Police Federation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

The Home Secretary has consistently been clear that she has the utmost respect and admiration for the bravery and dedication of the men and women of our police forces, but that does not mean unquestioning agreement at all times. The Home Secretary has a responsibility to the taxpayer to tackle the deficit and improve the service to the public. The police cannot be exempt from their share of cuts but, as I have already informed the House, there are regular meetings at which members of the federation can raise any issue they like with Ministers. I understand that, apart from the regular series of meetings that are held, additional meetings are held at certain times, such as the one with my honourable friend Mr Brokenshire following the riots.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we are all grateful for the commitment shown by members of the Police Federation across the country, not least for sometimes working 20 hours a day to assist in tackling the riots and in bringing those involved to justice. However, that all costs money in extra policing at a time when police budgets are being squeezed. Bearing in mind that the Home Secretary has recently said that applications from police forces for a special grant to cover the additional costs will only be “considered”, could the Minister say whether the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place on 11 August that:

“The Treasury is standing ready to assist police forces. Clearly, the bill for the Metropolitan police force for the past few days will be large and, if they continue to deploy in those numbers, it will get larger and the Treasury will stand behind that”,—[Official Report, Commons, 11/8/11; col. 1065.]

still represents government policy in the light of the Home Secretary’s statement?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, we have yet to receive from any police force its Bill in respect of the riots. We have had some indication in one or two forces—for example, I think that some evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee earlier in the week would have indicated the nature of the bill—but we cannot at this stage give an open assurance that every bill as presented will be paid. As we understand it, some of these bills are likely to contain quite significant sums relating to opportunity costs. I think that the House will understand that, when I stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we will honour every bill as presented, we will honour our pledge but that we will want to examine those bills very carefully.

Public Disorder: Social Networking Sites

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

I can reassure my noble friend. She will be aware that the police and other investigatory agencies are required to comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and other legislation which seeks to bring that balance. It is not the case that they can do things unilaterally without being held to account.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Prime Minister said in the other place on 11 August,

“so we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/8/11; col. 1053.]

On 25 August, the Deputy Prime Minister told the Daily Telegraph:

“I’ll tell you what is not going to happen – there is not going to be a Chinese or Iranian-style black-out of social media. And let’s not forget that during the riots, social media was very helpful to lots of people in finding out what was going on and in bringing communities together”.

Which of these two statements now represents Government policy?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, as always, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are as one. There is nothing incompatible in those statements. The Prime Minister did not say we wanted to close down networks; he said we would work with the police, industry and others to look at what would be right to do in order to prevent criminality. Anything that is a crime offline is also a crime online, and the companies that we have been consulting have made very clear their commitment to removing illegal content—something which I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister is very pleased to hear.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey stated, his amendment provides that no person shall be appointed as an assistant commissioner, deputy assistant commissioner or commander by the commissioner of police without the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime having the opportunity to interview all candidates being considered for appointment and without the mayor’s office having the opportunity to make recommendations to the commissioner before the commissioner consults the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.

The amendment addresses the responsibilities of the police and crime commissioner in London—namely, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—and whether it is realistic that a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis should only have to consult the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime before making appointments to senior posts without the mayor’s office having a proper opportunity to assess all candidates for such positions and make recommendations to the commissioner of police.

The Government see police and crime commissioners as being key players in the future in increasing public accountability for policing, including strategy, and making it clear where responsibility lies. The Mayor of London already has overall responsibility for policing in the metropolis—albeit he does not have time to carry out this role, so he has in effect handed it on to someone not directly elected to carry that responsibility. However, if the intention is that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is to be responsible and accountable to the public for policing, then surely it cannot be right that the mayor’s office can find that the commissioner of police has made a series of senior appointments without the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime even seeing the candidates and being in a position to express a view to the commissioner of police.

We have expressed our views on corporation sole in relation to a chief constable, including the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and the consequent extensive power that it gives the occupants of these posts. The amendment seeks to address one issue of concern—namely, the process for making senior appointments—which arises from the lack of proper checks and balances within the Bill. The amendment is intended to provide a check on the use of the power of Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis in this area of appointments, and it gives a better balance in the appointments process between the commissioner and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, while, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey emphasised, still leaving the decision with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. We await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, first, I apologise for not being present at the start of the discussion. I was delayed on a train.

I support the amendment. Throughout our discussions on the Bill I have expressed concerns about chief officers being able to appoint their senior team. I realise that the Government have a theoretical model in which a chief officer appoints his team and the chief officer is then responsible to the elected commissioner. There is a purity and simplicity in that approach, but recent events and past history suggest that there is great strength in bringing others into the consideration of and recommendations for chief officer posts. That adds legitimacy and the possibility of national concerns about leadership being incorporated into local decisions. I realise that it challenges some of the purity of the Government’s modelling on this issue but I urge them to think through the notion that no one other than the chief constable or the commissioner should be responsible for these senior appointments other than in an informing role. I think that in the public interest something more than informing is desirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Henig]

I very much support my noble friend's amendment. In the past few weeks, I have struggled hard to master the concept and practice of corporations sole and to understand the Government’s thinking in this area. I know that we were going to have a meeting about it with the Minister. I would have welcomed that so as to be able to tease out the problems and issues. Unfortunately, that could not take place, and I quite understand that.

My problem is that in this area, the Home Office often has a different view from police authority chief executives, the Audit Commission and other bodies. There is a range of views here: there is the Home Office view of how we should do things, and there are other people who have different views. The reason I have a problem with that is that I have many years of experience at national level of sitting on bodies dealing with the Home Office’s suggested way forward. In my experience, the Home Office sometimes gets things wrong—not always, but on occasion. On occasion, the Home Office can be very stubborn in denying that it gets things wrong. Again, I have experience of that. I know that sometimes it can take years for the Home Office to accept that it has made a mistake and put it right. I am not saying that that happens all the time, but it happens.

In that light and in that spirit, I think that we need to pause. This is a very complex area, and I am not clear that the Government have got it right at the moment. My noble friend has put forward a serious argument and I hope that the Government are willing to consider it.

[Lord Rosser]

We believe that the Government should support the amendment and justify their decision in a report to Parliament as to why it is necessary to concentrate such largely untrammelled power in the hands of police and crime commissioners and chief constables without proper checks and balances. We say that particularly in the light of recent events concerning policing and police actions which, as the Minister will know, are now the subject of inquiries and investigations that may well comment on the issues of governance, checks and balances.

[Baroness Browning]

Amendment 11 would require the Secretary of State to justify the need for police and crime commissioners, the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and chief officers of police to be corporations sole, and for the chief finance officers employed by chief officers to be subject to the local government legislation that currently applies to police authority treasurers. The Secretary of State would have to address those matters in a report to be considered by both Houses before the relevant provisions could commence.

I hope that it is clear why the Government believe that it is necessary for PCCs and the MOPC to have corporate status. Police authorities, including the Metropolitan Police Authority, are corporate entities at present. In order to allow them to carry out their functions, the PCCs and the MOPC will have the same functions as police authorities do at present. Turning to chief officers of police, the Government set out the reasons very clearly in Committee and on Report why there is a need for them to have corporate status too. It is simply so that they can employ staff and hold funds in their official rather than their personal capacity. PCCs, the holder of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and chief officers of police will be individuals. That is the essence of the Government’s model for policing governance. It follows that, if they are to have corporate status, they will be corporations sole. This simply follows as a matter of inescapable logic.

I turn to the appointment by the chief officer of police of a suitably qualified chief finance officer with responsibility for making reports. Again, I hesitate to repeat what I have said more than once before, but the Bill creates a model for policing finance that is different from the current system. The Government are clear that chief officers should employ their own staff—a vital process in the context of providing greater autonomy over day-to-day management of the force. As an employer, therefore, for the first time the chief police officer will need to hold substantial amounts of money, and it is vital that there are appropriate safeguards around this. Each chief police officer will need his or her own chief finance officer, suitably qualified to manage the chief officer's affairs. In fact, police forces already have finance directors to do this job. The Government believe that the chief finance officer should be under a statutory duty to make reports where he or she fears the chief officer has made or will make an unlawful decision. Such a report would also go to the PCC and to the chief officer's auditor.

I remind the House that, as I said in previous stages of the Bill, there will not be, and in fact cannot be, any duplication between the role of a PCC's chief finance officer and that of the chief police officer's chief finance officer. The former will have responsibility for money within the police fund, and the latter will have responsibility for the money that has been paid over to the chief officer out of that fund. As such, without a properly qualified chief finance officer—with all the necessary powers and requirements—there will be a significant gap in proper financial propriety.

The Government have been very clear both in this House and another place as to why these provisions are necessary. Amendments to remove them were withdrawn with the House's consent on that basis. We believe that these are necessary measures, and I hope that the House will see that there is a very real need to have quite distinct separation in terms of the financial accounting of the PCC and the chief officer. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to withdraw his amendment. I would say to him and to other Members of the House that I regret very much that we did not have our meeting, particularly on corporations sole, which was in the diary. Unfortunately it clashed with the day on which we had to take emergency legislation through the House. I apologise to noble Lords for having had to cancel that meeting.

As this may be my last contribution on Third Reading of this Bill, I hope that the House will allow me to say some words of thanks to those who have contributed to its smooth passage. I thank particularly the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers who have presided, and the clerks and doorkeepers, for whose assistance I am very grateful. I thank my colleagues on the Front Bench; I do not know what I would have done without them. I am also very grateful to the Bill team, who have worked very long hours, not just when they have been in attendance in this House but behind the scenes—and I can assure the House that they certainly were not attempting to waterboard me. I thank all Members of the House who have contributed to this Bill, both in the Chamber and outside. We have not been able to agree on everything; none the less, I have brought forward a package of amendments on Report and Third Reading based very much on what has been said by noble Lords on all sides of the House and outside. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to withdraw his amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment. I fully support all the points raised by my noble friend Lord Bilston. If the Government feel unable to agree to this change today in the Bill, I hope that I could have some information and assurance that the matter will be raised through other channels. How soon could we revisit the issue if it cannot be done in this way?

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will certainly be brief. I do not think anybody seriously believes that non-profit-making clubs are the cause of some of the problems sometimes associated with other clubs. They do much good work in the community and for charities, as has been said. They are not now always financially strong, as my noble friend Lord Bilston explained. We hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically on the amendment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, with even greater brevity, I just intervene to say that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord on the opposition Front Bench, I want to appeal to the sympathy of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It sounds like a good worthy cause for people who have been having a bit of a struggle. I know a number of them in my own former constituency area, so I hope we shall get a sympathetic ear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 306ZZA in this group. On the issue of the division of the levy between the police and the local authority, at the previous stage I attempted to reverse the proportions, as provided by the Bill. This time I am suggesting a 50-50 split. I am sure that my noble friend will understand how completely reasonable that must be.

At that stage, my noble friend told me as reassurance that the levy had,

“been designed to raise money for the police, who bear the brunt of late night enforcement costs”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 943.]

I do not doubt the costs borne by the police, but to some extent they are already taken into account in the way that their funding operates. I am concerned that the costs to local authorities, particularly as regards environmental health and some of the organisation involved in dealing with late-night activity, are not acknowledged.

I have brought this back not only to change the proportion but because of a thought that occurred to me after the previous stage. If an authority is to receive little financial benefit from the levy, it may take a decision not to impose it at all. I wonder whether the Government have considered that risk, if I may put it that way.

[Lord Rosser]

I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to what my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara said in Committee in respect of the amendments that the noble Lord has moved, in particular the support that we on these Benches gave for a more targeted application of the late-night levy. That continues to be our position.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there continues to be concern about the levy’s geographic coverage emanating from a belief that the levy should be a targeted tool. We are confident that we have provided tools such as early morning alcohol restriction orders to allow licensing authorities to target specific areas with alcohol problems. Businesses profit from supplying alcohol in a safe, late-night environment, so they should contribute to the very substantial police costs incurred. If we gave a licensing authority the power to target the levy, fewer businesses would contribute.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Amendment 305B and my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 305C risk the levy failing in its objective of raising a meaningful contribution towards policing. To retain the focus on policing, I must also resist my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 306ZZA, which would reduce the proportion of the levy money after administrative expenses are deducted that goes to the police.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will also agree not to press his Amendment 306ZA, with my firm reassurance that we will make regulations on exemptions and reductions. He asked specifically about rural pubs and also jazz clubs. We are currently considering the categories ahead of the consultation. Let me also reassure my noble friend that we wish to use the levy to promote participation in best practice schemes, and we will explore that further in consultation.

As regards Amendment 306ZB, we still wish to retain elements of local discretion, so we cannot accept an amendment that constrains this element of localism. Authorities should be trusted to select the right categories for their area. Many schemes are actively encouraged by licensing authorities. They are best placed to grant exemptions or reductions to those schemes that they feel are effective. On that basis, I ask that the amendment is not pressed.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

311: After Clause 159, insert the following new Clause—
“Expiration of and report on Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1
(1) Except so far as otherwise provided under this section, Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1 expire at the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which section 1 of that Part comes into force.
(2) Before the expiry of Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1, the Secretary of State must—
(a) organise an independent review of the policing governance arrangements introduced by those Chapters.(b) publish a report on the policing governance arrangements introduced by those Chapters, and(c) lay a copy of the report in Parliament.(3) The report required under subsection (2) must, in particular—
(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the policing governance arrangements in Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1;(b) assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and(c) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved with different arrangements.(4) The Secretary of State may, by order, revive Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1 if a draft of such an order is laid before and approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(5) An order made by the Minister under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A draft order laid before Parliament under subsection (4) must be accompanied by a copy of the report required under subsection (2).”

[Lord Rosser]

The Bill represents a major change for policing in England and Wales. Concerns have been expressed about the lack of effective checks and balances on commissioners and their unchallenged powers. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the strategic policing requirements and the proposed national crime agency on the new arrangements. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the relationship between the PCCs and chief constables on the latter’s operational responsibility. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the new policing structure on relationships and working arrangements with other bodies, including local authorities. Concerns have also been expressed about the impact of the proposed new arrangements on levels of crime and the impact of the politicisation of the police, which, frankly, this Bill introduces.

The Government agree that their proposals represent a major change. Amendment 311 calls for an independent review of the policing governance arrangements and for a report to be prepared, laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament. The report must set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the new policing governance arrangements, the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and whether they remain.

It does not seem unreasonable to call in the amendment for an assessment to be made of the impact of the new governance arrangements, what their objectives are and whether they are being achieved within the period of four years provided for in it if the provisions of the Bill are to remain in force. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment and its provisions for an independent review of what they themselves accept is a major change for policing in England and Wales.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not agree with the amendment, for the following reasons. Noble Lords will be well aware of my concerns about the Bill, so I say this with a certain force. This legislation seems no different from other legislation that is contentious. It will be on the statute book in some form or other and able to be reviewed, renewed or repealed by a later Government—indeed, by the same Government, who may have second thoughts about it. I hope that it will be reviewed, but as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny, which it is high time Parliament had in place. Even without that post-legislative scrutiny, we have from time to time been reminded by the Leader of the House that there is an arrangement—it seems to me to be fairly loose, but I am assured that it exists—for substantial new legislation to be reviewed by government, which I do not think is the same as Parliament, after it has been in force for three years. Of course, if we had more time, I might tease the noble Lord about why he feels that it is necessary to provide for someone else to do something in four years.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, Amendment 311 would mean that the police and crime commissioner provisions of the Bill cease to have effect after four years unless, following an independent review and report, the House approves an order by the Secretary of State for the arrangements to continue.

Many noble Lords have spoken in the course of these debates of the risk of disruption to the police service, and I have set out as we have gone along how that will be minimised. However, it would be extremely disruptive to the police service if, a few months before the second set of elections, the elected PCC is removed and the unelected police authority is re-established.

I hear what my noble friend Lady Hamwee says about review. I fully support the principle that legislation is reviewed. I say this having served in another place for nearly 20 years. We get very excited about legislation when we are legislating and after a year or two we forget about it. Then things transpire and we think that perhaps we should have looked at it. As a principle that is a very good thing. However, I am unable to accept Amendment 311 as it would be extremely disruptive. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the key phrase in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I think I have written it down correctly—was: “I hope that it will be reviewed … as part of post-legislative scrutiny”.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I said:

“as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny”.

[Lord Rosser]

I think the noble Baroness is being somewhat optimistic if she believes that is necessarily going to happen.

The amendment provides for an affirmative decision by Parliament on the report that would be produced. The Minister said that it would be extremely disruptive for the police. Of course, it would also be extremely disruptive for the biggest system change in policing for years to continue if did not work or operate properly as Parliament intended. If it is working properly, no doubt the report would be received and the affirmative resolutions would be carried. If it is not working, surely it is only appropriate that it should be challenged and processes put in place to try to put it right.

However, I do not intend to pursue this matter to a vote. I have expressed my views on the response that I have received from the noble Baroness and the reason why I think the amendment is justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 311 withdrawn.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thoughtful debate, particularly for those of us who are not qualified lawyers. As the Minister has said, until the recent Hookway case it had been widely accepted, not least by the police and the courts, that, while there is a maximum time of 96 hours for which an individual could be detained without charge, time spent on bail did not count towards that maximum permitted period. That has now changed following a decision by a district judge on 5 April, and noble Lords already know the chronology of events since then.

The written judgment of the judge in the High Court was received on 17 June, and appears to have resulted in a shortage of people sharing the view in his oral judgment that the consequences of his ruling,

“are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases”.

The effect of this Bill is to restore the position to what it had been understood to be by all concerned in relation to bail not counting towards the maximum period of detention without charge, prior to the decision by the judge on 19 May. We support the Bill. We cannot await the Supreme Court hearing on 25 July before determining whether legislation is needed as potentially witnesses and victims of crime and not least victims of domestic violence are at risk of harm if the period of time for which suspects can be bailed without charge, with appropriate conditions attached on which action can be taken if they are breached, is now severely limited.

The statement by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the Supreme Court was not asked to hear the case earlier than the 25 July is very interesting indeed. I know the courts can move rapidly. In the 1970s there was an instance of the Court of Appeal sitting on a Sunday, just two days after the decision by the National Industrial Relations Court which led to the appeal. It would not appear that there is quite the same sense of urgency in relation to this case, maybe because of insurmountable problems or maybe because the appropriate question was not asked, despite its potentially devastating and immediate implications.

The High Court has now said that an interpretation of an Act of Parliament that has been universally accepted and applied by all concerned for the last 25 years, including the courts, is incorrect and that, as a result, powers in relation to bail without charge beyond 96 hours are effectively withdrawn and, even more significantly, with almost immediate effect. The situation that has now arisen, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has stated, is causing serious problems for policing and for the conduct of investigations as well as the delivery of justice. It also puts at risk the well-being and safety of victims and witnesses.

If the courts have now decided to interpret a law differently from the way in which it has been interpreted for the past 25 years, there must surely be a less disruptive and potentially less dangerous way of effecting that change.

This brings me to the Government’s actions in this case. The original decision by the district judge was made in early April this year, over three months ago. The single judge in the High Court gave his oral ruling on 19 May, which upheld that of the district judge. Bearing in mind the potential significance of the High Court ruling, why was no application made for the hearing to be before three judges, as I understand could have been the case, rather than allowing the decision to be made by a single judge?

Clearly, at that hearing on 19 May this case was recognised to be of real significance. Counsel representing the appellants made it clear to the court that the consequences of Mr Justice McCombe’s decision would be profound and likely to have a negative impact upon the criminal justice process. Regrettably the learned judge does not appear to have accepted that view.

Can the Minister tell us when officials of the Home Office became aware of the substance of the learned judge’s oral judgment and what steps if any they took to prepare for or challenge the consequences of his judgment? The Minister has asserted today that nothing could be done before the receipt of the written judgment. Like my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I find that surprising. Surely, as an interested party it was incumbent upon the Home Office to consider the consequences of the judgment immediately—whether it might be appropriate for it or the Crown Prosecution Service to intervene, and to further consider whether to apply for a stay to the judge, or ask the Supreme Court to hear the case as a matter of urgency. There was a strong issue of public interest at stake and I ask the Minister if any attempt was made to invite the Attorney-General to intervene on behalf of the public interest. I hope the Minister will be able to address these points in her reply.

While I appreciate that the effect of this Bill is to restore the situation to what everyone thought it was prior to 19 May, and by making it retrospective ensure that potentially a large number of people were not able to make a claim for damages for detention on the basis that they had been treated contrary to the law in the light of the judge’s decision, there is now a need to review and consider again the provisions in respect of bail.

Claims have been made that people have been bailed for excessive periods of time without charge, since there is no time limit on how long people can be bailed in these circumstances. It has been suggested that the lack of a time limit is not an incentive for the police to be as expeditious as they might. Whether there is any substance to these points, I do not know. However, the whole question of bail now needs to be reviewed, including, presumably, in light of the Human Rights Act, which was not in play 25 years ago. I hope the Minister will confirm what she said in her opening speech—namely, that this is what the Government intend to do and, therefore, that the Bill we are considering today may well prove to have a sunset clause. Will the Minister confirm that, if needed following the review, new legislation will be brought forward?

It is important that certainty of the understanding of the law in respect of bail without charge for the 25 years prior to 19 May is restored as a first step. On this side we shall support the Bill and, with it, this fast-track legislation.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, I support some of the amendments in this group, to which I have added my name: namely, Amendments 117, 144, 154, 156, 232 and 232A. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, all these amendments deal with the conduct of PCCs, panel members and audit matters. As we have heard, details on these are virtually absent from the Bill except for very limited PCC complaints matters set out in Schedule 7, which is largely predicated on a criminal standard. In my opinion, this is utterly inadequate for a public position where many other types of inappropriate but not criminal behaviour could arise, so our proposal is to delete Schedule 7 and rebalance the way complaints are dealt with.

The proposals in relation to audit committees are consistent with established good governance principles and provide an additional reassurance about probity, particularly in light of the concerns about corporations sole, about which we have heard so much in your Lordships’ House. The amendments require police and crime panels to set up independent sub-committees to deal with both complaints and audit issues on behalf of the panel. The noble Baroness went into detail about those, so I will not try to emulate her. They also enable panels to require information from PCCs and chief officers in relation to complaints and audit matters.

Amendments 156, 232 and 232A propose that a code of conduct for police and crime commissioners and panel members, collectively referred to as police commission members, is drawn up independently. It also provides for both PCCs and panel members to be disqualified from office if they fail to sign the code of conduct. Amendment 144, in my submission, should have been dealt with in the fifth group, but it appears here. It provides that panels should be able to require information from both forces and PCCs about complaints and audit matters. Amendments 232 and 232A also provide that panel members and PCCs should be disqualified for failing to sign the code of conduct within a month. These are sensible and practical amendments, which I support wholeheartedly.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, it has already been pointed out that under the current terms of the Bill, the powers of the police and crime panels are limited to a veto over the appointment of the chief constable and a veto over the precept. The purpose of this group of amendments, moved by my noble friend Lady Henig, is to provide police and crime panels with the powers to act as a much more effective check on the way the proposed police and crime commissioners exercise the considerable powers given to them under the terms of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Henig has said, the main amendments refer specifically to conduct and complaints, and to the issues of accounts and audit.

The amendments provide for an independent sub-committee or sub-committees to deal with the issues of conduct, complaints and audit, with an independent person chairing the sub-committee, at least three other independent members and up to another three who are police and crime panel members, at least one of whom must be a co-opted member. These independent sub-committees must be established by the police and crime panels.

The amendments provide also for a police and crime panel to require information it needs from the police and crime commissioner and they would change the criteria relating to the powers to suspend the police and crime commissioner to include where the commissioner has breached any required standards of conduct pending investigation of the allegations brought against them. The amendments provide also for a code of conduct for police commission members to be formulated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, covering standards of behaviour, commitment to equalities and conflicts of interest.

The amendments proposed by the Government, to which the Minister will presumably refer, appear to lack the strength and robustness in relation to police and crime panels of those proposed by my noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. As has been said, those amendments come back to the issue that has been raised on a number of occasions during our discussions on the Bill: namely, where are the checks and balances to address the abuse or misuse of the considerable personal powers given to the police and crime commissioners? What is the effective role and purpose of a police and crime panel if it is not to be able to provide part of those checks and balances and thus help ensure that a police and crime commissioner pays regard to the views and concerns of such panels, providing them with the information they need to carry out a meaningful role and thereby helping enhance confidence in the system and structure on the part of the public?

If the Government have really been listening to concerns expressed in your Lordships' House, including over appropriate financial and ethical governance arrangements, they will support the thrust of these amendments.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, parallel to our discussions on this Bill, the Localism Bill is in Committee. In that, there has been discussion both on a code of conduct and on the need for a standards committee. There has been discussion around whether the code of conduct should be voluntary or statutory—there is a strong view, I think, in your Lordships' House that it should be the latter. On standards committees, which are likely to be abolished under the Bill, I also detected in your Lordships' House strong support for each local council having such a committee.

Irrespective of that, there are two major issues of principle here. The first is the role of audit, which, it is important to bear in mind, is not the same as scrutiny and which has statutory force in local government. The second is that audit should be independently led. The powers currently given to the panels are insufficient to deliver those two principles.

Audit is not just about finance; it is also about a whole range of matters including procurement policy, contracting, managing very large budgets, procedures being followed, human resources policies and equal opportunities. An amendment is being made here which I hope the Government might find helpful. It proposes that audit be fundamental part of the checks and balances we need in relation to a police and crime commissioner. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is right in stating that every police and crime panel should deal with complaints and conduct matters, monitor the discharge of the police and crime commissioner’s functions and monitor the accounts and audit matters of the relevant police commission, police and crime commissioner and chief constable as the case may be.

The question is whether that task should be undertaken simply by the panel or whether a slightly different structure is needed. I think that a different structure is needed, because audit is an important issue when public money is being looked after. There should be two sub-committees—I refer here to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause—one of which looks specifically at audit and the other at conduct and complaints.

The proposal in Amendment 117 relates to the nature of the independence of the sub-committee. To have someone who is independent and appointed according to Nolan principles chair that sub-committee is important. To have then at least three other independent people, balanced by up to three panel members, means that the public would gain confidence in that structure because they would see that there were more independent members than members of the panel.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that no governance structure lies underneath an elected police and crime commissioner. In other words, there is a perception in the Bill if you simply have direct election of a commissioner there is legitimacy in that. Well, of course there is, but one has to have checks and balances—which the coalition agreement has identified and said have to be strict. Having a clear audit function which is publicly accountable is a matter of fundamental importance; otherwise, those checks and balances cannot be properly delivered.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey has drawn attention to the clauses in the Bill which are a subject of concern to him and which his amendments seek to rectify. If I have understood him correctly, the first is Clause 43, “Appointment of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”, subsection (3) of which says:

“Before recommending to Her Majesty that She appoint a constable as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Secretary of State must have regard to any recommendations made by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.

This presumably means that the Secretary of State could chose to ignore any such recommendation since it does not say “must accept them” or “must reach agreement”

The next is Clause 44, “Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”, subsection (4) which says:

“Before recommending to Her Majesty that She appoint a person as the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Secretary of State must have regard to … any representations made by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.

Once again, presumably it can be inferred that the Secretary of State could totally ignore those representations.

Moving further down, Clause 46, “Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis”, says:

“The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must consult the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime before appointing a person as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”.

Once again, the requirement is to “consult” so, presumably, the Commissioner of Police, having consulted, could appoint whoever he or she wanted to appoint.

Clause 48, “Commanders”, in subsection (2) of that clause, says:

“The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must consult the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime before appointing a person as a Commander”.

Once again, the role is to “consult”, rather than to reach agreement with, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.

This group of amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, provides that before the Secretary of State recommends to Her Majesty that she appoint a councillor as the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis or a person as the deputy commissioner, the Secretary of State must,

“agree that recommendation with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.

Likewise, the amendments provide that no person shall be appointed as assistant commissioner, deputy assistant commissioner or commander by the commissioner of police,

“without the consent of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.

One would have thought that the amendments addressed the issue of the responsibilities of the police and crime commissioner in London—namely, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—and whether it is realistic that either a Secretary of State or a Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis should in effect be able to ignore the views of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and make appointments for the most senior positions and other senior posts without the support and agreement of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.

The Government appear to see the police and crime commissioners as key players in future in increasing public accountability for police, including strategy. The Mayor of London already has overall responsibility for policing in the metropolis, albeit he does not actually have time to carry out this role—so he has, in effect, handed it on to somebody who is not directly elected to carry that responsibility. If the intention is that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is ultimately responsible and accountable to the public for policing, as far as the Government are concerned, surely it cannot be right that the mayor’s office can find that the Secretary of State and the commissioner have made a series of senior appointments, including that of the commissioner, with which the accountable mayor’s office does not agree and would not have made.

I share the feelings of my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey in that I am not clear why these amendments are not fully in line with the stated objectives of the Government’s proposals for the future structure and accountability for policing and should therefore apply in London.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, offered a picture of a golden age of policing accountability in London that is about to disappear. I was under the impression that under current arrangements the Metropolitan Police Authority has no power to compel the commissioner to appear before it but has the right to invite the commissioner to appear before it, as its successor body will have under the Bill.

UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a very strong case, and we are all grateful to him. I will ask one question. Will the Minister tell the House how many appeals were still pending on 23 May of this year? That would be very helpful in indicating the scale of the problem.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for tabling this Motion of Regret and enabling us to probe the reasons for the Government’s actions in relation to the retrospective effect of this commencement order, which brings into force Section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, inserted by Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2007. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, explained in some detail the background and significance of Section 19 of the 2007 Act. I do not intend to repeat all the ground that he covered, although inevitably there will be some repetition, for which I apologise.

The noble Lord raised the issue of the retrospective effect of the commencement order and, as a result, its legality. Section 19 is entitled “Points-based application: no new evidence on appeal”—which is exactly what it is about. As the noble Lord said, in immigration cases the general rule is that immigration tribunals can consider any evidence that is relevant to the substance of the UK Border Agency’s decision, including evidence from after the date of the decision.

An exception to this is entry clearance applications, and Section 19 makes provision for a new exception; namely, points-based-system cases which relate to cases about people coming to or remaining in the UK for the purposes of work and study.

--- Later in debate ---

I promise to write to noble Lords and to my noble friend who has raised this debate today about the numbers involved as of 23 May. I hope that I have been able to give some background information as to the history of this legislation and why the Government have brought this order forward.

[Lord Rosser]

Could the Minister give me a reply to a question that I asked? Can she confirm that it is the Government’s judgment that this commencement order is not open to successful challenge in the courts, bearing in mind that the issue is the retrospective effect of a commencement order?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has been in the House long enough to know that the Government do not comment on the legal advice that they receive. Certainly, in bringing this measure into being, as I have outlined, it is our understanding that, unlike other statutory instruments, commencement orders are subject to no parliamentary procedure. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any legal advice that the Government have taken in this matter.

Phone Hacking

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I can understand my noble friend’s concern, and the concern of the House as a whole, at what is a truly shocking matter. This morning the Home Secretary, appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place, described what has happened, with the new information that has been received, as shocking and disgusting. She reiterated today that we must await the outcome of the police investigation, but she stated that, if these allegations are found to be true, there will need to be new avenues to explore.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we support the call of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for an independent inquiry. The latest disturbing allegations about phone hacking will only have strengthened the feeling that parts of our national newspaper industry regard themselves as being above the law and having no need to fear any action from the Press Complaints Commission. The Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, will just not do. How many more potential phone- hacking scandals have to be unearthed, and how many more denials that they knew what was going on by editors and News International top executives do there have to be, before this Government recognise the failings of previous investigations—by the police, by News International and by the Press Complaints Commission—and act? Will the Government set up an independent inquiry into phone hacking and the culture and practices of at least part of the national newspaper industry that have allowed these things to happen?