Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

He did say that, and I am glad to receive my right hon. Friend’s praise for reading the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee. I do so on behalf of the shadow Policing Minister, who read it in even greater detail.

The question of new panels points to another flaw in the Bill. There is one area in which the Home Secretary has agreed that the panels actually will have power, and it is the one in which we would think an elected police commissioner ought to have legitimacy—the setting of the precept. Rather bizarrely, on abolishing police authorities and establishing the panels, the one power that the Home Secretary gives the panels is to veto any proposal for a rise in the precept by the elected police commissioner. The commissioner will not have the power to set the precept without veto from the panel, and apparently will not be involved in operational policing, so it is not clear what they will be able to do. They will be even less powerful than the police authorities are at the moment.

I will not go into detail on the issue of political advisers, because we have done to death the mistake of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice in saying to The Guardian that staff of the policing and crime commissioners will not be able to be members of political parties. It is absolutely clear that he is wrong about that and that they will be so able.

The Home Affairs Committee report is very instructive on the matter of operational responsibility. The problem is that one individual will be elected solely on a policing mandate and will stand alongside a chief constable. That makes the definition of operational responsibility very important. As I asked the Home Secretary earlier, what will happen if a commissioner is elected on a mandate of, for example, abolishing speed cameras or introducing water cannon—if the Home Secretary allows that—and the chief constable says, “No, in my judgment that is not required operationally”? Who will decide? I am afraid that the lack of clarity on that issue raises the spectre of politicisation in certain circumstances. That will need to be discussed in Committee, because the Home Affairs Committee was right to say that without a proper definition, a memorandum and a way of getting the situation clear, there is an inevitable risk of politicisation, which is exactly the fear of police chiefs across the country.

The final point that we hear regularly is that London is somehow a model. Of course, in London the Mayor is elected not for policing but for a wider range of powers. He tried to get involved in the hiring and firing of commissioners, but decided that it was inappropriate because it risked politicisation, and had to stand aside for his non-elected deputy to take over responsibility for the matter backed by a police authority of elected members from the Greater London authority with proper powers. The Home Secretary invents reasons why the model that she proposes cannot apply to London, but the reason is that it has been tried there and did not work.

I want to address some of the wider issues in Bill. They cover only one third of the clauses, and our intention, where possible, will be to seek consensus on these proposals. The Bill contains a number of changes to the licensing regime and to powers for councils that build upon, rather than reversing, the licensing reforms of the past decade. If the Bill receives its Second Reading today, we will clearly need to examine the proposals in detail in Committee, but we will support extra powers to enable local communities and the police to keep public order to ensure that people can enjoy a night out in a safe and secure manner.

We will look into the proposals on drugs in detail, but at this point, we cautiously welcome the temporary banning orders that the Home Secretary is proposing. However, there is a suggestion, in the changes to the role of the advisory committee, of a move away from evidence-based policy making on drugs. That gives us some cause for concern, and we shall need to look closely at the matter in Committee. As we heard from the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the devil will be in the detail, as it was with the reform of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. We will look closely at the detail of the proposals in Committee.

We will also probe the details of the clauses on universal jurisdiction in Committee. The Opposition believe strongly in the importance of universal jurisdiction, and we will support the proposed changes to make it work more effectively in each of the relevant areas. We will seek to achieve consensus in Committee, but, as I have said, these measures add up to less than one third of the clauses in the Bill, and as far as the policing issues are concerned, it has been very hard to be the shadow Secretary Of State.

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

I should first declare that I am a member of the Kent police authority and that I support our abolition. I should also correct the right hon. Gentleman: our chair is not a Conservative. On the issue of operational independence, surely Ministers have made it very clear that there should be no interference by politicians on matters of individual investigation or arrest. Does he not agree, however, that it is quite proper for there to be democratic oversight of the broader issues of strategy and of the setting of budget priorities?

[Ed Balls]

I fully agree about the importance of that middle tier of political accountability for chief constables. What I and many other experts fear, however, is that if one individual is elected on a direct mandate for policing, it will be very hard indeed to prevent their supposed mandate from crossing operational dividing lines. That does not happen now, because each police authority—half of which comprises independents, the other half of which is indirectly elected—covers a number of areas and often comprises a number of political parties. They ensure that there is a collective sense that operational responsibilities are properly respected. I have no doubt that some elected police and crime commissioners will want to respect operational independence, but I have no doubt that individuals might be elected on a mandate that explicitly crosses that line. Unless that element of the Bill is sorted out quickly, we will end up with an expensive politicisation of policing in this country that will overturn 170 years of policing tradition.

I have looked carefully to find support for the Bill. I have already quoted Sir Hugh Orde and ACPO. I have also quoted the Association of Police Authorities. Police superintendents take the same view, as do Liberty and the Local Government Association. I have spoken on this matter at two conferences where I have urged anyone in the room who supports the proposals to identify themselves to me privately afterwards, because no one will dare admit to it publicly. As a member of a responsible Opposition, I want to know the arguments, yet nobody will come forward. It is very hard indeed to find anyone who supports this policy.

As a result of assiduous research by our shadow team, however, I have identified three organisations that support the proposal. The first is a think-tank called Policy Exchange. Yes, it is the think-tank that was founded by the Secretary of State for Education, and the think-tank that said that the solution to unemployment in the north was for people to move to the south. Mr Blair Gibbs made the case for these commissioners on behalf of that organisation. He was in fact chief of staff to the Policing Minister between 2007 and 2010.

The second organisation is called Direct Democracy, which included in its book “Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party” a chapter on the case for independent police commissioners. Yes, that is the Direct Democracy that was founded by the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and by the Tory MEP Mr Daniel Hannan—he who described the NHS as a “60-year mistake”. Unfortunately, the chapter in the book was authored by the Policing Minister himself.

The third organisation is a think-tank called Reform. In its 2009 pamphlet, it also advocated this policy. Yes, the Reform think-tank is now headed by the former Tory central office head of political research, and it was founded by the Policing Minister. So there we have it: a former chief of staff to the Minister, a chapter written by the Minister and a think-tank founded by the Minister. Unusually for the coalition, the Minister responsible for the policy actually supports it, which is quite a turn-up for the books.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I cannot. I would normally, but I have not got time. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

As we have seen from the police grant reports today, every single police force will be under huge financial pressure, yet the Government want to spend more than £100 million on these commissioners, equivalent to the cost of 600 full-time officers. This organisational change will happen in May 2012, just before the Olympics, and in 2012-13, the year of the biggest cuts.

Who wants this? The Minister must tell us who is demanding these so-called reforms. We have seen in The Guardian today that the APA is completely opposed to the reforms—the letter is from Conservative, Independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat members. Liberty is opposed to them, so are the LGA and the police. We have a so-called listening Government who are, frankly, telling people that they know best.

The Minister has failed to answer the questions. If the commissioner is elected based on a particular proposal, who will decide? The elected commissioner or the chief constable? If I am an elected commissioner and I promise that every police officer will be visible and on the street, but the chief constable says, “No, I want some for domestic violence, for cross-border organised crime, for tackling economic fraud and for child protection,” who will decide? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said, the Government have a duty to be clearer about where that dividing line will occur and about what operational independence and operational responsibility mean. We have no clarity about that in the Bill.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vernon Coaker]

I cannot; I have not got time.

I have dealt with subject of the wrong level of accountability, and it is also unclear how police and crime panels are to work. Are they to hold commissioners to account or to work with them to deliver what they want? They have a power of veto in only two areas—namely the precept, or budget, and the appointment of the chief constables—but they must have a three-quarters majority for that veto to be effective. That is a greater majority than the Government have passed for the Dissolution of Parliament. A three-quarters majority would mean that virtually every person on the police and crime panel would have to agree for that veto to happen.

In conclusion, the political independence of the police is as important in a democracy as the independence of the courts. Political views and opinions may ebb and flow, but the police remain. That allows every individual, whatever their race, religion or politics, to feel protected. A single person who is politically motivated elected to oversee the police will make it increasingly difficult to ensure that this political independence is maintained. For that reason, above all, the Government must think again.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I apologise to the House for the fact that I had briefly to leave the debate. I was attending and addressing a meeting in the House of London members of the Police Superintendents Association, as were Opposition Front Benchers.

It has clearly largely been a good debate and I welcome the constructive comments that have been made and that have been reported to me. I shall attempt to respond to as many as I can either now or, if appropriate, later. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), mentioned his report and we are paying the closest attention to its recommendations, which we think are very considered. Like the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, he mentioned the importance of operational independence. We all agree about that and we all want to protect it. The Chairman of the Committee suggested that a memorandum of understanding might be the means by which that could be achieved. That is a good idea and the Government have already said that we will sit down with ACPO once the Bill is enacted and agree an extra-statutory protocol—I am sure that we can discuss these issues as the Bill makes progress—that will set out the terms of agreement to ensure that operational independence is protected. There is agreement between us and ACPO—it is important that the Opposition understand this—that we should not seek to define operational independence in the Bill. That is a matter for case law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made a number of important points and I shall respond in detail at the appropriate time, but let me deal with two of them now. We will be engaging with the Electoral Commission on its recommendations. He asked whether the strategic policing requirement could cover issues such as business crime. That is important, but the aim of the requirement is to cover issues of national importance on which co-ordination is required, such as counter-terrorism and serious organised crime, to ensure that elected police and crime commissioners and chief constables have regard to those cross-border issues. I am not sure whether that would be appropriate for the issues he raised, but it is worth discussing.

[Mark Reckless]

On the question of operational independence, one could get the impression from Opposition Members that police forces operate and are directed in a political vacuum. Surely, it is entirely appropriate that police authorities should determine whether Tasers, for example, should be used. None of us would expect police to start using water cannon and that sort of operational tactic without political permission and oversight.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree and the Home Secretary said exactly the same thing today. Such tactics are a matter for the operational responsibility of the police, but such major decisions have to be agreed with the police authorities that hold them to account locally.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made good speeches supporting our plans to toughen alcohol licensing. I welcome the Opposition’s support for those measures, but what a far cry it is from the claims of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) that Labour’s 24-hour drinking laws were about

“enriching the quality of people’s lives.”

How naive that was. We have seen the result of those laws—violence and disorder in our city and town centres. So, Labour now repudiates its ill-judged experiment with the so-called café culture, but it is clearly going to oppose the measures on police reform for opposition’s sake. That is not the position of the former Minister with responsibility for policing, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), however. Based on the notes I have seen, I think she made a thoughtful speech on the importance of accountability, although we may differ on the particular.

The shadow Home Secretary’s arguments against our proposals for police and crime commissioners are deeply unconvincing and he keeps getting things wrong. He attacked our statement on police funding today and got the numbers wrong. Last week, he said that the inspectorate of constabulary’s figures were “corrupt and erroneous”, but was then forced to retract those words. Today, he told the House that police and crime commissioners would have the power “to direct” policing, but that is simply wrong. Chief constables will retain control and direction of their forces, as it says in clause 2, which he should read. We are determined to protect the operational independence of chief constables. Police and crime commissioners will be able to set the policing plan with the agreement of the chief constable but they will not direct policing and nor should they.

The shadow Home Secretary said that the commissioners will be elected solely to run policing, but that will not be their sole job. They will be police and crime commissioners with wider powers and devolved budgets from the Home Office to fight crime and engage in crime prevention with the local community. If the right hon. Gentleman has such a good case, why does he need to invent objections to the Bill? He continues to assert that the commissioners will appoint political advisers, but we have repeatedly made it clear that we will not allow that. We do not want to politicise policing and we do not want spin in policing. We will not take any lectures about political advisers and spin from the friend of McBride and Whelan.