt and for officers who do not adhere to the standards of conduct; we have no interest in keeping those people within the service. However, we also have a significant interest in ensuring that there is an independent authority or commission with the appropriate powers to effectively investigate in a timely and professional manner the complaints made on a daily basis against our members, the vast majority of which are shown to be erroneous and unfounded.

I am reluctant to use the word “crisis”, but I cannot think of an alternative—I think there is a crisis of confidence in the IPCC within the police service. While we welcome some of the changes that the Bill proposes on that, there is still a fundamental issue around having a truly independent system of investigating complaints against the police service. I do not blame the public for sometimes being confused when they hear that neighbouring forces, or indeed forces themselves, are investigating the complaints being made to them.

The PFEW position has always been that a system similar to that of Northern Ireland, with an independent ombudsman, would be much more effective. There would be greater confidence in the service in that kind of system. Recent incidents have caused deep concerns among our members in terms of their ability to have faith in the IPCC to do such an important job and to do it effectively.

Ben Priestley: From Unison’s point of view, we agree with many of the points that colleagues have made. The timeliness issue is particularly brought home when our representatives represent members in IPCC proceedings. It is very difficult when those proceedings last longer than many would think they would.

The other problem within the police service—I acknowledge that the Government have been trying to address this—is that there is no single misconduct procedure for police staff across the forces in England and Wales. Anybody looking in at the police service from the outside would regard that as slightly strange. It is certainly something that the IPCC has been lobbying hard for. I think we are at one with the Government. We have had contact with Home Office officials who wish to put through, as part of the Home Secretary’s integrity programme, a single misconduct procedure for police staff, which would align in many respects with the one that relates to police officer colleagues. That is part of the bigger picture.

Chief Superintendent Curtis: Following on from Steve’s comment about a confidence issue, there is a huge issue around proportionality and the way in which officers are dealt with for conduct issues. In my six years as a national officer for this association, the blame culture in policing has got progressively worse, and it is having a huge impact on morale and the confidence of officers to do their job. I am talking about the fact that when things go wrong, the initial assessment of what went wrong should be defining whether someone has been very bad or naughty in their job, or whether they have been human and made a mistake. That boundary has gone now, and everything seems to be pushing towards more serious misconduct. If we look at the ratio of attrition and the outcomes for gross misconduct investigations, very few of them actually result in dismissal, which is the main sanction for gross misconduct hearings.

The IPCC has a key role to play in tackling the whole issue of the blame culture in the police service. If we look at how the aviation industry has changed the way it looks at mistakes made within aviation, it is all about learning from mistakes that are made and prevention for the future. I noticed that there was an announcement last week, in relation to the NHS, that doctors and nurses are going to be provided with immunity for admitting mistakes. We now have a situation in policing where people will not hold their hands up for very minor mistakes on the basis that they feel people will come down on them like a ton of bricks. We must get back that sense of proportionality in how we deal with conduct issues in policing. The IPCC has a key role to play in that, as do police forces, but the IPCC in particular.

[The Chair]

Q May I use the Chair’s prerogative? There is an interesting dichotomy between, on one hand, someone who makes a misjudgment or human error and, on the other hand, someone who wilfully commits an act of misconduct. It is difficult to make a judgment about what was in their mind at the time when they took the action. How would you determine where that boundary is, or is it a matter of doing so case by case?

Chief Superintendent Curtis: That would come out in the investigation. Sometimes it is really clear. When dealing with corruption cases and so on, it is sometimes really clear that bad people are involved. That is where we should be focusing our efforts. Resources should go into taking bad and corrupt officers out of the service. We all want that to happen.

However, when people have made some sort of genuine error—we are all guilty of that and most of us have got away with it throughout our service when we have made mistakes—surely it is more important, particularly when a member of the public is concerned, that someone can hold their hand up, apologise and explain what happened and why they did it. We can learn from that, particularly when there are systemic issues for why the mistake happened. The service can learn from that and prevent it happening in future. We do not have that learning culture in the service because of the way the IPCC and, to be fair, forces conduct themselves. The initial assessment should make that much more clear.

If you look at the whole ethos behind the conduct regulations that were introduced in 2008, it was about making a much better distinction in the severity assessment phase. However, the severity assessment can be reviewed throughout the process, so as soon as it becomes clear from an investigation that the individual made a genuine mistake, the severity assessment should be reduced and the investigation should take a different tack.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is a very interesting thought. Thanks very much.

[Jack Dromey]

Q May I just ask one final question in relation to police complaints? You said in your evidence just now that you accept the importance of a strong, independent investigator to hold the police to the highest standards. However, Steve, you spoke about something of a crisis of confidence in the existing arrangements, and you then spoke about the specific issue of the blame culture and proportionality. Do you think that those issues are adequately addressed in the Bill?

Chief Superintendent Curtis: I am not sure how the blame culture could be addressed through a Bill, although I would be interested to see how the NHS proposals are taken forward. I would ask that the Home Office look at those from a policing perspective to see whether that is something that could be considered for policing. That would help to address the blame culture issue in policing. I am not sure that giving the current IPCC further powers actually addresses the underlying issues of investigative skill levels and time limits, which are our association’s two major concerns.

[Jack Dromey]

Q Can I ask a question on a different part of the Bill: part 4 on bail? In the debate on Second Reading, there was a strong view across the House, with the example of the Gambaccini case, about the legitimacy of some of the proposals in the Bill relating to people waiting for long periods of time for a decision to be made. My first question is, do you accept what is being proposed in the Bill?

Secondly, there is an issue not addressed in the Bill, which has come to be known as the Dhar clause, about what legitimate restrictions there might be to prevent people from absconding, particularly those who are accused of terrorism.

Steve White: On the pre-charge bail issue, we have a lot of empathy for people in that situation. However, in the increasingly complex world of policing and the kind of investigations that need to take place, particularly with significant and serious allegations, there needs to be a recognition that we must ensure that we get the investigation right.

We need to be able to investigate the offence appropriately, to find and access the evidence, and for the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies that need to be involved to be cognisant of timescales. Sometimes it is not the police’s decision or wish that the bail gets extended. Sometimes it is circumstances beyond our control, whether it be with the CPS or other agencies.

There needs to be a recognition that an arbitrary limit of however many days could result in people not answering to justice, because we are physically unable to make the case in that time period. Of course, there is also a significant resource issue, certainly for day-to-day district operations, regarding the physical capability of individual officers with relatively low-level cases being able to do the work they need to do in a timely manner, so that decisions can be made about charge.

This is not about the high-profile Paul Gambaccini cases; this is about the day-to-day cases, where someone has been arrested and the CPS says, “No, you need to bail them, because you now need to go out and get X, Y and Z.” For the officer, with all the other roles and responsibilities that they have got, to do that in a quick and timely manner is difficult. We have empathy; people should not be on bail for any longer than they have to be. I think the service can get better at it, but it is dangerous to have an arbitrary limit that could result in people not answering to justice.

Chief Superintendent Thomas: I will answer your second question first. I think it is legitimate to look at whether, in the Dhar case, certain conditions could be placed on individuals. It is right and proper to look at that.

I have a number of wider points I want to make around the proposals on this. I acknowledge the fact that in the consultation, 65% of respondents felt there was a need to look at how we change bail. The service has been undergoing a pilot, which is being peer reviewed as we speak. Certainly, from what we have seen, the use of bail in terms of managing it, has had quite an effect on the length of time for people on bail already.

This goes to the heart of transparency and accountability. Where I have a slight concern is, where the presumption is that we will not use bail, we will still be releasing people under two types of status. If you have been in custody and are released, there is no further action. We have done an investigation while you have been in custody and the matter is closed, and you move on. Or, you are released from custody, not on bail, but still subject to investigation. That is a whole new status that I am not clear on. It falls between any sort of legal identity in our current systems.

The service is going to have to look at putting some process around that, because not only are there people on bail, there are other people in this process as well: the victims, the witnesses and the public. Policing will have to put in some sort of process to manage this. The original rationale for this proposal was that you will still have people who are subject to investigation waiting for notification from the police as to, when that investigation is concluded, whether they are going to be proceeded against in court or not. Bail provided a framework of timescales for that. Absolutely, we want swifter investigations and swifter justice.

There is another, more personal point for the association, because the proposals are that a superintendent or above would be the rank that will extend bail beyond 28 days. Since 2010, the superintendent rank has had the largest decrease in numbers, by more than 26%, so there is going to be an extra demand on that. I looked slightly with tongue in cheek when I saw the options presented in the Bill. The first option was looking at extending bail through the courts and the Crown courts; the rationale for that being, I understand, that there was a capacity issue. I have not seen a lot of detail about what the capacity issue is for my colleagues undertaking this role within the service. I shall leave that for the Committee to consider.

[The Chair]

We have four minutes left.

Chief Superintendent Thomas: I shall stop there if the Committee have no further questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Jack Dromey.

[Jack Dromey]

Q There are two issues. I will come back to what James said in a moment, but the first and a dominant issue is this. You have said in your evidence that you already co-operate; and that you are in favour of greater co-operation and integration, not just with police but with a range of statutory providers including local government. By the way, on that, presumably you are not opposed, therefore, to strengthening a duty to co-operate. Can we, then, come to this question? Is it the case, from what is being said by the fire service, that you are not proposing that there should be circumstances in which there could be a “hostile takeover”, to use the words of John Edwards, by a PCC of a fire service?

Chief Fire Officer Etheridge: That is a very good question. The whole issue of collaboration is, for me, very much based around common sense: what is the right thing to do for the local citizen? We can look at all the emergency services. We can look at fire combinations and collaborative working. If the challenge of the leadership is to try to zip up those organisations from the citizen to the state, it takes on a very different feel around that service delivery.

A huge amount of collaboration is going on across the UK. Lots of it goes on in a very silent way where fire is involved with things such as cadet schemes and Prince’s Trust schemes. We are involved with things such as Fire Fit campaigns in schools. We now have fire services up and down the UK that collaborate with local authorities on road safety—they oversee the road safety team. A huge amount of work goes on. So we do not necessarily need a duty to collaborate to collaborate. However, what is very important, and one thing that we therefore welcome from this duty to collaborate, is that it will, we think, have great potential to speed up the process around collaboration.

If that is supported by some effective benchmarking to understand what is going on in the service—a couple of those issues were touched on by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office in relation to the effectiveness of fire and rescue—I think there is an opportunity to smarten up the way we work with that collaboration, but I really would emphasise that when we start to talk about collaboration it seems as if we are coming from a new place, where we have never touched this before. Over one third of fire and rescue services in the UK now co-respond with ambulance services. The outcome of that for the citizens of the UK is fantastic. There are people walking around now in this country who would not be if the fire and rescue service had not got involved with that.

That takes leadership, an enormous amount of courage and a big leap of faith, from unions and the leadership of the service, and from clinical governance around ambulance services. It is a huge step, but it is one of those things where we will have a conversation in 10 years’ time saying, “I can’t believe we didn’t do that 15 years ago.” There is an enormous amount of work going on.

Chief Fire Officer Loach: I would just like to add, and bring a little bit to the discussion, that this should not be seen as just opportunistic ways to involve ourselves with other agencies. This all comes from the heart of integrated risk management planning. We look at who we should be collaborating with to reduce vulnerability from fire or fire service-related emergency incidents. We then seek to see if we can add value to other public services at the same time. So I think any actions taken going forward that would jeopardise our ability to do that should be carefully considered.

Matt Wrack: I think Mr Dromey’s final point about the possibility of a hostile takeover is one area where there is particular concern within the fire and rescue service—that, if the business case is not found to be convincing within the fire and rescue service, or other areas of local government, for example, that are currently responsible, the idea that effectively that could be forced through by the Secretary of State causes considerable concern among a number of partners in the fire and rescue service.

[Jack Dromey]

In the words, therefore, of Dave Etheridge, a conversation—yes; greater collaboration—yes; but you are not supporting the notion of the potential hostile takeover? Is that the view of the fire service?

Chief Fire Officer Etheridge: Are you asking me that question? Absolutely—very clearly, if there is a local need, if there is a business case, predominantly that must be around public safety. Clearly there are some police and crime commissioners who are very ambitious. There are some police and crime commissioners who come from very different angles on things. Our role as the professional leaders of the service, therefore, is to ensure that we are the guardians of the service; but we are also here to ensure that the future is very positive around the service. Therefore we are a big advocate of making sure that, if there is a business case, that is based around public safety. We have spoken already about the demarcation lines between services, and I think the Bill is clear around ensuring that a firefighter remains a firefighter.

[The Chair]

I think that is clear.