Police Federation Reform (Normington Report)

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have heard two excellent speeches from Opposition Members. I particularly welcome the decision of the Home Affairs Committee to look into this matter. In a Parliament that has been dominated by Select Committees, that is welcome. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has just made an excellent speech. I agree with him that this is not a political issue and that it is not about my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Indeed, 99% of police officers are good people to whom still we turn in times of trouble.

Over the past couple of hours I have ascertained that the flooding situation in my constituency is seriously deteriorating, so I hope that you will accept my apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, and forgive me if I do not stay for the whole debate.

Three words—transparency, accountability and credibility—go to the heart of today’s debate. They ought to describe the values of the Police Federation, which was set up by statute almost 100 years ago to protect the “interests and welfare” of rank and file officers, but they are conspicuously missing according to Sir David Normington’s devastating forensic review.

Our 21st century Police Federation has become a vehicle for a vocal minority to pursue their own personal agendas. That is punishing not just the public, to whom the independent statutory body is accountable, but some 130,000 members, many of whom are fed up with the antics of the federation reps who are bringing their profession into disrepute. I am struck by an independent poll that has found that 64% of the federation’s members are dissatisfied with its overall performance and 91% believe that it is time for the organisation to change. Those are opinion poll figures that any one of us would die for.

That vote of no confidence will have been consolidated by recent reports of the dismissal of a senior employee— Ms Fiona McElroy, the director of communications—after just three months because she dared to challenge the federation’s finances. Her deputy resigned in protest. As that resignation shows, finances are a touchy subject because cash is key. In Sir David’s words, finances

“are inextricably linked with some of the deeper cultural, structural and operational changes“

that he is trying to bring about. One of his recommendations is to publish for the public to see all accounts from which the federation derives income or to which it contributes revenue. In particular, we need greater transparency about the so-called No. 2 accounts, which are generated from fees in addition to membership subscriptions for additional legal and support services. Those accounts, held by several local federation branches, are worth an estimated £50 million, but they are largely kept off the books. Only 7 out of 43 local federation branches disclose details on their annual return. Why the secrecy? This cynic would say that secrecy is a pretty good way of avoiding scrutiny.

Let me pick up on the point that was made earlier about it being perfectly legitimate for the police to fund legal actions to protect their members. What needs to be scrutinised is why this organisation, which is secretive about its finances, is funding libel actions. It cannot be right for a police officer, who is after all a public servant, to be backed by the might of a multi-million pound outfit that is shrouded in secrecy to sue members of the public who do not have the resources to defend themselves. That seems an improper use of money for a statutory body that was established to look after its members, in cases ranging from misconduct allegations to personal injury claims, and, of course, genuinely to serve the public good.

This week, the human rights group Liberty has spoken out against this “dangerous” precedent, which it believes breaches the right to freedom of expression and other articles under the Human Rights Act. The public must be able to defend themselves against police claims without fear of civil proceedings, and Liberty raises concerns about the “discriminatory inequality of arms”, as police get financial support from the federation. Its excellent director, Shami Chakrabarti, says:

“It would effectively place officers beyond criticism, silencing those wanting to protest their innocence.”

I agree. What right does the federation have to pursue bloody-minded campaigns against individuals? Do these actions serve the public good, or do they serve the interests of the federation’s own members at a time when they are facing major policing reforms and changes to working conditions?

Sir David’s review described the federation’s opposition to police reforms and personal attacks as “strategic failures” and highlighted the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, among others, as an example of the extent to which

“some representatives feel they can pursue local action and campaigns regardless of the impact on the wider federation and the views of their colleagues.”

Just reading those words, one realises that they are out of touch. The price they pay is not just bringing the federation into disrepute, but risking the police’s reputation for impartiality and integrity. I cannot agree more with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that as far as that particular case is concerned, it is time to move on.

The federation’s dual accountability to its members and to the public has always been an implicit part of its statutory purpose. However, implication, by definition, is not a strong enough deterrent for some of the bad practice we have seen. There is evidence in the review that despite regulations containing

“a clear ethos of transparency”

in areas such as funding, for example, the spirit of those regulations is not adhered to.

In my judgment, only legislation can define a clear and non-negotiable core purpose for the federation. Only legislation can compel the federation to review its commitment to serving its members honestly, with integrity and with the public interest at heart, and only legislation can restore trust in the federation.

We know that the federation is resistant to change. Since the publication of Sir David’s review, we have seen nothing concrete to suggest that the federation will adopt its recommendations in full. The federation’s chairman has agreed that “deep cultural change” is needed, but actions speak louder than words, and my suspicion is that no matter how persuasive the proposed reforms are, a “powerful minority” will continue to do everything they can to protect their own positions and self-interest.

In conclusion, today we have an opportunity to give those three words—transparency, accountability, credibility—real meaning. I believe, and I hope that the Minister will take this on board, that legislating is a critical first step for Parliament in testing the federation’s commitment to meaningful change.

Guantanamo Civil Litigation Settlement

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest in this subject, and immediately afterwards we have a ten-minute rule motion followed by the first day in Committee of a very important constitutional Bill, so there is a premium on brevity from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members alike.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Having been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the past five years, I have reached the uncomfortable conclusion that if there is not to be a total breakdown in the intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States, my right hon. and learned Friend has reached the right conclusion. However, does he agree that he must now find a way of conducting such litigation without compromising national security? Has he considered expanding the scope of the Green Paper from civil cases to criminal cases?

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible proposition. The same issues arise, and I will certainly bear his suggestion in mind. The problem crops up over and over again. We currently have an inquest into the highly important matter of the explosions on 7 July, which has decided to extend itself into an inquiry into the activities of the intelligence services in informing themselves about possible risks to security throughout the country. Wholly foreseeably, it has run crash into the problem of exactly what evidence is supposed to be adduced about that in public. I have no idea—it is for Lady Justice Hallett to resolve—how we move on in that particular case. The Green Paper will be difficult. It will be difficult to reach clear conclusions, but we wish to do so as quickly as possible and the purpose of the Green Paper is to address that problem so that we can be sure that justice is done without compromising national security. At the moment, there is a tendency for claimants, the security service and everyone else to get bogged down in interminable litigation and judicial review. That has to be resolved.