Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey has said, this group of amendments provides for a deputy mayor of policing and crime in London to be responsible for the Metropolitan Police in much the same way as the Government intend their police and crime commissioners to have that responsibility outside London. The Mayor of London would no longer be the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
The amendments also provide for the deputy mayor of policing and crime to be elected, with an election being held in 2012 and in each subsequent fourth year. The amendments carried in your Lordships’ House at the beginning of Committee on this Bill removed the requirement for the proposed police and crime commissioners outside London to be elected but left the situation in London largely unchanged. We have heard from the Government that they expect the posts of police and crime commissioners to be full time. Indeed a change has recently been made in relation to a deputy being appointed.
Therefore, the police and crime commissioner in, say, Wiltshire will be engaged full time purely on the role and responsibilities of that position, but in London, which has by far the largest police force in the country, the elected mayor, who has the ultimate responsibility for policing at present, does not devote his time and energy full time to his police role for the simple reason that as mayor he has a large number of other roles and responsibilities. One would have thought that in London the case for a full-time police and crime commissioner was stronger than anywhere else.
The mayor gets over the problem in London by appointing a deputy mayor with responsibility for the police but still retaining in theory ultimate control himself. However, it is quite clear where the real power lies—that is, with the deputy mayor because the mayor does not have the time to keep up to date with what is happening in the Metropolitan Police and to undertake the strategic and other responsibilities of the position because of his commitments to London as a whole. The Government have said that their objective is to increase accountability and transparency, but accountability and transparency are not increased if the in effect police and crime commissioner in London is in reality appointed by the mayor, who does not have the time to do the job himself but who in theory has to pretend that he can be like a police and crime commissioner elsewhere in the country and devote his efforts full time to that role.
We need to take steps to ensure that there is no dubiety over who is in reality—as opposed to in theory—the police and crime commissioner in London, and recognise the true situation by having a deputy mayor who has that role, and with it both the time and the authority of police and crime commissioners outside London. These amendments provide for elections for deputy mayor at the same time as for mayor. The current holder of these responsibilities is ultimately the elected mayor, and the amendments propose to move those overall responsibilities for the police from one elected office holder to another who has the time to do the job in full. I hope that the Government will recognise the contradictions between the situation in London and the situation outside London, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey stated, and by accepting this amendment bring the two much closer together.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, would prevent the mayor from holding the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and would instead create an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime to hold that office. Consequential amendments would apply to the deputy mayor similar provisions to those for PCCs in respect of elections and suspensions. While I understand the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I set out in Committee the reasons why I do not agree with these amendments.
While it is the Government’s policy to introduce a directly elected police and crime commissioner into every force area in England and Wales outside London, the Government do not intend to introduce a new, elected person to hold the police to account in London for the very simple reason that the whole of London already elects a single person to take responsibility for strategic issues such as policing—the Mayor of London.
While I hear what the noble Lord says, the mayor is in the unique position of having responsibility for a whole force area and, as such, it seems sensible for him to have the overall responsibility for holding the police to account. Under the amendment, both the mayor and the deputy mayor have a direct democratic mandate across a whole force area, although in practice of course they could have different ideas about what should happen. That cannot work and would cause a lot of conflict. It is right and fitting that the mayor takes on the formal responsibility for holding the Metropolitan Police to account, and should in turn be accountable directly to the public for how this is done. However the mayor delegates in this area, the mayor, as with PCCs, is still responsible for the decisions that are taken and, as such, is answerable to the public as an elected representative.
I know that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was concerned about the dilution of the democratic principle, but I stress that this can come only through the mayor himself or herself. The mayor is elected by all Londoners, and he or she alone may hold the mayor’s office under this Bill. As such, the democratic principle is clear in the Bill. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments, although I know that he believes in them passionately, and support the government amendments that we shall discuss later. I will not go into great detail as we shall come to them later in our deliberations, but I remind the House that the government amendments require confirmation hearings for the position of deputy mayor to be binding where the candidate is not an Assembly Member, in that the Assembly would have the power to veto the appointment by a two-thirds majority.
Any Assembly Member whom the mayor wished to appoint would be subject to a non-binding confirmation, as already set out in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that on reflection the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Bill team. I raised a number of questions on this group and am very happy to have had their answers. I feel no need to raise the points in debate. I am extremely grateful.
Lord Rosser
As the Minister has indicated, these are relatively minor and technical amendments that correct some drafting errors. As she said, they also reflect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that any regulations dealing with mandatory collaboration or the consequences of a failure by local authorities to participate in the formation of police and crime panels should be made by affirmative rather than negative resolution. We support the change to these regulations being by affirmative rather than negative resolution, thus requiring the specific approval of your Lordships' House.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate my noble friend on her appointment as a Minister in the Home Office. She had a distinguished career in the House of Commons and we were appointed as two of the first four ever political commissioners to the Electoral Commission. That was a decision by the previous Administration, with all-party support. I was immediately impressed by her grasp of the issues and the immense style she brought to the commission. All her fellow commissioners were delighted at her appointment but disappointed that we had lost someone who clearly had so much to offer. I enjoyed working with her on the commission and hope that we can work together in her new role.
My amendments in this group seek to ensure that the deputy mayor for policing and crime is an elected member of the Greater London Authority. I do not understand how anyone could object to that. I thought that the Government wanted people to be elected to undertake these important roles. Having a London Assembly Member as the deputy mayor for policing and crime must be preferable to having some place-person of an incumbent mayor at any particular time if the Government insist that these proposals go ahead.
I see that the Government have moved some way, in their Amendments 89 and 90, in giving the London Assembly the power of veto over the mayor's nominee if they are not a Member of that Assembly. However, that requires a two-thirds majority, so we could have a situation whereby the majority of the London Assembly does not want the person the mayor proposes but that still goes ahead because they have not hit the two-thirds threshold. Could my noble friend not reconsider this and go just a bit further? I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this group of amendments includes provision for ensuring that the mayor appoints a Member of the London Assembly as the deputy mayor for policing and crime and not just, as the Bill provides, for “a person”. The amendments also provide for the deputy mayor of policing to arrange for,
“another member of the London Assembly”,
rather than any other person,
“to exercise any function of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”,
that is exercisable by the deputy mayor.
The Government have also tabled amendments on the London Assembly’s veto power over,
“the appointment of the candidate as deputy mayor for policing and crime if the candidate is not a member of the London Assembly”.
That may act as a small incentive to appoint a London Assembly Member. However, those veto powers requiring a two-thirds majority of votes cast would not be necessary if some of the other amendments in the group that provide that the deputy mayor has to be,
“another member of the London Assembly”,
were accepted. The Government have rejected the idea of an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime in London, but if that is a step too far for them surely they can accept the amendments that provide for that deputy mayor to be a Member of the London Assembly and thus ensure that the occupant of the post has at least successfully stood for election.
In reality, the deputy mayor for policing and crime is the one who has responsibility for policing in London rather than the mayor, who has many other duties and does not have the time to give the post his undivided attention. It is only right that the occupant of the post should be a Member of the London Assembly, not simply “a person” known to the mayor and whose appointment—with a two-thirds majority required in the London Assembly to veto it—the mayor can almost certainly secure. I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the argument for these amendments and indicate that when she responds.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I will first address government Amendments 89 and 90 in this group. The Government have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I discussed it in some detail in meetings across the House with noble Lords following Committee. There are already some safeguards in the Bill as to the appointment of the deputy mayor in the form of strong disqualification criteria and the requirement for non-binding confirmation hearings. However, it was clear in Committee that noble Lords did not consider this sufficient, so we have given this further consideration, including considering the option of limiting the mayor to appointing Assembly Members. On this specific point, the Government accepted that there were arguments in favour, but we were concerned at the relatively small pool from which the mayor would be able to select the holder of this important post. Instead, the Government have brought forward amendments that would still allow the mayor to appoint a non-Assembly Member but would make the confirmation hearing binding in such a case, giving the Assembly the power to veto the appointment by a two-thirds majority.
Any Assembly Member the Mayor wished to appoint would be subject to a non-binding confirmation, as already set out in the Bill. I hope this will go to the core of the concerns that my noble friend Lady Doocey expressed in Committee. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, will feel reassured that the mayor cannot simply appoint one of his or her friends to that position. In saying that, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I, too, enjoyed working with him on the Electoral Commission and I look forward to working with him in this Chamber as well. I had better not say more than that because it will not do his reputation on the opposition Benches any good if I say that we are going to work closely in the future. I do not think his Whips would like that too much, but he knows what I mean.
We suggest adding new powers to this part of the legislation because we understand the unique role the deputy mayor will have, if appointed. Of course, it is still for the mayor to decide whether to make such an appointment. We have tried to listen to the concerns expressed in Committee, and I hope that noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group will be reassured that the deputy will either need to be an Assembly Member or to have the confidence of the London Assembly.
Amendments 75, 78 and 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Baroness Doocey, would prevent the mayor from appointing anyone but an Assembly Member to be the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Several other Peers, not least my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Hamwee, were also concerned that the mayor could appoint a non-Assembly Member to be deputy mayor and that this would cut across the democratic principles that this Bill seeks to establish.
The Bill allows the Mayor of London, operating through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, to delegate the day-to-day handling of policing governance to a deputy. However, in accordance with general legal principles, the mayor will not be able to pass on the responsibility for any delegated work. The mayor will still be answerable and responsible. It is essential to this new governance model that the mayor is always held responsible for the way his or her functions are carried out, whether delegated or not. Clause 20 establishes that the selection must be in line with existing provisions for mayoral appointments. Further essential details, such as the eligibility criteria and terms and conditions for the post, are set out in Schedule 3. The Government agree that more is needed, but we do not think that the solution suggested by these amendments is the right approach. As such, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments and will support the government amendments.
On Amendments 76, 77 and 81, Amendment 76, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, would prevent the delegation of functions to individuals other than the deputy mayor. That is a little concerning, first because it would prevent the mayor from being able to split responsibilities as he or she see fit, as everything from typing a letter to paying funds would have to be done by the mayor or delegated to the deputy mayor. Secondly, it would in effect require the mayor to have a deputy. At the moment it is for the mayor to choose whether to delegate to anyone else.
It is important that the mayor, as the elected person with a mandate to make decisions, has the discretion to decide how their office will function. As such, I ask that the amendments not be pressed.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I am in much the same position as most, if not all, the previous speakers, having had very little time to assimilate the significance of the amendments which the Government have submitted at a very late stage indeed. However, I wish to associate myself with the views that have been expressed by my noble friends Lady Henig, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Beecham and with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said and the concerns that he, too, raised in relation to the lack of clarity in some of the amendments that are before us.
I do not intend to go over all the points that have already been made, but one thing I am not entirely clear on is whether in the amendments we have it is the Government’s intention to delete Clause 63(2) which states:
“The police and crime panel may appoint a person as acting commissioner only if the person is a member of the police and crime commissioner’s staff at the time of the appointment”.
I am not clear whether the amendments the Government are now putting forward in relation to the deputy are over and above Clause 63(2) or whether in some way or other they, in the Government’s view, overtake the need for Clause 63(2). One of the concerns that were raised in Committee was over the proposal that an acting commissioner would be a member of the commissioner’s staff. It would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify that point when she replies.
Perhaps the Government could also say something about how they see the role of the deputy. That is by no means clear from the amendment. It states:
“A police and crime commissioner must notify the relevant police and crime panel of each proposed appointment by the commissioner of … the commissioner’s chief executive … the commissioner’s chief finance officer, or … a deputy police and crime commissioner”.
Is it the Government’s intention that if the police and crime commissioner intends to make such an appointment, we are talking about a full-time post? If we are, what are the role and responsibilities of that post going to be, other than deputising for the police and crime commissioner? Or is it a scenario where the police and crime commissioner says, “Well, I’m going to appoint a deputy police and crime commissioner, and it will be my chief finance officer”.? Is that allowed under the terms of this amendment or are they three distinct and separate posts? Can all three of those posts be held by one individual? Can one individual hold more than a single position? It would be very helpful if that could be clarified. Clearly, if a deputy police and crime commissioner could also be the commissioner’s chief finance officer, then we are back in the situation that was raised before over the fact that under Clause 63(2) an acting commissioner has to be a member of the police and crime commissioner’s staff, which is why I ask whether Clause 63(2) still stands. As has already been said, although there certainly is a process of confirmation hearings, and they will be in public, at the end of the day, the police and crime commissioner can decide to go his or her own way if they do not like the views expressed to them by the panel.
Our view is that a position as an acting commissioner or deputy commissioner, whatever you wish to call it, should be in circumstances where the police and crime commissioner cannot do their job any longer, for whatever reason. The appointment should be made by the police and crime panel, and it should be an appointment from within the ranks of the police and crime panel for a very clear and fixed period.
I await the Minister’s response to the concerns that have been raised because, subject to what the Minister says in reply, it appears as though the deputy police and crime commissioner, who could simply be the commissioner’s chief finance officer or the chief executive, need not be an elected person and yet will seem to have very considerable powers of delegation.
I conclude on those points. It is largely a series of questions. I have certainly indicated our view on the appointment of an acting commissioner. It is, in fact, covered by an amendment that will be dealt with later on, but it is one of the difficulties of considering what appears to be a quite significant change by the Government in relation to amendments that were effectively put down only yesterday when we were already on Report on the Bill.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I apologised to the House earlier, and I appreciate that it has caused inconvenience, not least to the government Front Bench. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has accepted my apology. It was genuinely meant.
Lord Rosser
I certainly accept the apology. I have no intention of seeking to imply that I do not, but I am just reiterating. I know that the Minister knows the difficulties that have been caused.
Baroness Browning
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall pick up some of the points just raised before giving a fuller explanation. The appointment, suspension or dismissal of a chief constable, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, cannot be carried out by the deputy; nor can setting the precept, which the noble Baroness specifically asked about. There are proscriptions on what the deputy can do and the delegation of powers to a deputy would be subject to paragraph (b) in Amendment 63. Such powers would be restricted. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that the PCC has ultimate responsibility for whatever he or she delegates to the deputy. Whatever decisions are made in the areas where the deputy is able to act, the PCC is the person who will be answerable. There is no question that the PCC’s responsibility and accountability to the police and crime panel, and ultimately to the general public who elected him or her, is in any way reduced by delegating specific functions or authority to the deputy.
Several questions have been asked. I shall pick up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised about whether the deputy can be a member of the PCC’s staff. As a member of staff, when the deputy exercises a power he or she does so in the name of the PCC. As the PCC will, as I said, retain ultimate responsibility for it, wide powers are being conferred on the deputy. The deputy will be regarded as a member of the PCC’s staff for that purpose, so the checks and balances will apply as much to him or her, as a member of the PCC’s staff, as to anyone else carrying out a function within that office.
Baroness Browning
No, PCPs will not be part of that but of course the new amendment gives them an opportunity to be part of a confirmation process for those appointments. If for some reason the PCC decided to part with the services of the chief finance officer or the chief executive, that PCC would still be accountable to the panel for the reasons why they had done so. There is still that link of accountability, they are answerable to the panel, and if the panel was concerned about the circumstances around that I would expect it to call a scrutiny hearing to find out what had happened and why. I suspect that it would be pretty alert if there was a really serious problem brewing as a result of that.
Lord Rosser
Will the noble Baroness confirm that under proposed new paragraph 7B(1) in Amendment 6—it states that the police and crime commissioner must notify the panel of proposed appointments of the three posts of the chief executive, the chief finance officer and the deputy police and crime commissioner—the deputy police and crime commissioner can also be the commissioner’s chief finance officer and that, although they are three positions, they do not have to be held by three separate people?
Baroness Browning
I believe that the noble Lord asked me whether the deputy chief and crime commissioner could also be the finance officer. No, he cannot because the finance officer position is politically restricted and a person could not do both jobs.
Baroness Henig
I will try to squeeze Amendment 7 in before the dinner break; I have on occasion been caught quite badly in this situation but I hope that this is a relatively short amendment. This important amendment relates to a commissioner’s senior staff. All of us have said that commissioners will need to be supported by an effective team of staff to be effective; that is, a chief executive and a chief finance officer. These posts carry statutory responsibilities, which are the same as in local authorities. The chief executive will also have the role and duties of monitoring officer.
Clearly, these duties are very important. In the case of the monitoring officer, it is a duty which applies if any proposal, decision or omission by the commissioner appears by the officeholder to be a contravention of any enactment, rule of law or code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment. Therefore, an officeholder might have to tell the commissioner that there is a problem and seek to persuade him to take a different approach. In extremis, the duty would require the post holder to report in public on a failure to follow that advice.
This does not happen often and I would not want to pretend that it did. Most politicians do not attempt to break the law and certainly do not attempt to pursue a specific course of action when they have been told that it is illegal. However, these things have happened in the past with elected mayors, and elected commissioners in some ways are an extension of elected mayors. It has to be said that the experience of recently elected mayors is not all tremendously positive. I believe that the Minister, who has passed Doncaster several times on his travels, alluded to one area where there have been difficulties. Therefore, it is important that the arrangements put in place through this Bill are sufficiently robust to deal with such a situation because we know that there will be problems. We can anticipate that there will be problems and, therefore, we need to plan for that.
In local government, the duties which apply to the head of paid service, the monitoring officer and the chief finance officer are backed up with a statutory framework to prevent their dismissal on a whim by a politician. The framework in a mayoral authority is that the mayor raises concerns of a disciplinary nature and a politically balanced panel considers whether there is a case for action. If the panel decides that there is a case, an independent person investigates and disciplinary action in line with the recommendations of the independent person takes place.
Therefore, a conversation which starts, “I'm afraid you can't do that, commissioner”, could not end with “You're fired”, because the officeholder could insist, under threat of legal injunction or judicial review, that the correct procedure is followed. Because in a local authority the head of paid service is protected and all other staff are employed by that person, the framework provides a measure of protection for all employees. My amendment mirrors Section 8 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which is the statutory basis for the protection which applies in local government. It does not require that the framework in local government is mirrored precisely but it requires the Home Secretary to publish regulations and requires commissioners to follow them. It is therefore for Ministers to come forward with an approach to set a clear framework that needs to be followed.
I am anticipating that the Minister may say that chief executives and treasurers will be subject to the same protection as other employees; that the commissioner will be bound by the need to act reasonably, as are all public bodies; and that, therefore, the statutory protections to which I have referred do not add a lot more value and are unnecessary. My worry is that that would not fulfil the requirements for which I am looking because it would allow a commissioner to summarily dismiss someone and leave them to argue their case at an employment tribunal. The negative publicity of such a case could damage the commissioner, particularly if they do not intend to seek re-election. Again, that is an example of very limited checks and balances. Limited as they are, they could be undermined even further.
Those of us who have spent a long time in local government know the importance of good and honest advice from senior officers. I ask the question: would an elected commissioner listen to advice? Elected mayors have not always listened to the advice offered to them and, as a result, very serious situations have arisen. I do not believe that senior executives should be put in a position in which they could be summarily dismissed and then have to fight their corner at a subsequent employment tribunal. That is not right.
I am sure that these situations will arise. I am under no illusions. The sorts of people who will be elected as commissioners will be strong-minded and strong-willed individuals. Some of them might, dare I suggest, occasionally be a little pigheaded. I believe that they will always listen with wariness and will not always heed the advice that is given to them. When a senior executive says, “No commissioner, you can’t do that”, I do not have total confidence that the commissioner will accept that. I believe that senior staff will be vulnerable, which is the purpose of my amendment and why we should make sure that they have adequate legal protection.
I have listened carefully to the Minister, who said that the panel would certainly hear if the commissioner was going to dismiss a senior member of staff and might want to find out what was going on. I should like to know a bit more about the arrangements that she has in mind. I would like that arrangement not to be so loose and perhaps to have a bit more backing. For example, I think that, under one of the government amendments, the panel now needs to be consulted if the commissioner is considering dismissing the chief constable. I wonder whether it would be possible for them also to be involved if the chief executive or the treasurer were to be dismissed along the same lines. I am not looking for a very great change from the Government. I am looking for a step forward to recognise that these people could be vulnerable and to accept that they need a little more than the Government are preparing to give them at present. This is a serious issue.
Recent experience with mayors suggests that there will be some difficulties with directly elected commissioners. I believe that we need to think about those difficulties and do something for these senior staff. I do not think that it is fair to leave them to the whims of the commissioner. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I hope that the Government will accept these amendments, which as my noble friend Lady Henig has said are designed to ensure that, in respect of appointments, dismissals and the taking of disciplinary action, police and crime commissioners and the Mayor’s Officer for Policing and Crime conform to laid-down standards to ensure openness and fairness in these key areas through abiding by regulations made by the Secretary of State. It would hardly be appropriate for there to be controversy over the practices and procedures adopted in relation to these crucial areas of management, since it would surely only detract from the trust and the confidence which it is vital that police and crime commissioners will need to establish with their forces and the public.
EU: Justice and Home Affairs
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Minister has set out the background to the report that we are considering. As she said, Protocols 19 and 21 to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union govern our participation in European Union measures on justice and home affairs. Under Protocol 21, we can, within a laid down three-month period of a proposal or initiative being presented, decide whether we wish to be covered by such measures on justice and home affairs. If we do, we cannot then opt out at a later date. Under Protocol 19, we can also request to take part in some or all provisions of the Schengen acquis.
As the Minister has said, the report that we are considering today follows a commitment given by the then Government in 2008 to make an annual report to Parliament on the application of the opt-in protocol over the period covered by the report and on the Government’s approach over the coming period to EU justice and home affairs policy, including the application or otherwise of the opt-in.
The report before us covers the 12-month period since the Lisbon treaty came into effect at the beginning of December 2009. As other noble Lords have done, we welcome the report and the fact that the Government have decided to adhere to the commitment to produce such a report, which was given by the then Leader of your Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland. The commitments made by the then Leader of the House also included arrangements to ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee of this House and the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place have sufficient time to undertake their valued and valuable role of expressing a view to the Government on whether the United Kingdom should opt in to a proposal or not.
A commitment was also given, as has been said, by my noble friend Lady Ashton to produce a code of practice on the scrutiny of opt-in decisions. Will the Minister indicate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, did, when the code of practice is likely to be finalised?
I believe an undertaking was also given that, in order to ensure that the enhanced security measures were working effectively, there would be a review of the arrangements three years after the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether it is the Government’s intention to undertake that review at the appropriate time.
The report we are discussing sets out the 23 justice and home affairs decisions taken under the JHA opt-in protocol and the Schengen opt-out protocol during the 12-month period covered by the report. Inevitably, the report does not give an up-to-date picture, since we are discussing a report that was presented to Parliament last January and the situation has changed in respect of at least some of the matters mentioned, for example on human trafficking. I join other noble Lords in expressing the hope that it may prove possible to have this debate rather nearer the date of publication of the report in future years. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether this can be achieved.
I do not wish to repeat the thrust of debates that have already taken place on individual measures and proposals referred to in the report. However, there is a section in the report on legislative proposals that it is expected will be brought forward in 2011 but which are likely to require a decision on UK participation under the JHA opt-in protocol. Bearing in mind that the report is dated January 2011, is the Minister able to say whether the list in the report of expected legislative proposals for this year is still accurate?
In the paragraphs on their approach to European justice and home affairs, the Government state that they recognise that co-operation on justice and home affairs can deliver key benefits, helping us to tackle cross-border crime and to enhance the UK’s security, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, pointed out. The paragraphs also refer to the Government’s belief in the importance of practical co-operation on asylum policy within the EU.
As I understand it—I may be wrong and if I am I am sure I will be corrected—in around three or four years’ time the Government can decide to accept European Court jurisdiction over justice and home affairs. If we did, it would mean that we kept the opt-in on matters such as the European arrest warrant and returning asylum seekers back to the country from which they came. Alternatively, the Government can refuse European Court jurisdiction over justice and home affairs, which would mean that we would have to opt out of the kinds of matters, such as the European arrest warrant, that have helped lead to the arrest of people involved in bombings, and we would also have to opt out of the provisions on returning asylum seekers to the country from which they came.
Will the Minister say whether the Government are now considering this issue and what the decision should be, and whether, if we did refuse European Court jurisdiction on justice and home affairs, or indeed if we accepted European Court jurisdiction, the Government would deem that either one or both of those alternatives was a change in the treaty necessitating a referendum?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is trying to seduce me into setting out the wording of a decision that has yet to be made, and I am not in a position to do that. Therefore, I am sorry to disappoint him but, as I understood it, his initial concern was about whether the important commitment to both Houses remains good. It certainly does.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about forthcoming decisions. I am going to read out a very short list and I assure the Committee that I shall not take up too much time in doing so. Forthcoming decisions—ones that are about to be published and will require an opt-in decision—include: the directive on the rights and support of victims of crime; the European protection order civil measure; the recast asylum procedures directive; the recast asylum qualification directive; the EU/Australia PNR arrangements; the EU/US PNR arrangements; the EU/Canada PNR arrangements; the proposed regulation on the freezing of bank accounts in the European Union; and the proposal for a directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. I hope that he will also find helpful the commitment I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the six-monthly updates. That information will be extremely helpful to the Scrutiny Committee and across the wider House. The noble Lord asked about the 2014 opt-out decision. I hope he feels that I have given a comprehensive answer to that point, which was raised by several other noble Lords.
Lord Rosser
I suspect that I may not get an answer to that, but I asked whether it was felt that either alternative would constitute a change in the treaty and would require a referendum: that is, whether the decision either to opt in or not to opt in to ECJ jurisdiction would be regarded as a change in the treaty and would require a referendum.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I will need to write to the noble Lord on that important point. Our refusal or acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction does not constitute a change that requires a referendum. However, I will write to him explaining why that is the case. The noble Lord also asked about the need to renew the provision after three years following the entry into force of the security measures in the Lisbon treaty. I will also need to write to him on that matter.
I am most grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. In closing, I would like to take a quick look to the future. We cannot say with complete certainty exactly what proposals over the next year will require an opt-in decision. In the report, we have indicated what we expect to happen, based on work programmes and discussions with our European partners. We will try to update that with a six-monthly paper.
The Government have been very clear that they will take these decisions on a case-by-case basis, so I hope noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this point on whether we will opt in to any particular new proposal that might be brought forward in the next few months. However, I can reiterate our commitment, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his Written Ministerial Statement of 21 January, to give Parliament as much opportunity as possible to comment on and influence future opt-in decisions. The Government take very seriously the commitments contained in that Statement to give Parliament more say in opt-in decisions. It is very important that we make these new arrangements work. I am grateful for the suggestions made in today’s debate, which we will take forward.
Between now and the Summer Recess we have decisions to make on recast proposals on asylum reception conditions and asylum procedures, on a directive on access to a lawyer and on a proposal regarding the rights of victims in criminal proceedings. Those issues are included in the list that I recited to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. We await the views of the European Union Committee on those proposals and will report our decisions to both Houses. The next annual report, covering the period 1 December 2010 to 30 November 2011, will be laid before the House in due course. I will use every endeavour to ensure that there is not such a long gap between that report being laid and the opportunity for the House to debate it.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Desai
My Lords, I spoke on this section of the Bill at Second Reading and I very much support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we have subsection (1) of Clause 142 in place, which re-establishes the Public Order Act 1986 as the ruling legislation, the rest of that clause/section is completely unnecessary. We can omit all that. If we have the 1986 Act, all subsequent legislation is not required, including Clause 143 and the rest of the provisions in this section.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group but we agree with the repeal of the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 relating to demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. We also agree with the need for further proposals and for the use of the 1986 Public Order Act. The 2005 Act created a new offence of demonstrating without authorisation in what is described as a designated area, which was defined by order. That designated area had to be within 1 kilometre of Parliament Square. The use of loudspeakers in the designated area was also banned.
However, that Act had unacceptable and unintended consequences on the right of some to protest and it soon raised concerns that the Act had not, in reality, struck the correct balance between the right to protest and the rights of people to go about their everyday business and for them to enjoy Parliament Square. A proposal to repeal the provisions of the 2005 Act was included in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. That proposal fell in the wash-up at the 2010 general election.
In looking at the Government's proposals we have some questions to raise, simply to test whether they are likely to achieve their objectives. It would certainly be helpful if the Minister could define the problem that the Government feel that their proposals will address, and to define the harm that the Government are trying to deal with. The Government’s proposals are, in many ways, similar to the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act but they apply to a much smaller area, namely Parliament Square. How did the Government decide that Parliament Square should be the limit of the area to which their proposals should relate? Although he is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had amendments proposing, as I understand it, to include Abingdon Green. How would the situation be addressed if those protesting—the permanence of existing protests is an issue—moved just outside the area of Parliament Square?
Do all the parties directly involved support the Government’s proposals, including the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police and indeed the House authorities here? Are there any areas of disagreement over the scope or the practicality of the proposals?
We recognise that this is not an easy issue to resolve and that at the end of the day it will not just be about what is or is not in the Bill or any associated documentation. It is also about the degree of common sense—which, hopefully, will be considerable—that will be applied by all concerned in implementing the powers in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, with nine clauses to deal with, worrying about a very small traffic island seems on the face of it to be a bit excessive, but I recognise that there is concern about the current situation in Parliament Square, the overkill that SOCPA applied to it and the question of what we put in place as we remove SOCPA. On the problem that we are trying to address and the harm that we are trying to remove, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the democracy encampment actually produced a considerable amount of harm to Parliament Square Garden. The garden, which should be there for the enjoyment of all, is still fenced off, as the noble Lord well knows, and not only tents but some semi-permanent structures now obstruct the pavement.
I also recognise that this is part of a much wider discussion that we need to have, not just on the Bill but about the future of Parliament Square and of this part of Westminster as a whole. We had a useful debate on this on Friday, to which one or two Members here contributed. I recommend that those who were not here on Friday read Hansard. The debate raised some much wider questions to which I hope this Chamber will return, and which I hope that Members of both Houses and the authorities of the Abbey and the Supreme Court will address.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
Briefly, I agree heartily with my noble friend. It is not just a question of the seniority of the police officer, or whether they are warranted. My noble friend made some important points. Every inquiry into difficulties with protests recently has found that training is the issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what provisions are in place under this Government for better training. The other place concluded after G20 that never again must untrained officers be placed in the front line of public protest. Nowhere is more front-line than Parliament Square. Inadequate training in the law, including human rights and public order powers, and a lack of clarity about the role and function of the forward intelligence teams, who are very much on the ground in the case of bigger public demonstrations, have been issues.
I realise that since some of those comments were made, we have had the appointment of Sir Hugh Orde, who has brought some valuable experience in human rights training from Northern Ireland, which was recognised for integrating human rights training into general training. In human rights training, it is so important to get the balance between freedom of expression and that spilling over into something else.
The previous Government rather sloped their shoulders with regard to the Home Office giving guidance on what training should be given and said that it was a matter for ACPO. Does the Home Office feel more strongly now that guidance on training, particularly in this regard, is a matter for the Home Office?
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, will be brief. I have one amendment in the group. It relates to Clause 149 and deals with a very similar issue to that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: the definition given of “authorised officer”. The clause states that it can be,
“an employee of the responsible authority”,
or,
“any other person who, under arrangements made with the responsible authority … is so authorised for the purposes of this Part”.
All I want to add is that there are concerns, which have been eloquently expressed, about the powers that may be operated by someone other than a warranted police officer. I appreciate that the purpose of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to ensure that it is a senior police officer.
It will be very helpful in probing how the Government see the role of people other than warranted police officers under this part of the Bill, if the Minister could say what those authorised officers, as defined under the Bill, will be expected to do. What will an authorised officer not to be able to do that a warranted police officer could do under the Bill?
Will the role of the authorised officers include policing demonstrations? How will people know that they are authorised officers under the terms of the Bill, since presumably they are not going to be dressed like police officers? Will it be obvious to all concerned? The Minister will know from evidence given in relation to this Bill that a view has been expressed in police circles that even clearly identifiable police officers may at times have difficulty in having their decisions and instructions accepted by those who are taking part in demonstrations—certainly in the heat of the moment. Surely that becomes even more difficult, depending on what the Minister has to say about the role of authorised officers, in relation to somebody who is not a police officer. Who will determine the suitability of these authorised officers for the role envisaged for them in this Bill, whatever that role may be?
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and perhaps put minds at rest to some extent by what he has to say about the role and responsibilities he expects for these authorised officers who are not warranted police officers.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I hope that I have the right group of amendments and will not start talking to something that I am not meant to be talking to. I will not add to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Like her, I await the response with interest. I will raise the issue of guidance, which is covered by an amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs, who unfortunately is not in his place. I will not go through everything in the amendment, but will simply ask the Minister for clarification. There have been one or two references to other documentation or some form of guidance being issued. Can this be clarified now across the Dispatch Box? What part of the clauses relating to Parliament Square that we are discussing will be the subject of further guidance, perhaps to identify the meaning or interpretation that is to be put on some of the words that are used, in addition to the specific guidance referred to in the amendment? I ask this in the context of wanting to be clear on what areas the Government are going to issue guidance about as far as concerns the clauses in relation to Parliament Square.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I will say two things before I answer the particular points. First, we will come back to Parliament Square on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was unable to be here today and asked to withdraw his amendments and bring them back on Report. I very much hope that we will take further the whole issue of what we should do about the environs of Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that I have been thinking about when I first became conscious of how special this area is. It was when I was standing on top of the Henry VII chapel at the 1951 State Opening of Parliament. I was fascinated by the speed with which the Westminster City Council rubbish collectors picked up the horse manure as the Horse Guards rode past. My views on what is important have changed a little since then. The following year I sang in Westminster Hall at the lying in state of King George VI, and I have been involved in this area ever since. On Saturday night I will take part in a singing tour of the abbey, so I am probably among those who care most about the integrity of the area.
Secondly, in answer to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I have the answer from the Box on Clause 142(2). If the provisions come into force on 1 May, for example, directions can be issued from 1 May onwards in relation to activity being engaged in from then, but they cannot include any activity that took place before then: there is no question of retrospectivity. Clause 142(2) ensures that ongoing encampments can be subject to directions once the provisions are commenced. I hope that that answers the point.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Miller. The Government note that the issues raised are similar to those raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The issue is the appropriate maximum level of fine and whether it is commensurate with the potential damage and harms caused by the prohibited activities. Under the provisions, an individual commits an offence only when they fail to comply with a prior direction that provides an opportunity for them to desist from an activity before committing an offence. While the level of fine is higher than for some other comparable offences, this is balanced by the opportunity to desist from an activity before any criminal liability is attached. Level 5 is the absolute maximum penalty for this offence, and the courts have discretion in setting the level of fine in any case. The Government therefore consider that this maximum level of fine could be a proportionate response to an evidenced problem of serious and wilful disregard of local by-laws.
My noble friend also raised the question of how one measures the strength of protest. Again, we have to balance the strength of protest that a very small number of people wish to assist in against access for a very large number of protestors. I suspect that my noble friend was, as I was, on the demonstration against the Iraq war. We spent a very long time marching—actually, shuffling because there were so many people there—along the Embankment, through Parliament Square and down Whitehall. I never got to Hyde Park. There were 2 million of us. If there had been a small number of people encamped in our path, we would not have been able to get even as far as we did. One has to think about the right to protest in a balanced way. Strength of protest there was expressed by the number of people, not by the fact that any of us wanted to stay overnight and camp for the next six weeks in Hyde Park or anywhere else.
On the other amendment, the Government think that a maximum of 90 days strikes the right balance. Without any limit it would, for the person directed not to start a prohibited activity, be unclear and uncertain at what point a direction ceased to apply. With the limit of 14 days, we could, with some persistent resident protestors, so to speak, create a burden requiring unduly frequent renewal. Ninety days has been applied in a number of other areas for these sorts of orders.
Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause provide that the direction to stop a prohibited activity may include a direction that the person does not start doing that activity again and that the direction continues in force for a period of time specified by the constable or authorised officer giving the direction.
Then we come to the use of “varied” in Clause 145(6)(c). We thought it fair to give officers the ability to amend a direction given to enable them to deal with changing operational circumstances. This would mean the officer would be able to change the duration of the direction or to reinforce the direction taking account of changing circumstances. This amendment would curtail the rights of officers and reduce their ability to respond proportionately to changing circumstances, and we are all familiar with how difficult it can be to do so in large demonstrations.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, formally moved the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but our sense on the amendment is that he was providing detailed guidance of the sort that should not be in the Bill but which should be provided. I think I will need to write to the noble Lord about exactly which parts of these clauses will be subject to further guidance, but I promise that I will write.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I may raise one point. My memory may have failed, in which case I am sure it will be pointed out to me. In the proceedings in the other place, some surprise was expressed when the Minister said that a loud radio would be regarded as amplified noise equipment. Is the Minister able to say any more about the definition of amplified noise equipment? I appreciate that it is dealt with in Clause 144(4), but if someone came along with a radio, some of which can be pretty loud, and played it, would that be regarded as being amplified noise equipment or not?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, in responding to Amendment 244ZB and its linked amendments, it is important to re-emphasise why the Government are bringing forward this package of reforms. Parliament Square is a World Heritage Site surrounded, as we know, by important historic buildings such as Westminster Abbey. Its location opposite the Houses of Parliament makes it a focus for protests, and rightly so. This means that we need to balance the competing and legitimate needs of members of the public who come to the area as protestors and of Members of Parliament and others who need to be able to carry out their daily work and enjoy the space as visitors. This extends to the use of amplified noise equipment as much as to encampments.
However, the Government recognise that the use of loudhailers is linked to freedom of expression in a way that erecting a tent is not. The package of reforms accordingly puts lesser restrictions on the use of loudspeakers than on the erection of tents. It does this by putting in place a proportionate authorisation scheme which balances competing rights, so using a loudhailer is a prohibited activity only if it has not been authorised. The authorisation regime set out in Clause 148 applies to a much smaller area than the SOCPA provisions which the Government are repealing. This is in line with the Government’s determination to take an approach based on evidenced problems of the misuse of loudhailers in Parliament Square. The amendments would mean that there would be no regulation whatever on the use of items such as loudhailers and loudspeakers. Not only would this be an abdication of responsibility to deal with the noise nuisance that has plagued Parliament Square for many years, it would also risk causing difficulties where a number of competing protests are taking place.
I will not go into great detail on this. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in moving Amendment 250, I shall speak also to Amendment 252. This Bill represents a major change for policing in England and Wales, and the Minister has told us on more than one occasion that the Government are listening.
Concerns have been widely expressed about the impact of the politicisation of the police; the impact of the lack of effective checks and balances on commissioners and the considerable unchallenged powers that they will have; the impact of the relationship between the PCCs and chief constables on the latter’s operational responsibilities; and the impact of the strategic policing requirements and the proposed national crime agency on the new arrangements. There is uncertainty, too, about the impact of the new policing structure on relationships and working arrangements with other bodies, including local authorities. There has been no assessment of the impact of the proposed new arrangements on levels of crime, which have been going down steadily for a number of years. The Government agree that their proposals represent a major change to policy in England and Wales. We should not make such a change without a full inquiry and a report on the impact of the changes by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, with the report being laid before both Houses of Parliament before a commencement order is made by the Secretary of State under Clause 158(1) in respect of Part 1 of this Bill.
The Government have sought to put Bills through Parliament that have then been delayed because they have been compelled to reassess their stance when the impact of their proposals has become clearer. It has resulted in delays, for example, to the health Bill, the Armed Forces Bill and the Public Bodies Bill, which is why we have to start a week earlier after the summer Recess than the Government previously announced.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I should not wish the noble Lord to mislead the House; I know he has no intention of doing so. As he knows, earlier today I explained that the earlier start was as a result of the Labour Party’s excessive use of 17 days in Committee on one Bill, and the absolute refusal of the opposition Front Bench to divide Bills as normal between Grand Committee and the Chamber. The noble Lord would not wish to mislead the House, and that is the reason—fairly and squarely at the feet of the Opposition—for our coming back a week earlier. There is no doubt about the matter.
Lord Rosser
I am sure the noble Baroness would not wish to think that because she and the Government have a view on the cause of the situation, that view is automatically right and everybody else accepts it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, perhaps in that case the noble Lord—or the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, who is now present—will confirm that the Opposition are now willing to make a proper disposition of Bills into Grand Committee, and assist the Government by having a normal disposition. We now have the lowest level of Bills in Grand Committee for the past 10 years.
Lord Rosser
I am sure that if the issue had been caused by what happened over the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it would not have taken as long as it has for the Government to decide that they needed to come back earlier after the Summer Recess. It is clear that it has happened because of the kind of issues that have been raised over the health Bill, the Armed Forces Bill and the Public Bodies Bill. The Government have been compelled to reassess their stance as the impact of their proposals has become clear.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I really cannot allow the Opposition to mislead the House. The decision was made only after the Opposition refused to come to agreements over the scheduling of business. That is why we have delayed. We could have made this decision a lot earlier had we had a definitive answer from the Opposition. We are clearly now in a difficult position where the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is trying to gainsay reality. I know Hansard will record his words. I know wherein the facts lie; they are not in his words.
Lord Rosser
I appreciate that the noble Baroness is fairly sensitive on this matter because the reasons that she put forward this afternoon are being challenged. I simply repeat: surely the noble Baroness does not believe that when she expresses a view on why the Government have got themselves into a mess, it means that everybody else will accept it. We do not.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I put on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her intervention. She and I agree on so many matters when it comes to the business of the House. I entirely accord with her views expressed clearly about the value of Grand Committee. I am sure that she is right that it is misunderstood generally around the House, not just by newer Members of this place who work well here but those who have a more established presence. It is a valuable place.
I recall that I agreed very reluctantly for the Extradition Act to be considered in Grand Committee because it was a highly controversial Bill at the time. But it proved that it was worth while. I certainly welcome, late as it is at night—we have had a long day—the measured way in which the Leader of the Opposition has responded and the fact that she has put forward a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the opposition Chief Whip, should enter into further discussions next week about the disposition of Bills into Grand Committee. That is most welcome.
Lord Rosser
I shall conclude the comments that I was making. In putting forward these two amendments, I have made points about a number of areas of concern in relation to this Bill that have been expressed in our discussions, particularly in relation to Part 1. We should not be taking risks over changes to policing arrangements. We should be as clear as we can before we start on the impact of what is proposed, and the Government should agree to the independent inquiry and the report on the impact of their proposals that is provided for in these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey
In view of the lateness of the hour, I will be brief. The purpose of Amendment 251 is to move the implementation of the changes to policing in London from October this year to October next year. The Mayor of London and the Government are keen to introduce the new system from 1 October this year and the Bill would allow that to happen. There are two important reasons why that should be delayed.
First, the Olympic and Paralympic Games will take place between July and September next year. There will also be many preparatory events which require large policing operations. For example, the torch relay will start in May and continue until July. That will be a major security challenge. Police officers will be drafted in from all parts of the country to police the Games. The Olympics will affect every police force in Britain, not just the Metropolitan Police. There is absolute agreement that the Olympics present the biggest security challenge that British police have ever faced in peacetime. They will require a policing operation on an unprecedented scale. The Metropolitan Police have spent years planning for every eventuality. As circumstances develop, these plans will need to be updated and revised to take account of issues as they arise. For any Government to allow the police to divert their efforts from this huge security operation in order to take part in a reorganisation is deeply worrying.
Secondly, the mayoral election in London next May could result in a change of mayor. It is entirely possible that a new policing system could be put in place on 1 October this year, designed to reflect the current mayor’s priorities, only to be dismantled again next year if another party wins the election. It is a real possibility that the police in London could face not one but two major reorganisations in the period leading up to the Olympic Games. Reorganisations are disruptive in any organisation. This one will require the police to change all their reporting structures and to brief a completely new set of stakeholders and board members. This is no easy task, as anyone who has ever been involved with policing will say. It will take huge effort and time on both sides. The reorganisation will be work-intensive, expensive and time-consuming. It should happen only once and at a time when it does not conflict with the planning of the Olympic Games. The police must not get involved in a major reorganisation at this time. They must be free to concentrate their efforts and energies on the greatest security threat this country has ever faced.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Doocey has put forward the assertion that it is not in the interests of the Metropolitan Police Service for the model to be implemented in London before the Olympics due to the potential impact on the operational delivery of policing within London. I have to say to my noble friend—and I know she has heard this also from my right honourable friend the Policing Minister in person on a number of occasions—that not just the Mayor of London but the Commissioner of the Metropolis is also keen for the transition from MPA governance to that of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime as soon as possible after Royal Assent is achieved for this Bill.
I appreciate that my noble friend’s concerns that moving to the new system of governance ahead of the Olympics will require the membership of the newly established police and crime panel in London to be brought up to speed on the intricacies of the Olympic operation in London, which the Metropolitan Police will co-ordinate with the support of other forces in England and Wales. However, I would stress that the key decision-makers around this operation within London, the Mayor for London and the Commissioner of the Metropolis, will remain the same if the transfer from one system of governance to the other takes place before May 2012. Of course, we cannot predict the outcome of the mayoral election in May 2012. It may be the case that in May next year the commissioner will be briefing a new mayoral team on the policing arrangements for the Olympics. But that is a possibility that arises whenever we commence the provisions in the Bill. The point is that commencing the provisions before May 2012 would not create any additional disruption.
I am sorry that I cannot say more to my noble friend. I know that she has had several conversations with my right honourable friend in another place about this since she originally raised these concerns. I am obviously very happy to talk to her about it again, but we have double-checked that there is no real concern with the mayor or the commissioner. That is the response sought specifically in relation to the concerns that my noble friend raised previously.
We have already debated at some length the merits of pilots, and it is the Government's view that pilots should not take place, as this would create two models of governance within England and Wales for a police service that on a daily basis interacts and collaborates across force boundaries. We have also made it clear that the Government do not believe it necessary for HMIC to conduct a feasibility study into the coalition Government’s manifesto commitment. HMIC has already provided sound evidence of the need for reform and greater accountability and transparency to be introduced within the policing landscape within England and Wales.
I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have made their views known during the Committee stage of this Bill. I am also grateful for the meetings that I have had with Members across the House on Part 1 of the Bill. I hope to meet as many concerns as possible when we return at Report, but I am unable to accept the amendments before the House tonight, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response, which I have to say was not entirely a surprise. The Minister has said on more than one occasion that the Government are listening. We will await and see what impact that has at Report before considering whether or not to pursue this matter at that stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Child Trafficking
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I can give that assurance. It is something that we are already looking at. As a new Minister, I had my initial briefing from the UK Border Agency. One of the first questions I asked was: what happens at passport control for children coming into this country who are not accompanied by a parent? Of course, there are quite legitimate reasons why children would come in from overseas with an adult relative, but we are aware of some of the case histories—the Victoria Climbié case comes to mind in particular. It is very difficult to say how we address in the short term the passport arrangements for other countries, but we should focus on it to ensure that we pick up those children at that early stage, at the border when they come into this country, rather than later when so much damage has been done.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Government have just announced proposals to merge the highly effective Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency into a new national crime agency. Of course, the previous head of CEOP resigned from the agency after seeing the Government's plans and has said that the submerging of CEOP within a far greater entity will not allow the critical child protection focus that we need. Where will responsibility for combating child trafficking lie within the proposed national crime agency? Does the fact that the Government have said that the cost of the new national crime agency will not exceed the aggregate cost of its predecessors, when the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency is to suffer a 10 per cent reduction in its budget, simply confirm that it is highly vulnerable children who are likely to be in the firing line from the Government's decision to ram through cuts that are too fast and too deep?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I quite disagree with the noble Lord. The announcement yesterday of the national crime agency means that we will set up a body which will have four pillars—which will not be silos; they will work together—of which child protection is a key part. The whole agency will be responsible for gathering intelligence, analysis of that intelligence and a crime-fighting force that will not just be based in the capital but will interact with police forces around the country.
The problems that we face in areas such as trafficking do not confine themselves to local police force borders. Children and adults who have been trafficked are moved around. They are, in effect, in slavery and may not be in the place where they came into the country. That is organised crime and it recognises no borders. I believe that the national crime agency will bear down on that, as it will in other areas of organised crime.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
“Standards Board guidance
(1) Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2000 (Standards Board for England) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5) for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) may issue guidance on matters relating to—(i) the conduct of chief commissioners, members and co-opted members of police and crime panels and the Police Commissions in England and Wales; and(ii) the qualifications and or experience that monitoring officers should possess.”(3) In subsection (5) omit paragraph (c)”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I hesitated before speaking because I intend to be very brief and I was of the view that I would probably finish before everybody had managed to leave the Chamber if I started straight away.
Police authorities currently are covered by the Standards Board for England, but this will not be the case with the new police and crime panels provided for in the Bill. The amendment provides for guidance to continue to be given by the Standards Board for England in relation to the conduct of chief commissioners, members and co-opted members of police and crime panels and the police commissions in England and Wales, and also on the matter of the qualifications and experience that monitoring officers should possess. The current legislation states:
“In exercising its functions the Standards Board for England must have regard to the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of relevant authorities in England. … The Standards Board for England … may issue guidance to relevant authorities in England and police authorities in Wales on matters relating to the conduct of members and co-opted members of such authorities”.
If the situation is that while police authorities are currently covered by the Standards Board for England but that this will not be the case for the new police and crime panels—indeed, I understand that it is the Government’s intention to abolish the Standards Board—the purpose of this amendment is to ask what the Government intend to do in future in relation, for example, to the new police and crime panels. Is it intended to replicate the functions currently carried out by the Standards Board as far as, for example, the new police and crime panels are concerned and, if so, by which individual, body or organisation? One would have thought that since one of the key functions of the Standards Board for England is to have regard to the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct, that would be even more important in relation to the new bodies and organisations that will be established under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill that we are discussing. One finds it difficult to believe that the Government do not intend to provide some sort of substitute for the Standards Board for England, if it is their intention to abolish it, and that they do not intend to ensure that similar guidance is not going to be issued in future in order to maintain high standards of conduct in relation to, among other bodies, the police and crime panels. The purpose of this amendment is to seek to ascertain from the Government what their intentions are in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I rise first to speak in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser. To some extent, we touched on these matters at an earlier stage. The absence of a standards regime for these new bodies which are going to be responsible for the oversight of the police service in England and Wales is really rather extraordinary. In the previous day in Committee, I gave an example of the sorts of things that could happen where having a robust standards regime would be a better solution than one that says that, if these individuals step over the line and actually break the law, they can be investigated by the police—for whom they have a direct responsibility, of course, which raises some interesting questions—and, if necessary, prosecuted. A standards regime that is going to protect the integrity of those individuals and provide assurance to the public that they are acting properly and appropriately is clearly important. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government envisage that this will be dealt with.
Baroness Browning
In reply to the noble Lord, standards and governance would not be something we would wish to put in the Bill. It might well be something that would come out later in guidance, but I would not expect it to be in the Bill itself.
Lord Rosser
First, I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has clearly raised a number of serious and important issues. I am left with the impression that the Government, in their enthusiasm in the Localism Bill to abolish the Standards Board, probably overlooked the significance of that decision for this Bill. I think that is why the Minister has been a little on the defensive during these exchanges. I do not think there has been as much joined-up thinking as the Government would sometimes wish us to imagine that there is. A fairly powerful case has been made for continuing guidance in order to promote and maintain high standards and conduct by the members of the bodies that we are talking about within this particular Bill.
I have to say I am not entirely clear—and I would be grateful if the Minister could clear this up—what she has or has not agreed to do. She has made references during this debate to still being in discussion with colleagues. However, I am not clear what the Minister is saying she is still looking at and, by inference, whether she might be coming back to this House at a later date; or even if she is saying that she is looking at some of the issues that are raised by my amendment and will be coming back to the House with further thoughts. There may be no further change at all, but will she be coming back to this House to let us know the result of these discussions she is having with colleagues?
Baroness Browning
I am grateful to the noble Lord and perhaps I can just clarify that. These discussions between the Home Office and CLG are ongoing and I cannot give the House a definitive answer today as to the conclusions. However, I will promise that as soon as they are concluded—which I hope will be shortly—I will write to noble Lords and place a letter in the Library.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I do not want to be too defensive on this but it is a matter that we are looking at. With the abolition of the Standards Board, we need to make sure that that piece of legislation does not have an adverse effect on this particular Bill, therefore there are some discussions going on as to how we resolve the matter and in which piece of legislation we may or may not want to make any changes. It is on that basis that discussions are being taken forward.
Lord Rosser
I will at this stage leave it at that. I thank the Minister for that further information. I hope that it does lead to some changes to the Bill because the case has been made fairly strongly and powerfully for at least the continuation of guidance on promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct in relation to panels that certainly will be subject to a high level of public scrutiny, bearing in mind the role that they are going to have. However, I will at this stage leave it at that and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I must apologise to the Committee for not being here when Clause 5, on the requirement on the police and crime commissioners to issue police and crime plans, was discussed. Had I been here, I would have referred to Clause 79, on the strategic policing requirement. The police and crime plans, whoever draws them up, must always be an amalgam of national, international and local policing requirements. It is always going to be a difficult balance to decide which of those has priority and how the resources are to be allocated to them. That is one of the reasons why I have always been a supporter of the dissenting comments of Dr Goodhart in the 1962 police commission on the need for a national police force to cover the fact that crime does not observe local boundaries.
The time has come to look nationally at these issues and then to make certain that they are covered properly. The question is who will cover them. You could be forgiven for thinking that the proposal for elected police commissioners in areas around the country is putting the local policing issue at the top of the pack. Is that actually so? The Home Secretary, quite rightly, will insist that international terrorism or international drug dealing, for example, are given due recognition. What worries me is that I do not see this issue being resolved by the Bill as drafted or the guidance. I had hoped that I might have found it in the draft protocol. It states that local police commissioners have the,
“legal power and duty to … set the strategic direction and objectives of the force through the Police and Crime Plan … which must have regard to the Strategic Policing Requirement set by the Home Secretary”.
That does not resolve the issue, either.
My concern is that the person who will lose out, if we are not careful, is the person who will have to carry the can through the heat of the day—the chief officer of police or the chief constable. To my mind, there is only one person in an area who should draw up these plans—the chief constable. It should be done necessarily in draft and then it should be cleared with those who have to provide the resources. However, it should also be cleared with those with responsibility for influencing the balance between the international, national and local requirements of policing in that area. We will be doing a great disservice to the chief constables and chief officers of police if we do not make that clear and if we set them the problem of having to resolve something that is not resolvable, with a whole lot of competing people around them who may not necessarily come together in a way that will resolve the matter. This issue is too important for the public to be left not properly resolved.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, wish to speak to amendments in my name—Amendments 220ZC, 221A, 225ZB and 228A. Clause 79 provides for the Secretary of State to,
“from time to time, issue a document (the ‘strategic policing requirement’) which sets out what, in the Secretary of State’s view, are … national threats at the time the document is issued, and … appropriate national policing capabilities to counter those national threats”.
I am not quite sure what “from time to time” means in this context, but perhaps the Minister will be able to throw some light on it. The Bill provides for the chief officer of police to,
“have regard to the strategic policing requirement”,
in exercising their functions. One of my amendments adds that the police and crime commissioners must also take into account the Secretary of State’s strategic policing requirement document in exercising their functions.
A further amendment to Clause 79 provides for Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary to report annually on how each police and crime commission and the mayor’s office is fulfilling the strategic policing requirement. The clause places a requirement on police and crime commissioners and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to have regard to the findings of the HMIC report. The final amendment would retain a requirement, which appears to be deleted under the Bill, for HMIC to report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces.
Under Clause 5(5), a police and crime commissioner must, in issuing or varying a police and crime plan, have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued by the Secretary of State. My amendment, however, makes it clear that account of the strategic policing requirement has to be taken by the police and crime commissioner not just in issuing or varying a police and crime plan but in exercising all their functions. For that reason, it would provide a much clearer and stronger form of words. I do not wish to repeat the points made by my noble friends Lady Henig and Lord Harris of Haringey, but it is surely necessary to have some checks against any potentially maverick police and crime commissioner and, in short, some acceptable consistency in strategy and approach.
Yesterday, the Government announced their proposals for a national crime agency. In the Government’s view, the new agency represents a major change. It is surprising that in the middle of the Committee stage of the Bill the Government should announce proposals that could, depending on what their intentions are, have a significant impact on the powers and functions of the bodies and organisations that are referred to in the Bill, including police and crime commissioners. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government see the national crime agency as the creation of a new enhanced national policing force or whether it simply brings together under one roof a number of key organisations that are largely working well at present and will not be helped by the distraction of the cost and time of the creation of a new organisation and its associated bureaucracy.
The Government have said that the national crime agency will be a crime-fighting organisation that will tackle organised crime, defend our borders, fight fraud and cybercrime, and protect children and young people. With a senior chief constable at its head, it will harness intelligence, analytical capabilities and enforcement powers and will have strong links to local police forces and police and crime commissioners. The Secretary of State yesterday said that the national crime agency will comprise a number of distinct operational commands, one of which, the organised crime command, will,
“tackle organised crime groups, whether they operate locally, across the country or across our international borders. Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders”.
Other commands will be border policing, economic crime and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. The Secretary of State also said that the national crime agency will,
“use … intelligence to co-ordinate, prioritise and target action against organised criminals, with information flowing to and from the police and other agencies in support of tactical operations”,
and that,
“the NCA will have the ability and the authority to task and co-ordinate the police and other law enforcement agencies”.
She continued:
“For the first time, there will be one agency with the power, remit and responsibility for ensuring that the right action is taken at the right time by the right people—that agency will be the NCA. All other agencies will work to the NCA’s threat assessment and prioritisation, and it will be the NCA’s intelligence picture that will drive the response on the ground. That will be underpinned by the new strategic policing requirement”.
The Secretary of State concluded by saying that all areas of the country suffer the effects of organised crime,
“from the very poorest communities to the most affluent, from the smallest villages to the biggest cities”,
and that we owe it to them to tackle it. Her penultimate phrase was:
“The National Crime Agency will do all those things and more”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/11; cols. 232-34.]
That is quite a build-up for an organisation that will have no more money than the aggregate cost of its predecessors, which already face significant reductions in their budgets, including a cutback in a number of front-line staff as a result of cuts made by the Government that are too deep and too fast.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that this is one of the most important debates we are having in Committee and raises some of the important underlying issues with which we need to come to grips in the Bill. I know that we have covered some broad and important issues which concern the balance between local, regional, national and, increasingly, international policing. There is a whole range of issues about the balance between flexibility and direction. There is a constant tendency in almost every issue with which we deal in Parliament to demand devolution of power with very detailed direction from the centre as to exactly how that devolved power should be used. If I may say so, we have heard quite a lot of that over the past hour. Then there is the question of accountability. Several noble Lords have asked where the checks and balances lie and how inspection is conducted. Again, there are some important issues there.
The strategic policing requirement will support police and crime commissioners in effectively balancing local and national responsibilities and driving improvements in their force’s response to serious cross-boundary criminality, harms and threats. How that is done and how tightly that is drawn is, again, a question of balance. I remain of the view that “to have regard to” is the correct way to deliver that balance. The phrase “to have regard to” has been used in a great deal of previous policing administration. It is intended to provide that that is something that you must take into account, but you have flexibility in how you take it into account on a day-to-day basis. That seems to us to be the balance that we need of giving direction but not tying people down too far.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked about the balance between the local, the regional and the international. With much less knowledge of policing than most of those taking part in this Committee, but having looked at the growth of the international dimension of police co-operation—particularly the European dimension—over the past 25 years, I am struck by how much the balance has changed. Before the Berlin Wall came down, the number of policemen in this country who dealt with international dimensions of crime was relatively limited. When I was at Chatham House and first met the external department of the Metropolitan Police, it was a relatively small body.
As we all know, the international context of policing has been transformed over the past 25 years by the continuing growth of international travel, by the continual revolution in communications, and by the arrival of the internet. Every local policeman has to have some regard to the international dimension. I recall reading in the Yorkshire Post not long ago about a well-known criminal in Liverpool who had been followed by the Dutch police in Amsterdam and arrested and convicted in Jersey, but the crime he was engaged in impacted on Liverpool. That is local and international crime. I was concerned with the question of who would pay for him being sent to prison in England from Jersey. Those are the sort of difficult questions we get engaged in.
The answer, we know, having had a debate about whether we should move towards a national police force or yet another round of amalgamation of police forces down to about 20 rather than 40 in England and Wales, is to promote co-operation. We have a range of shared regional units, and I have happily visited a number of them in recent months, which deal with the specialised units—for example kidnapping, helicopters, dog units, organised crime units and counterterrorism units, all of which are shared by the smaller police forces. To us, that is the way forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the announcement of the formation of the national crime agency yesterday was not a further stage towards a national police force; it was part of the continuing process in which we have to handle the balance between international policing and national, regional and local policing. The creation of SOCA and the whole growth of that dimension has been part of the response over the past 25 years to dealing with international co-operation. It was not an important factor for policing 40 or 50 years ago. A balance has to be struck, although no doubt it will change again. The duty to have regard is one that we defend as striking the right balance between flexibility and direction. I cannot answer the many questions which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised about the NCA, but we shall return to it in more detail.
Lord Rosser
Surely the noble Lord is not telling me that he has not read the paper that the Secretary of State published yesterday? My questions are simply based on what she has written.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord asked about 65 questions and I fear that it might take a great deal of time to answer them all in detail. We shall extensively discuss the exact role of the NCA on a later occasion. I hope that, in general terms, I have answered the question about this not being a road to a national police force.
Lord Rosser
When the Minister says that we will discuss the national crime agency on a later occasion, does he mean as part of our discussions on this Bill? If he is not quite sure of the answers to my questions, I can tell him that they relate to the potential impact on, for example, police and crime commissioners. Can he assure us that we will have a discussion about the impact of the national crime agency on the Bill that we are currently discussing, or is he talking about discussing it only after we have dealt with this Bill?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Perhaps I may remind the opposition Front Bench that we could have taken the Statement on the national crime agency yesterday but that the opposition Front Bench declined to have the Statement repeated in this House. We could have usefully discussed that yesterday. We shall take the whole issue of the role of the national crime agency further. We can certainly give answers in writing to some of the questions that he has raised on the Floor of the House.
Lord Rosser
It is certainly true that we did not take the Statement yesterday but there was other rather important business to discuss. I hope that the Minister will accept that, even if the Statement had been taken, it would hardly have been a substitute for discussing the implications of the national crime agency on the provisions in this Bill, which can be discussed properly only during the discussions on the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Serious Organised Crime Agency already exists and the national crime agency will be an expansion and revision of the role of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. This is evolution and not revolution.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friends Lady Henig and Lord Beecham is, as they have said, to increase transparency and accountability through providing requirements in the Bill for the provision of information and consultation with and between the relevant bodies and individuals referred to in the Bill and with the local community. This group of amendments in effect comes back to the heart of much of the debate on the Bill that we have had so far and, in particular, the extent to which the Government’s proposals for a police and crime commissioner concentrate so much virtually unchallengeable power and authority over wide geographical areas in the hands of one individual.
The amendments seek to provide for consultation and taking account of views expressed before crime and disorder reduction grants are made, taking account of the views of witnesses, as well as victims, of crime on policing, appointing a member of the police and crime panel to sit on each crime reduction partnership or community safety partnership within the relevant police area, holding public meetings at which the business of the commissioner may be conducted and decisions made, the production of an annual report showing the extent to which crime has increased or decreased, obtaining through co-ordinated consultation the views of the community, and provision for the chief constable to attend a panel meeting when the annual report is presented and for the chief constable to provide information to the panel to enable the panel to carry out its functions. The local policing body appointing a member of the panel to sit on each crime reduction partnership or community safety partnership within the relevant area is to ensure that the functions of the local policing body are exercised effectively, as there must surely be a need for the local policing body to be aware of the concerns of the partnerships and their priorities and that the links between them are strong. Other amendments are designed to ensure that business is conducted in a public setting, and is seen to be done in public, to ensure greater transparency and accountability.
Lord Blencathra
We now make rapid progress because my amendment jumps to Clause 80 but it is in this group for discussion. Clause 80 contains the general duty of the Secretary of State and states that it is to be best used,
“to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police”.
I take a quite different view. It is not the duty of the Home Secretary to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police because this Bill seeks to have elected police and crime commissioners to do that. Even if the first amendment on which we voted were to be accepted in another place and by this House when the Bill returns, and we had the continuation of police authorities, surely it should be their duty to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police.
I say to my noble friend that I would not dream of pushing my amendment to a vote because I seek to use perhaps an extreme form of words. I take the totally contrary view, suggesting that it is not the duty of the Home Secretary to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police but that she should interfere only to prevent the safety of persons in a police area from being put at risk. I suggest that the Home Secretary should intervene and use her powers generally in the Bill only in those dire circumstances. I accept that that goes to a more extreme position than even I might believe in at times. However, somewhere between that position and the general power which, I suggest, continues in Clause 80, of total interference by the Home Secretary in anything that he or she likes, there may be a balanced, happy medium which would permit an elected police and crime commissioner or a police authority to exercise their proper duty of efficiency and effectiveness.
As soon as I got the Bill, I turned to look at what powers of the Home Secretary would be abolished. I found Clause 82 and thought, “Jolly good. What about the rest?”. Unfortunately, I could not find many other powers of the Home Secretary that were being abolished, and there were still too many powers for the Home Secretary to call for reports from chief constables and elected police and crime commissioners, to call for statistics and to call for this, that and the other. Members of this House who have served in another place will know that if a Member of Parliament asks the Home Secretary for a single statistic about a police force, inevitably it will be replicated for other police force areas. The Home Office will then invent 10 forms so that the Home Secretary is never wrong-sighted, and we will build up a plethora of information gathering that will be excessive and unnecessary. This is not germane to the amendment, but I use it as an example to say that the Home Secretary's powers could be further circumscribed in the Bill without any risk to national policing and the proper co-ordination of policing throughout the country—a role that is better promoted by HMIC than by the Home Secretary.
I conclude by referring to Clause 80, much further down the line, which gives the Home Secretary the power and duty to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police overall. If the Home Secretary has and exercises that duty, what is the point of police authorities, and what is the point of the elected crime commissioner? That is what their job was supposed to be. I do not suggest that my amendment is perfect—it is far from that—but it adopts an extreme position in the hope that I can make a point to my noble friend and that, possibly by Report, we may have a slightly different form of words for what the duty of the Home Secretary may or may not be.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the amendments in this group deal with the powers of the Secretary of State. I tabled Amendment 226AA on police strategic priorities, but will speak to others in the group. Among other things, the Bill deletes the regulation-making powers and provisions relating to seeking the views of the community on policing. It deletes the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of performance targets for police strategic priorities, codes of practice for police authorities and reports from police authorities to the Secretary of State—as my noble friend Lord Beecham said when he moved his amendment. The amendments seek for the most part to preserve these powers for the Secretary of State, although I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has gone down a different road.
The Bill also places a general duty on the Secretary of State to exercise powers in a way that appears to the Secretary of State to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police. One amendment in the group seeks to replace the efficiency and effectiveness duty with a duty to exercise powers in a way that best ensures safety and security, which one would have thought was a rather more important consideration in relation to policing.
We have already had a debate today on consultation, with the Minister agreeing to look again at certain areas of concern. I hope that, as part of that further look, he will also reconsider the proposal in the Bill to delete the regulation-making powers and provisions on ascertaining the views of the community on policing. In the context of our previous debate, one would have thought that they were important powers for the Secretary of State to have.
As for my amendment on performance targets for police strategic priorities, there are national strategic police considerations, in particular relating to more serious crimes, to be taken into account and that would not be assisted by these powers being taken away from the Secretary of State. Unlike police and crime commissioners dotted up and down the country, the Secretary of State can take national strategic policing considerations into account. Surely there must also be a need for some consistency on basic strategic objectives over policing, which does not necessarily appear to be the way that the Government are thinking of going in the future. It is also not clear why there should be an efficiency and effectiveness duty on the Secretary of State rather than, as I said a moment ago, a duty to exercise powers in a way that best ensures safety and security, which is surely more important.
These amendments, as has already been said, obviously raise the issue of the future role of the Secretary of State in relation to policing powers in the light of the likely advent of police and crime commissioners. We hope that, in response, the Minister can explain why the Government take the view that the current powers of the Secretary of State to which I have referred, and which are referred to in these amendments, should be reduced rather than retained in the way that this group of amendments proposes.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
( ) the person is not serving a prison sentence or is not on remand.”
Lord Rosser
I congratulate the Deputy Chairman on guiding us through that tour de force. I feel like something of an intruder in standing here to speak to some of the amendments in this group. My amendments are Amendments 190A, 194A, 199A and 201A.
I wondered whether to move the amendment as my amendments in the group relate to elected police and crime commissioners, which are no longer in the Bill. On reflection, I decided to continue to move it, at least to find out a little more about what the Government had in mind for the election arrangements. That is in view of concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission last September that work on a potential spate of elections and new arrangements for elections, including for police and crime commissioners, did not appear to be well co-ordinated by the Government. Of course, we are talking about elections which, prior to the deletion of the relevant part from the Bill, the Government were envisaging should go countrywide in May next year.
In moving the amendment, and speaking to the others in the group, which I have indicated are probing amendments, I would like to ask one or two questions about what the Government had in mind as far as those election arrangements were concerned. I ask them in part in the light of some of the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission.
First, is the Minister able to say something about what the Government had intended about how those elections would be organised and by whom? Returning officers work on a local authority basis, but in nearly all cases the police authorities overlap more than one local authority area. So although it would not be the first time that elections had been held in respect of an organisation, body or Parliament that went over more than one authority area, it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about what was intended about organising these elections, in view of this issue of returning officers working on a local authority basis, as the elections would take place for many of the police and crime commissioners over a number of local authority areas.
One of the amendments that I have tabled refers to the issue of those in prison and those on remand, and seeks to say that those serving a prison sentence or on remand should not be included among those eligible to vote. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on whether it was their intention that prisoners should be able to vote in the election for a police and crime commissioner or not. I am sure that some people would think that it was rather odd that prisoners should be able to take part in an election of that kind, just as others would think that it was entirely reasonable. Obviously, it is an issue on which there would be different views, but it would be of interest to hear the Government’s thinking on that score.
I appreciate that things came to grief, from the Government’s point of view, a few weeks ago. But as Governments usually prepare on the basis that the guts of the Bill will go through, it would also be helpful if the Minister could indicate what discussions were held with local authorities, registration officers and electoral administrators and, indeed, with the Electoral Commission, particularly in the light of the concerns that it expressed last September. Indeed, another of the amendments that I have tabled provides that for making orders under relevant provisions the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and publish its advice. It would be interesting to know if that had been part and parcel of the Government’s plans and intentions as well.
In the concerns that the Electoral Commission raised, it said that it asked the Government to create a cross-department working group to co-ordinate all these initiatives—bearing in mind the number of different elections that the Government seem to be envisaging—so the obvious questions are: had a cross-departmental working group in fact been established, had it started to address the issue of electing police and crime commissioners, and how many times had it met or how active was it? I also ask about the resources, since elections cannot be run for nothing and these could have been fairly complicated ones. What had the Government been intending to do where the provision of extra resources was concerned to cover the cost of these elections? It has been their intention to run them, as I understand it, in May of next year—presumably alongside the local elections that would be being run then.
Another amendment that I have tabled relates to the turnout for these elections and provides that there have to be 40 per cent or more of eligible voters voting if the result is to be deemed binding. When we were discussing the referendum on the alternative vote, we had similar debates and amendments were moved which I think provided for the same figure. Those amendments were defeated but, as it turned out, if memory serves me right—and it may have failed me—we got above 40 per cent on the AV referendum. However, were the Government intending on these elections to provide for any minimum threshold where turnout was concerned?
Some serious concerns had been expressed—they have been expressed in debates that we have had in this Committee—that, let us just say, some rather interesting individuals might choose to put themselves up for election and that some might regard it as unfortunate if they were the ones elected, particularly if it turned out that they were elected on a very low turnout. Did the Government have any views or intentions, concerning the running of these elections, of seeking to set some sort of threshold which had to be reached or achieved for the elections to be regarded as valid? That would perhaps have as one of its objectives keeping certain people out who might not necessarily be considered entirely appropriate for a position of police and crime commissioner. The point of the amendment is to seek to ask the Government whether they had any views on that score.
A further amendment that I have tabled takes out a significant chunk of Clause 58. That is for the purpose of asking some of the questions that I have been asking about how the Government saw these elections being run and organised, what steps they had in train and what kind of progress had been made when we reached the stage where the amendment which deleted the reference to elected police and crime commissioners was successfully moved. There are other issues as well. There does not appear to be much reference in the Bill, for example, to election expenses or donation caps and such things. Indeed, the only real reference in the Bill to those kinds of issues is an order-making power for the Secretary of State, so that the Secretary of State can come forward with some of those ideas later. However, subject to what the Minister may say, the Bill does not give us any feel for what the Government intend on how they will run and organise these elections while we are actually discussing it.
Presumably, there are also questions where it would be helpful if we could have some response on issues such as donations and spending on these elections by political parties or, indeed, by anybody else. Do the Government have any views on that? Were they moving in any particular direction on that score that they can share with us? Or—I conclude on this point, because I have asked a number of questions which I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to—are we still in the position that the Electoral Commission referred to last September? With a number of potential elections coming up, some of them new elections for new bodies and including those for police and crime commissioners, the commission was moved to say that this work does not appear well co-ordinated at present. Is that in fact still the reality?
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response and for the information she was able to give the Committee on the Government’s intentions. I am not sure that anything was said about extra resources being provided to cover the cost of elections for police and crime commissioners, if they ever take place. Perhaps no conclusions have yet been reached on that point.
The Minister responded on the issue of prisoners being able to vote, or not vote, which was her response. Presumably, if there were any change as a result of the European Court decision—I am aware of the vote in the other place—that would apply to these elections for the police and crime commissioners as well. I assume that would be the case. In the light of the responses given by the Minister and the information she has provided, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I rise to make a short comment on Amendment 31E, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and to add a gloss on the earlier debate that we had in the context of Amendment 32, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
On Amendment 31E, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, spoke out for localism in deciding what these salaries should be. I find myself frequently reading in both the national and local press about the extreme distress caused by the salaries that are paid to the chief executives of local authorities, which seem to be totally out of order when compared with the salaries paid in a neighbouring county. Here we are talking about an office which is not elected, but where the decision is taken by the local authority itself. I understand the noble Baroness’s argument about localism but I recall doing these exercises from the centre for four years between 1985 and 1989, when the then Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby, delegated to me responsibility for the pay and conditions of the Civil Service. I negotiated with a number of people who now sit on the Benches opposite in connection with those matters. I recall that some jobs in public bodies went beyond purely the Civil Service and that in those cases the Treasury reserved the right to decide what the salaries would be. It was a difficult task and one which I think we discharged with reasonable consistency, accuracy and honour. I would be happier with something of that order rather than the provision which the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, suggested.
In the context of Amendment 32, I heard my noble friend Lady Hamwee say she did not believe that the police and crime commissioners would have a full-time job. I recall that on the previous occasion we debated these matters my noble friend Lord Eccles pulled up the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and asked him where the Bill stated that it would be a full-time job. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had made the perfectly reasonable assumption that it was likely to be full time. However, here we are on Amendment 32 going back to the situation where it is not likely to be a full-time job at all. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire whether the Government expected the job to be full time and received an immediate answer. I go back to a mild comment that I made on the previous occasion when I said that there was some danger of entering an Alice in Wonderland scenario if we did not keep track of the matters that we were discussing, particularly given the way in which we are dealing with the Bill.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have explained the purpose of their amendments, which we are discussing. I want to refer only to one or two aspects.
This group of amendments seeks to address the considerable powers that are given virtually unchecked and unchallenged under the Bill to police and crime commissioners, while very little meaningful power or responsibility is given to the new police and crime panels. As my noble friend Lady Henig has said, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to determine a commissioner’s salary. We know very little about how the Secretary of State might do this. At one stage, certainly in the media, there were suggestions of six- figure salaries, though it now appears that the Senior Salaries Review Body may be called in.
However, that raises the issue of why the Secretary of State wants to determine directly the salary of a police and crime commissioner. As has been said, the approach seems at odds with the Government’s declared stance of devolving responsibility as far down the line as they can. Is the view that Whitehall knows best on this issue? Is the Secretary of State of the view that each commissioner should be paid the same irrespective of the geographical size and diversity of the area covered, the population of the area, the size of the budget and of the force and the levels of crime? Or is the Secretary of State of the view that commissioners’ salaries should differ? If so, what factors does she consider should be taken into account? How will she take into account any specific local or area factors? Does she intend to take into account the views of the police and crime panels or, indeed, the views of anybody else other than those of the Senior Salaries Review Body, if that is to be used?
I acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and probably others, have about some of the salaries that are paid to chief executives of local authorities. But if you devolve responsibility and you believe that that is right, you have to accept the consequences and not simply say that because you are concerned about what might happen you will automatically keep everything at the centre. Of course, the salary of a local authority chief executive is, in that sense, determined by the local authority members, as are the salaries, if any, to be paid to council members and the council leader. One of the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lady Henig provides for the salary of a police and crime commissioner to be determined by the police and crime panel. The panel should be in a better position than the Secretary of State to know what salary will be appropriate to the responsibilities and complexities of the position, and what salary is likely to be needed to attract appropriate candidates for the position. It could be argued that that would also enhance the position of the panel and provide a check by the panel to the largely untrammelled authority and power given to a commissioner under the terms of the Bill.
We have discussed other amendments relating to the ability to enter into contracts. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the amendments were intended, at least in part, to probe what powers the Bill seeks to give or to remove. We have heard concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey about some of the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness.
I hope that because most of my comments related to the determination of the salary the Minister will recognise the concerns behind the amendments on salaries, reflect that in her response, respond to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Harris about the provision that appears to prohibit an elected policing body from entering into a collaboration agreement with another elected local policing body, and explain the Government’s thinking behind that.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the Bill provides for the Home Secretary to determine the salary of Police and Crime Commissioners. These are unique positions, being directly elected. The Home Secretary has asked the Senior Salaries Review Board to make recommendations to the appropriate levels of pay by September this year. The SSRB is now calling for evidence to help it to decide on its recommendations. Furthermore, the SSRB will consult with partners as it considers appropriate, and this will ensure further that its recommendation takes into account the views of relevant groups.
Specifically, the Home Secretary has asked the SSRB to recommend pay arrangements that are adequate to encourage, retain and motivate candidates of sufficient quality; recognise the extremely challenging fiscal climate and wider constraints of public funding; meet the demands and expectations of the public in terms of getting value for money; reflect the essence of the role as an elected public figurehead and ambassador; provide transparency and robustness in determining PCC pay levels; recommend an approach to establishing PCC pay levels that is simple to administer and is based on a range of single salary points pay structures; and take account of, where applicable, the salary levels and responsibilities of other similar roles in the wider public sector, including elected executive mayors, MPs and MEPs. We believe that these requirements will ensure a fair pay level for PCCs, which I believe is the concern expressed by noble Lords.
The salary payable to a chief constable is one benchmark, but only one. There are other criteria that must be considered, such as demographics. In any event, the job of a chief constable is very different to that of a PCC. The SSRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration of holders of judicial office, senior civil servants, senior officers of the armed forces, and other such public appointments as may from time to time be specified. We believe that the SSRB is the right body to provide independent advice on the levels of PCCs’ salaries. Noble Lords have said that these are probing amendments, and I therefore ask for them to be withdrawn or not moved.
I turn now to contracts. The wording used in the Bill,
“contracts and other agreements (whether legally binding or not)”,
is designed to make it clear that the mayor’s office and the PCC can enter into contracts—in other words, agreements creating legal rights and liabilities, and agreements with no legal force, such as memoranda of understanding, protocols or service-level agreements. If the proposed amendments were made, the Bill would merely refer to “agreements”. Because a legally binding contract is a kind of agreement, we would say that the PCC would still be able to enter into a contract and there would not actually be any effect on the scope of the PCC’s powers.
I turn now to the amendments in relation to protection from personal liability. I understand that the intention is to reduce the protection available to the office of the PCC and its staff by reversing the burden of proof in relation to whether a questioned act or omission was done in good faith. Under the Bill as it stands, a person who challenged an act or omission of the PCC would have to prove that it was done in bad faith. The effect of the amendments would be that it would be for the PCC to prove that the questioned act was done in good faith. The concern here is with civil proceedings where the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Whether it is the claimant who has to prove that it is more likely than not that the PCC acted in bad faith, or the PCC who has to prove that it is more likely than not that it acted in good faith, is unlikely to matter in most cases.
I should also stress that these provisions are concerned only with the personal liability of the person holding the office of commissioner for policing and crime and their employees. The provisions do not restrict the liability of the office itself, and a claimant harmed by an act or omission of the PCC or their staff in the exercise of their functions would still have legal redress against the office.
Bearing in mind the high-profile nature of the role of the PCC and the difficult issues that it will have to deal with, it may be a tempting target for legal challenge. We would not want the office or its staff to carry out their duties in a defensive fashion, out of fear of attracting personal legal liability for their actions. Rather, the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance in allowing the legitimate claimant legal redress, while giving the PCC a sensible level of legal protection.
Much has been said about the supply of goods and services. I should stress that Clause 15(3) merely replicates Section 18(3) of the Police Act 1996, which applies to police authorities at present. The provision is not new. Noble Lords asked particularly about this, and perhaps I may examine what the amendments would do. We do not believe that there is a particular advantage in using the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 with policing partners instead of the Police Act collaboration agreement provisions. The 1970 Act simply allows for agreements to be made about the provision of goods and services. However, when both parties concerned are policing bodies, making an agreement under the 1970 Act would circumvent the safeguards in the police collaboration provisions of the Police Act 1996, which would take priority. For example, there would be no requirement to have regard to any guidance issued by the Home Secretary to provide advice on best practice in drawing up agreements, and there would be no requirement for consultation with the relevant chief constables before making the agreement.
Other noble Lords have raised the matter of panels in this group of amendments. Although I recognise the intention to ensure that all panels, regardless of how they are established, are treated equally in the provision of financial resources, that is already the case. It is for that reason that I resist the amendments. Funding for all panels will be borne by the Secretary of State, regardless of whether they are established by local authorities or by the Secretary of State. For panels established by local authorities, paragraph 11 of Schedule 6 makes clear that it is for local authorities themselves to decide how that money is paid to or distributed between themselves. The Secretary of State will provide funds amounting to those required for a scrutiny officer and to cover running costs of meetings, which will be distributed at the discretion of the legal authority. That leaves local authorities the freedom to establish their own processes.
For panels established by the Secretary of State, in the case of Wales, or where no panel was formed under other circumstances, it cannot be left to local authorities to make those arrangements. In those cases, the Secretary of State will work directly with the panel to provide financial resources. That is what paragraph 20 of Schedule 6 provides. The liabilities of police and crime panels established by local authorities will be borne by the relevant local authorities, as they are with other local authority committees. The liabilities relating to panels established by the Secretary of State will be borne by the Secretary of State.
If I have not answered any specific questions, some of which were quite technical, I apologise and I will ensure that they are responded to by letter. I hope that, under the circumstances, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord is quite right to chide me. In fact, as I was saying it, I remembered my words to him earlier; they were ringing in the back of my mind. This is not about the electorate; this is about the motivations of the candidate who is not as worthy as we would like to apply for these positions. If the salary has been set by a body such as the SSRB, through the Home Secretary, it is complete and divorced from anything that a candidate might say in seeking to put themselves forward or any questions a candidate may be asked during their selection.
Lord Rosser
I hope that the noble Baroness would accept that even if the Secretary of State was determining the salary, someone could fight an election knowing what the salary was and running their campaign on the basis that they would send half of it back.
Baroness Browning
Off the top of my head, given that many people’s salaries are set by the SSRB—I declare an interest that for many years mine was—I do not recall any of them sending any of it back.
Lord Rosser
Does that not show that the fears just expressed by the Minister are unlikely ever to occur?
Baroness Browning
No, my Lords, because in another place, where I served for nearly 20 years, it was not an uncommon practice—not when one appeared before the electorate but in the selection process—for people to be asked about their financial position with a view to that influencing the selection process. I think it is much healthier to have that professionally assessed and divorced from anything to do with either the selection or the election of the police and crime commissioners.