PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

POLICE REFORM AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BILL

Fifth Sitting Tuesday 25 January 2011 (Morning)

CONTENTS Written evidence reported to the House. Clause 1 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 PBC (Bill 116) 2010 - 2011 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 29 January 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 135 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 136 Responsibility Bill

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: MR JOE BENTON,MR CHRISTOPHER CHOPE,†MR GEORGE HOWARTH,MR GARY STREETER

† Brokenshire, James (Parliamentary Under-Secretary † Macleod, Mary (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con) of State for the Home Department) † Mills, Nigel (Amber Valley) (Con) † Burley, Mr Aidan (Cannock Chase) (Con) † Offord, Mr Matthew (Hendon) (Con) † Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab) † Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland † Crockart, Mike (Edinburgh West) (LD) South) (Lab) Donaldson, Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP) † Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab) † Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab) † Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) † Ellis, Michael (Northampton North) (Con) † Wright, Jeremy (Lord Commissioner of Her † Herbert, Nick (Minister for Policing and Criminal Majesty’s Treasury) Justice) † Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD) James Rhys, Committee Clerk † Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) † McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) † attended the Committee 137 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 138 Responsibility Bill Amendment 104, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, leave out Public Bill Committee subsection (9). Amendment 105, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end add Tuesday 25 January 2011 ‘in those areas selected to pilot schemes for directly elected policing and crime commissioners in accordance with subsection (1).’.

(Morning) Vernon Coaker: May I begin, Mr Howarth, by welcoming you to the Chair? The two Chairs under whom we served during the evidence sessions are away, but it is [MR GEORGE HOWARTH in the Chair] very good to be here under your chairmanship. I also say good morning to the rest of the Committee. I have Police Reform and Social Responsibility debated with two or three of the Government members of the Committee a number of times, so I know that Bill this will be an interesting exchange in the best spirit and traditions of the word. Written evidence to be reported to the The amendments would establish pilots. One of the premises behind the Bill is that crime and policing are in House crisis. However, figures released just last week continue PR 86 West Midlands Police Authority to show significant falls in crime. The figures to September PR 87 Judy Griffiths 2010 show that recorded crime is down by 7%, and that PR 88 Ian Collins MBII is on top of—the Association of Police Authorities briefing tells us this—a 30% fall in crime year on year PR 89 Phil Simmons over the past decade. According to the most recent PR 90 Andrew Cochrane British crime survey, crime is at its lowest level for three PR 91 Council for Arab British Understanding (CAABU) decades. It dipped below 10 million offences with a PR 92 Palestine Solidarity Campaign 9% fall last year to the lowest level since comparable records began. We also learn from the APA that figures PR 93 Our Life showing confidence in the police are rising, although PR 94 De Grazia Associates Ltd they are still not high enough—none of us would say that they were. The Government’s Bill says that change is needed, and although hon. Members will see from Clause 1 our amendments that we accept that the status quo needs to be examined and changed, we do not accept that the measure is made necessary because of a dramatic POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS crime problem or a major problem with confidence in the police. 10.30 am Although some of the witnesses from whom we heard Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab): I beg to move last week said that they did not believe in pilots, it is amendment 102, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end important to note that hardly any of them supported insert— what the Government are doing. When the Minister responds to the debate, it will be interesting if he will tell ‘(1) The Secretary of State may put in place arrangements for pilot schemes to trial directly elected policing and crime us who supports their actions—apart from himself, the commissioners in a minimum of two police areas and a whipped Government Members sitting behind him and maximum of four police areas under Schedule 1 to the Police Act a couple of people around No. 10 Downing street. In 1996. other words, why is a pilot not necessary? (2) These pilot schemes must be independently assessed as to So many people support a pilot that it is a given that their success in strengthening policing governance and reducing we ought to conduct one. When hon. Members talk to governance costs after 12 months and the findings of such their local councillors, police authorities and everyone independent assessment must be laid before Parliament for scrutiny. else, I do not think that they will find that their constituencies are full of people demanding the introduction (3) Parliament must then make recommendations to the of police and crime commissioners. In fact, I have not Secretary of State as to whether directly elected policing and crime commissioners should be put in place in every police area heard one person demanding that—I do not know in England and Wales. whether anyone else has. Perhaps the Government’s (4) The Secretary of State must have regard to Parliament’s deliberate ploy is to sneak this through without anyone recommendations. realising what is happening. No one has come to my (5) In those areas selected to pilot schemes for directly elected surgery to say that there is a problem, so let us hold the policing and crime commissioners, the following arrangements pilots and see whether people want these measures. shall be put in place.’. Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more important to have The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss these pilots in Wales, where many areas of government, the following: such as local government, health and all the partnerships Amendment 103, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out that help to combat crime, are devolved? We need to from ‘each’ to end of line 8 and insert learn lessons prior to full implementation, especially in ‘police area selected for pilot schemes in accordance with subsection (1).’. areas such as Wales. 139 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 140 Responsibility Bill Vernon Coaker: I agree with that. The Minister for Vernon Coaker: The honest answer is that I do not Policing and Criminal Justice is responsible for policing know, but when the Minister responds to the debate, it in England and Wales, so I want him to tell us who in will be interesting to hear his answer to my hon. Friend’s Wales supports what he is doing. According to the question. submissions that we have received from Police Authorities Members of the Committee might not have noticed of Wales, it is totally opposed to what the Government this, but pilots are now even more necessary, following are doing, yet the Minister ploughs on because he the withdrawal of amendment 7. That Liberal thinks that he knows better. This is an important point, Democrat amendment was originally going to be the because if there was huge pent-up demand and people lead amendment of the third group on the selection were saying, “We would have better policing on our list. We would have supported the interesting proposal streets and we would improve how we tackle crime if that it put forward, so it is regrettable that it has been only we had police and crime commissioners,” there withdrawn. If Liberal Democrat Members do not wish would be no need for pilots. to return to it, we will. Liberal Democrat members of the Committee are part of the Government, yet the I would have thought that those who have opposed fact that they tabled an amendment stating that a the scheme in their written submissions to us would referendum should take place in every area means that welcome pilots so that they could find out whether they they have similar concerns to those that lead me to say were completely wrong. Authorities either oppose what that there should be pilots. In a sense, that amendment the Government are doing or have real concerns about was an attempt to determine who was in favour of it. I would suggest that Surrey police authority does not police and crime commissioners. It would have let local support the Government—it has real concerns about or people have their say, because there is no groundswell opposes the scheme. Staffordshire police authority’s of opinion. submission will be of interest to the hon. Member for I will be interested to hear why the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, who will have read it and will, no Cambridge has withdrawn amendment 7, although I doubt, have received correspondence from the authority. know the real reason—the hon. Member for Cannock That excellent document expresses opposition to what Chase, to whom he is talking, has done a good job. the Government are doing. The police authorities of However, I do not believe that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Chester, Cambridge woke up yesterday and thought, “My God, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, and Avon and Somerset, I have made a terrible mistake. That amendment I as well as Police Authorities of Wales, have all written put down simply did not make sense and I will to say to the Government, “You’ve got this wrong.” withdraw it.” They say one of three things: that the model is wrong; I ask your indulgence, Mr Howarth, because while I that they have real concerns; or that the Government am talking about amendment 7, it is directly relevant to should not be doing this. amendment 102 and pilots. Where is the groundswell of opinion? The hon. Members for Cambridge and for A pilot would give the Government an opportunity. Edinburgh West clearly wished to test where there is It would allow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase to support for police and crime commissioners, which is say to Staffordshire police authority, “Don’t worry. my point. That support could be determined through a I think you’re wrong, but I’m not determined or arrogant referendum in which local people could vote to say, enough to say that I’m right and you’re wrong. We’ll “Absolutely. We want police and crime commissioners have a pilot and then let’s see who’s right.” That would in our area. Goodness me, Cambridgeshire would be so be a good thing for him to say to the police authority, much better with a police and crime commissioner.” given that it is totally opposed to what the Government Alternatively, it should be determined by holding pilots are doing. Every member of the Committee needs to in the areas that are demanding them. understand this issue. I know that the Minister is in favour of the scheme and that he thinks it is right—he is not doing this for The Chair: Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. fun—but I ask him, in all sincerity, given that virtually Gentleman’s flow, but he must speak to amendments every person who has given evidence or who has written that have been selected, rather than ones that have been to the Committee believes that what the Government withdrawn. I understand why he feels the need to make are doing is wrong, how is it possible that they are all his point, but he must now concentrate on the amendments wrong and he is right? Amendment 102 would give us before us. an opportunity to test his argument. Let us see whether all the people who have written to us have got it wrong Vernon Coaker: That was very helpful, Mr Howarth, and whether the Government have seen the light because because I was about to move on from amendment 7. the establishment of PCCs will transform policing in I just wanted to make the point that the reason for its this country. withdrawal is interesting. The withdrawal of amendment 7 makes amendment 102 Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend has given a comprehensive even more important, because the pilot would test the list of those opposed to the scheme. If there is no operation of the clause with respect to PCCs. We have groundswell of opinion among professionals, what is suggested that the pilots should take place in two or the Con-Dems’ true reason for advancing the scheme? four police areas, but the Government could have three The only evidence that we have heard in favour of it so or six. No doubt—this is why a pilot could take place far has come from a few odd—and most of them are rather than a referendum—queues of authorities will odd—Liberal Democrat councillors. What is the Con-Dems’ demand to be part of the pilot schemes, although it true reason for pushing the issue so strongly? would be interesting to know how many. 141 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 142 Responsibility Bill Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): May I put submissions we received talked about the need for shadow forward the suggestion that the Liberal Democrats have arrangements for transition, because of the lack of withdrawn their amendment because they have been clarity about the changeover from one system to another. convinced by our argument and they intend to roll One stops and another starts. My hon. Friend is right to behind us and support amendment 102? point out some of the difficulties. A pilot would demonstrate what those difficulties were. Vernon Coaker: Mr Howarth, you have reminded me of the appropriate amendment under discussion, so I What does the Minister think is going to happen will not stray. Of course, however, any member of the nationally? What will be the consequence of moving Committee is free to support our amendment. from one system straight into another, with no shadowing or transition arrangements and no real clarity in the Bill We are considering an extremely important change. about what will happen? People in police authorities I have found virtually no one—whether a chief constable, and police forces up and down the country are really a police authority, the Local Government Association worried about the management and structural changes or an organisation—who supports the plans, and I that are going to take place without any evidence about challenge any hon. Member to do so. Against the army the consequences or any certainty. My hon. Friend of people and organisations that are opposed to the makes the point that the Government know there is a idea, one or two support it. That is why we should run problem in that respect, which is why they have shadow pilots, because we can then test the system and see arrangements in place for mayors, to iron out problems whether they are wrong and the Minister is right. and look at difficulties. Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) We know, as I have said, that all the police authorities (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that Northumbria police that I listed, along with the LGA, oppose the measure. authority volunteered to pilot an alternative model in a The APA, Liberty, Justice and the National Society for submission to the Home Affairs Committee? It suggested the Prevention of Cruelty to Children oppose it—the a number of alternatives to the Government’s proposals. list goes on. Last week, the police officers who gave Given that a police authority is clearly willing to pilot good evidence to us were very professional and said an alternative, surely the Government should look again they would do their duty, and of course they will do at the proposals and consider that. whatever the Government put in place. However, the response to the Bill from the police service in terms of Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend makes a good point. support is deafening. I do not meet many police officers As I understand it, Northumbria announced that it was in private who think this is a good idea. I am speaking willing to make changes and to improves, but in the way not only about all the police authorities but about that it wanted to, rather than according to the model police officers themselves. that has been set out. One of the important things about a pilot—Northumbria is a good example, and I do not often object to political debate. Many Members others may want to come forward—is that local people may wonder what I am talking about, and may not and the local authority would decide that they wanted agree. [Interruption.] That is good to know. Some of us to participate. I would have thought that the Government’s have suggested pilots or have tabled amendments looking localism agenda would support pilots, because local at different models of accountability. It is wrong to authorities would be demanding to be part of the frame the debate, as is sometimes done, as if those who change, testing the system for the Government, and oppose the measure are dinosaurs or are not progressive, being at the forefront of the radical change that everybody or simply want to defend the status quo. There are good wants, even if they do not realise how good it is. The reasons why people oppose it. They think that it lacks localism agenda fits well with the amendment that we clarity or could have unforeseen and unintended have tabled. consequences. It is wrong to say that those people believe that everything about the current system is 10.45 am perfect and works as well as it should, or that we could not do better. Where there is virtual unanimity in opposing Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Is my what the Government propose, a Committee of the hon. Friend as perplexed as I am about the apparent House and Members of Parliament ought to recognise inconsistency in Government thinking over these matters? that. The Government should not just plough on regardless. In the area of local government, the Government are That is the point of the amendment. I will come to some obviously determined to have directly elected mayors. of the other problems that must be addressed, as I am In that scenario, they are prepared to have shadow interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but that mayors, so that people can see what will happen and is the point of the amendment. Let us see whether what how it will work, iron out difficulties, then subject it to a has been said and my concerns are wrong. main election. In this situation, they take an entirely different approach: they impose the election first and The police and other organisations are not the only leave us to find out the results and problems as a bodies discussing the measures. My hon. Friend the consequence. Where is the consistency in what the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South mentioned Government are trying to achieve? Northumbria police authority. Ian Loader and Rick Muir both support improvements to democratic Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend makes an excellent accountability and say that the current system is wrong. point: there is no consistency. When I address the need In their evidence to us, they said, “Yes, we agree with for a pilot, I will make the point that he has made about direct elections and with the need to change, but we arrangements. A police authority will introduce the don’t agree with this model.” As my hon. Friend said, budgets and policing arrangements for the new Northumbria and other places might pilot a different commissioner to take over in May 2012. Some of the model to test whether a single individual at the top or 143 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 144 Responsibility Bill several directly elected individuals are best. They might To be fair, there is a real issue about central versus see whether different models of police governance improve local. When we provide things locally, the Government the situation. always say, “Oh my God, we’ve given away all our Even those who support the Minister on the issue of power and everybody is asking us what we will do, when direct elections say that his proposed model is wrong we have no responsibility for it”. There is therefore a and that he needs to think again and change his mind. real dilemma, and my hon. Friend is right: if we give Why does he not use a pilot to see which model works something away locally, sooner or later, when we ask best? I have heard him expound the virtues of localism questions, the Government will get it back because they on many occasions and talk at great length and with will not know what the answer is. It is a real problem. eloquence about how important it is that local people We are suggesting that there should be pilots; I have make decisions. Why is he imposing structures from the set out the context for them and why we need them. centre on the local level irrespective of what local people However, there are a number of important points that tell him? Because what they say to him does not fit his the Minister needs to answer. First, we could see through point of view. That is not localism; it is central diktat. the pilots whether politicisation of the police, which When I was a Minister, and the Minister and the some people say is something to be concerned about, is Under-Secretary were in opposition, they used to accuse just a myth or a handy argument, or whether there is me of knowing better than local people. It is amazing real truth in that claim. I say that because people really how things change. I distinctly remember being asked, are worried about the politicisation of the police. “Why does the Minister think he knows best? Why does Let me make a serious point to the Minister. Operational the Minister ride roughshod over local opinion? Why independence, or “operational responsibility” as Patten doesn’t the Minister test some of what he’s saying and called it, is crucial. I know that the Minister accepts see whether it actually works?” The amendment provides that, but he needs to ensure that a draft code of practice, an opportunity for them to put into practice what they or memorandum of understanding, is made available to said just a few months ago when they were in opposition. the Committee. Is it really the case that a few months into a new We have tabled new clause 2, which we will come on Government, all the rhetoric that we heard about localism to discuss. However, if we are talking about a pilot to and central diktat has now been put in the dustbin, test politicisation, there should be a code of practice, as and that they are determined in power to impose the Select Committee on Home Affairs discussed. I believe on—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary shakes his that the Minister himself has said that a code of practice head. Let local people decide what they want for their needs to be considered. If the Government are considering own area. The Bill will not do so. It will impose on them establishing a code of practice or a memorandum of a model of police governance that the Government understanding that sets out the responsibilities of the think is best, irrespective of what local people, local chief constable vis-à-vis the police and crime commissioner, authorities and local councils say. a draft of that code should be made available to the Committee so that we can look at it and see what we Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way think of it. Although it would not have the force of for the third time. One of the supposed reasons why the legislation, it would give us an idea of what might Con-Dems are proposing the measures is to get power actually come to pass. closer to the people in the name of localism. Could there be more sinister reasons? We have seen in many As I have said to the Minister, politicisation is a big Departments that the Con-Dems are changing what issue with respect to the Bill. The code of practice measurements and figures are collected and collated. would help, but so would a pilot. In fact, the code of Within policing, they have already downgraded the practice could be tested in the pilot. Members of this figures for antisocial behaviour and told police forces Committee, some of whom serve on the Home Affairs that they do not need to collect those figures any more. Committee will know from the evidence that they have They are manipulating the figures and saying that they received about the debate that is taking place about the are passing them down. need for operational responsibility. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West was a police officer and he knows If the measure takes off and police commissioners the fundamental importance of operational responsibility. are put in place, I can see a time when we as national That is why a code of practice was suggested by the elected representatives will table questions on antisocial Select Committee. Should such a code not be made behaviour and crime and Ministers—perhaps the Ministers available to the Committee? Should a draft not be here today—will answer that those figures are not collected produced, or suggestions about what might be included centrally any more. This power is being devolved to the in it? If there is no time to do that now, the pilots would regions. Ministers will do a Pontius Pilate and try to be a way of developing that code. Where is the code of wash their hands of national control of crime in this practice and what is the Minister’s answer to the claim country, because they know that the economic agenda about politicisation? that they are putting forward will increase crime. The pilots will also give us an opportunity to test the The Chair: Order. I remind Committee members— issue of local accountability. Many of us are concerned although these many months in, I should not need to about the fact that the Bill creates a force-wide remind them—that the purpose of an intervention is to commissioner. For example, there would be a force-wide make a brief point, usually a single point, and not a commissioner for the whole of Devon and Cornwall, an mini speech. area which, according to the APA, is 180 miles wide—good luck to the commissioner there. Dyfed-Powys police Vernon Coaker: Although it was very good, Mr Howarth, cover an area of 10,000 sq km. There are 2.5 million and I agree with the points that my hon. Friend the residents in Greater Manchester and there are Member for Vale of Clwyd made. 25 parliamentary constituencies in the west midlands. 145 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 146 Responsibility Bill [Vernon Coaker] PCC, irrespective of the fact that all the representations we have had from that area say that he is wrong. The If one of those forces piloted the measure we would be people of Derbyshire are not queuing up to tell the hon. able to see whether one person is able to act as the PCC Member for Amber Valley that they want a PCC. in that area. Why does the Minister think that so many people ask, “How can one PCC drive policing improvement Steve McCabe: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in areas as massive as that?”? in the west midlands, which has the second largest force in the country, the elected PCC would need to speak to 11 am 7,000 people every day of the year to have any sense The Minister has made a fundamental error with that he is in contact with the population he represents? respect to democratic accountability. If he piloted different models as, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Vernon Coaker: I did not realise that, but it is an Houghton and Sunderland South, Northumbria has interesting fact. The Minister will say that it does not suggested, he would be able to test them. The Minister matter, because it is not the job of the PCC to talk to has got it fundamentally wrong. I challenge any member everyone and it is not the job of the PCC to know every of this Committee to stand up and say that any of their community. constituents have come to them and said, “As my MP, I Provisions in the Bill put in place the PCC, but do not want you to tell my police force in Staffordshire”—or supersede the existing accountability arrangements. If their police force in Derbyshire—“that its fraud policy that is the case, where is the clarity—as the president of is completely wrong, its collaboration arrangements are the Association of Chief Police Officers has said—in completely wrong.” They do not come to us about that; what is supposed to happen? There is none. All the they come to us about youths at the end of their street, Minister does is make pronouncements. He does not noisy neighbours, drug dealing in the local car park and explain to the Committee, “This is what the PCC will other such issues. The model proposed by the Minister do; this is the relationship with local authorities; this is is flawed, as it represents the wrong level of democratic the relationship with local people.” He says, “The PCC accountability. He could pilot different models and see will be responsible for the strategic direction of policing whether I am wrong and he is right. in the area.” Frankly, most people will throw their The Minister may say, “The shadow Minister has got hands up and ask what on earth he is talking about. this completely wrong, because he does not understand That is why pilots are important, as my hon. Friend the that in the Bill there are all those local accountability Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak suggested, with big arrangements. All those things that will happen and all rural forces or an urban force. If the proposal were those things will establish local democratic accountability. piloted in areas with a huge force, it would be possible If the shadow Minister understood that, he would to test it and see whether it was right or wrong. realise that there will be the PCC at the top and all of On Second Reading, the Home Secretary spoke about those other people underneath. Those people would tell the PCC and criminal justice. The PCC is responsible the PCC about things locally, and the PCC would be for the strategic direction of policing, but what about able to sort it out and things would be fine.” I would not criminal justice? What is the relationship? Do we need believe him, and I do not think that most people would to say anything about what influence the PCC would do so either. I think most people, and many Government have? In my experience, some of the dissatisfaction is Members, too, think that there is a problem with the not because of the police; it is because of the criminal size of the areas that PCCs will cover. justice system. People have or have not gone to court, In my area of Nottinghamshire—again, we could test something has not happened in court, or something has this with a pilot—somebody living close to Leicester broken down—and the police get frustrated about that, will not see a PCC as relevant to the policing of issues too. In response, the Home Secretary seemed to say that local to them or to issues local to somebody living in the it was necessary to look at what the relationship would north of the county, which is virtually in Sheffield. It is be between the PCC and criminal justice. What are we just not tenable or feasible, yet the Minister says that we saying, actually? Again, if the proposal were piloted, we do not need pilots and that we do not need to test this; would know whether the establishment of a PCC made we can do it because he is right and everybody else is a real difference to confidence, with respect to the wrong. police, or whether the problem was not with the police, but with the criminal justice system and how that operated. Chris Ruane: The Minister is aware that the 42 or 43 police authorities in England and Wales are grouped I would like the Minister, in his response, to talk into families, which are likeminded, of equal size, and about the relationship between the PCC and the criminal with equal socio-demographic profiles. Does my hon. justice system, and about whether there is clarity that Friend think that there should be at least one pilot in proves there is no need for pilots. We need pilots because, each of those families? The PCCs might be right for to me, it is clear how totally unclear the Bill is on the police authorities of a certain size, but not for others. relationship between the PCC and police and crime We need a pilot in each family to get a picture before we panels. The Minister’s silence is completely deafening. have a national roll-out. What is the purpose of police and crime panels?

Vernon Coaker: That is absolutely right and it is the The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick point of the amendment. The Minister is so convinced Herbert): I have not spoken yet. that he is right and everybody else is wrong that he does not see the need for pilots and he does not see the need Vernon Coaker: I will walk out in a minute, with to test what he is saying. The Minister knows best. He heckling like that. I cannot stand the abuse. The Minister’s knows that Devon and Cornwall would do better with a silence, up until this Committee sitting, on the purpose 147 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 148 Responsibility Bill of police and crime panels has been deafening. The It is unclear to me, which is why I am asking such provision is unclear. I asked witnesses about the purpose. questions. The Minister must give us real clarity in The Bill says that the purpose is to have a bit of review, answering many of my points. Another concern is that, a bit of overview, a bit of something—what actually is as the Bill is drafted, police and crime commissioners it? Is it to hold the PCC to account? I cannot answer the may be focused purely on local issues, as we heard in question; it is for the Minister to answer. Surely, in a evidence. pilot, we could tease that out and see whether there is I may have misled the Minister. So that he does not something in there that makes sense. correct me for saying something wrong in Committee—I I know the Minister gets frustrated with all this, but have read the Bill again and I own up if I get something we are talking about a huge change. The president of wrong—I think that I said that the police and crime ACPO and the police, in their neutrality, have said that commissioners do not have to have regard to clause 79. the Bill is unclear. The only thing that is clear is its lack After re-reading the Bill, I think that they do. of clarity, but we should not make huge changes without Will the Minister explain, on the provisions in the Bill clarity. It is perfectly reasonable for me to say, “Pilot on police and crime commissioners and strategic matters, something”, in order to test it and see what the consequences why he thinks that a proper balance will be struck will be. The relationship between the PCC and the PCP between the local policing requirements and the strategic is not clear, and I will return to it in a minute. national policing requirements? Is it not better to test in a pilot whether that is the right way forward? There is a Steve McCabe: Is not the real difficulty of police and real danger, and we need to see how the system will crime panels, as one of the witnesses suggested, that operate. If somebody is elected on a mandate to pile that process has been developed in parallel? It is becoming more police on the street, or to do this or that, we need apparent that the Government developed the proposal to see how that will work vis-à-vis a chief constable, as an afterthought, having realised that putting one who may understand the need for such policies and give commissioner in charge of 2.6 million people would be them the priorities that they deserve, but who will also ludicrous to defend as an exercise in localism and want to give priority to sexual violence, counter-terrorism, accountability. domestic violence, fraud, economic crime and collaboration Vernon Coaker: That is absolutely right, which is why with other forces. Do we not need to see how that there is a lack of clarity about the role of police and works, before we allocate all such powers for every crime panels. The provision looks as if it was bolted on single police force in the country? As I have said, we to the Bill, because the Government decided to establish need a pilot to test the local versus the strategic. police and crime commissioners and, exactly as my hon. On an earlier point about elections, there is a need for Friend has pointed out, then thought: “Goodness me, pilots to see how they will work. My hon. Friend the we will really be attacked over one person looking after Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak talked about the a whole area—we need a police and crime panel.” importance of transition. Surely the Minister understands However, the relationship between the commissioners the real nervousness and worry that exist on that matter. and the panels is unclear. Will a pilot not help us to see how the transition from No doubt, the Minister will tell us that we do not our current arrangements to an elected police and crime need a pilot, because of what the role of the police and commissioner would work? crime panels is vis-à-vis that of the police and crime commissioners. He can say that he is perfectly satisfied 11.15 am that a pilot is not needed, because the way in which the police and crime panel will be able to veto the precept, Everyone can think of their own area. We have a with the requisite three-quarters majority, is fine. What police authority, which exists up until March or April of is the quorum, by the way? It would be interesting to next year. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he know that, or whether there is no quorum. expects the police authorities to finish. We know that we have the elections in May 2012. What does he expect In the appointment of the chief constable, the police to happen? The police authority currently sets the budget and crime panel has a veto, with the requisite majority, and the precept, so we need a pilot to see how this will although we do not know how that will work. Supposing work. that the police and crime commissioners are established, how will it work if one decides to sack the chief constable? When will the police authority exists until? Perhaps We have no idea of the consequences of that, but we are the Minister will tell us when the police authority will giving police and crime commissioners the absolute end. The election takes place in May 2012. When does power to do that, and police and crime panels will not the police commissioner take over? What happens to all have any power of veto. If a police and crime commissioner the staff and resources? Are the staff sacked or do they does not like the chief constable, he will have to go move on? What happens to all the property, the debt through the various procedures, but in the end that will and the various arrangements that the police authority be his decision. Unless I have read the Bill incorrectly, has taken on board? When it comes to the changeover the police and crime commissioner is omnipotent. I would point, will the police authority have to have an account like the Minister to tell us exactly what the police and of what the police and crime commissioner wants to crime commissioner’s powers are and, again, whether do? Again, there is no clarity in this. The Minister can we need a pilot to test whether there is any danger in the say that he will lay out what should happen in regulation, prospect of the police and crime commissioner exercising but surely if we had a pilot we could see whether the such powers. system worked or whether it led to confusion. I have spoken at length on those points, but they are A pilot would also help us to see how the elections real issues relating to why a pilot is needed. It might would work. We would see who was prepared to stand, seem unclear to the Committee what the answers are. how much interest there was, how many people rushed 149 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 150 Responsibility Bill forward to stand, and whether there is any credence to Steve McCabe: I want to make a couple of brief the worry that extremism may come from the direct comments in support of the amendment. My hon. elections for police and crime commissioners. The Minister Friend the Member for Gedling is absolutely right. The says that we need to trust the people. Surely a pilot difficulty with these proposals is the speed with which would help us to determine whether the concern about the Government have approached them. If they are a extremism carries any weight. good idea, it would be perfectly possible for the Minister to take people with him and demonstrate the merits of Steve McCabe: Would a pilot not allow us to test out the proposals. The difficulty that we have in dealing the costings of the measure? As far as I am aware, no with the legislation is the speed with which it has been information has been produced on that. The figure of introduced, because there is virtually no evidence to £50 million appears to have been agreed for the support some of the main elements of the proposals. comprehensive spending review. A pilot would enable The witness sessions that we had did not do much to us to test out whether the costings for the election are support the Government’s case. The difficulty is accurate, given the variety of areas and sizes of force fundamentally that this has been done too quickly. covered. It would also enable us to find out whether or The proposals look like change for the sake of change, not people understood the Government’s decision to which is hardly a Conservative philosophy. In fact, one have a first-past-the-post or an alternative vote system would have thought that that was almost what the depending on the number of candidates. I personally Conservative party existed to avoid. However, here think that that could be a recipe for confusion. the Conservatives are rushing into a radical set of changes—the provision is quite liberal in that respect— Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend makes a good point without bothering to think through the consequences. I as to why there is a need for a pilot. First, we would see do not know whether the difficulty is that the Bill is an how the Minister’s proposed electoral system would example of coalition thinking, but we would certainly work. Secondly, we could test out some of the costings, do a greater service to the police and the public if the over which there has been some dispute. We could see provision were to proceed at a more rational pace. whether or not the Minister’s costings are accurate. For I do not—I have not heard a single Minister explain example, we know that figures of £50 million and this—understand what the hurry is. So many issues are £100 million have been bandied about. Just as an aside, confronting the police at the moment in terms of funding at a time when police officers are being cut, it is amazing problems. For example, as part of major changes to the that the Government can find money for this. When the West Midlands police, it has had to undergo an exercise Minister responds, he may want to say that there is no called Project Paragon, which has involved rearranging need for a pilot, because the costings are absolutely the basic command units into much larger local policing secure. He may lay the figures on the record, so that units in anticipation of some of the funding issues that they can be analysed and scrutinised by everyone. will arise. The force is currently locked into that cycle of Let me conclude by saying that at the end of the day, change. On top of that, it has discovered that the what we all want—I know that the Minister wants this funding problems that it will have to contend with are as well—is to see crime reduced even further. We want much greater than it had originally been led to believe. people to feel safer on the streets and for them to have The force is now looking at whether there will have to be appropriate and proper influence over policing in their a Paragon 2, as it tries to accommodate further problems. area. On the need for pilots, the Minister is almost messianic in his belief that if we have police and crime That is what the police have to deal with at the commissioners, all those things will be achieved. What moment, and they are doing so in a situation in which, the Minister has failed to properly demonstrate in a way because of the freeze in recruitment, there is already that convinces all—or many—of the professionals and some evidence of rising crime. On Saturday night, we interest groups is that he is right and that they are had a major piece in the local Birmingham paper about wrong. In saying why he disagrees and disapproves of a police officer reporting a rise in burglary to a local the pilots, the Minister needs to tell the Committee why tasking group. He was struggling to deal with it, because he believes that we do not need to test this and why we of the number of officers lost to the recruitment freeze. do not need the pilots. Given that, the issue of the Olympics and the continuing In arguing against the amendments, the Minister problems of terrorism, it seems a funny time to embark should tell the Committee that having police and crime on a massive structural change for the police without commissioners will reduce crime, make people feel that explaining in more detail how it will work and what it is they can influence their policing and tackle some of the designed to achieve. problems that he says exist. However, the Minister has Another thing in the Bill that surprised me is that the not made the case. He has asserted the case, but that is a London model looks a lot better, at first glance, than totally different point. I have said this before, and he has the model proposed for the rest of the country. However, heard me say it: he needs to argue the case and not the more I read it, the more I cannot understand why assert it. He is asserting the case for police and crime such different conclusions are reached for London and commissioners against all those people whom I listed at for the west midlands. Other than the London Mayor the beginning of my contribution who are against it. He already existing and having certain responsibilities, I am is not arguing the case. All those people have lined up not entirely clear how that decision was arrived at. It and said that the Minister has got all this wrong. I am seems strange that everyone is required to pay taxes and saying that he should pilot it and prove it one way or the council tax, and that the Government insist that their other, or win the argument. When he responds, I want interest is accountability—the public having a greater him to argue the case and not assert it, because all we say in policing and accountability for policing—and yet are getting at the moment is Government assertion, not London is being offered a much more democratic model argument. than the rest of the country. 151 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 152 Responsibility Bill In London, the Mayor is able to influence policing in Steve McCabe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I accordance with all the other concerns of the electorate. know that it came up on Second Reading, but I am not He can take such matters into account and give advice. clear what clause 16 is wholly about. My fear is that it In Birmingham, for example, we could have a powerful could become a consultant’s charter. Obviously, it is directly elected mayor, but he would not be able to exactly the sort of thing that we should test before we influence the police agenda at all, because he would be get into the full-scale introduction of the plan because faced with an equally powerful police and crime no one knows who the people will be, how they will be commissioner who had all the cards in his hand. That is appointed, what duties they will be appointed to do another example of the Bill not being thought through. and, above all, what they will cost. To introduce a That is a reason for pilots— radical change to our model of policing without identifying its financial implications and without giving people a The Chair: I am very glad that is the case. chance to understand what the change will mean suggests that the Government do not have much confidence in Steve McCabe: My point is that, had we had a pilot, their own proposals. They do not want pilots, because we would have been able to test the London model they do not want people testing out the ideas and against a different model for different parts of the looking objectively at what is happening. country. As it is, we will move full steam ahead into the That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill, and it is why arrangements and, if there are problems and inconsistencies, we should at this stage ask the Minister to think again. they will emerge only once the scheme is up and running, If the ideas are good, it should be possible to defend by which time will be either engaged in firefighting or them. If the measure is not a case of simply taking a having to live with the consequences of an ill-thought-out gamble with the policing of our country, it should be proposal. possible for the Minister to justify it. At least he should Similarly, we are not clear what police and crime have no fear of a phased introduction, which will answer panels are designed to do. They look like an extra some questions as the plans unfold. grafted on to the proposals when the Government realised that selling their ideas would be increasingly Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful, Mr Howarth, for difficult. It is astonishing how a Government who talk the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. about efficiency, reducing bureaucracy and regulation, I wish to make a few points, following on from the and promoting localism have ended up with a situation compelling case put forward by my hon. Friend the in which we have an extremely costly police and crime Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, in support of commissioner and, in addition, police and crime panels. piloting such a fundamental change to policing in England Originally, we had a police authority. Now we have an and setting out the dangers. extra layer in the bureaucracy, without any idea what it will cost or what benefit it will bring. Once again, I genuinely do not understand why the Government piloting would have allowed us to look at the possible are putting forward such an idea. The evidence does not issues. back it up. We have not received evidence to support The final part that we are being asked to support that what they are planning to do. Again, I can only agree should have been tested out, and which the Government with my hon. Friend. It seems to be change for change’s might come to regret more than anything else, is the sake. I am not convinced of the benefits of such a introduction of an incredibly complex change in the provision for local people. Why do we not try pilots structure and management of our policing without any first? If local people are so convinced that the measure idea of the cost. The Government spend every day of will improve accountability and the service that they the week telling us that they are obsessed by the deficit receive from the local police force, let us try it. Let us and with saving money, but we have no idea what the hear what they say, and we can come back and look at it salary of police commissioners will be, whether it will again. be the same throughout the country and whether it will I wish to refer briefly to the local differences and be based on the number of people whom the commissioners variations that are important for us to consider. We purport to represent. There are no costings. have not received sufficient clarity about them and I do not consider that the Government have really addressed 11.30 am them. Northumbria force has nearly 1.5 million people There has been no attempt to engage the electorate in the area, with 16 MPs and 400 councillors. My who will be asked to vote on the proposals in whether or constituency shares a border with Durham, which has not they are a good idea. We know nothing about the an entirely different police force. It covers a population pensions. We know nothing about what costs will have of about 600,000, seven MPs and 179 councillors. It is to be added for people who are part of the police and not clear that we will see an increase in accountability. crime panels. It could make the reorganisation of the What might work in Northumbria, if piloted, might not national health service look like small beer. It could work in Durham or vice versa. Arguably, such a pilot turn out to be an extremely costly proposal, which will might work better in a smaller force. A force the size of work entirely against the interests of the public. Northumbria, which stretches from the border with Scotland to Durham covers a huge, geographic area Mark Tami: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case with very different communities—urban, rural and with for pilots. Although the Government said that they will different needs. not have special advisers and so on, is not the experience What local people want when policing is being dealt from directly elected mayors that they collect an ever- with in their area are solutions to the very local problems growing bureaucracy around them? My hon. Friend is that they face, whether it is antisocial behaviour, vandalism entirely right: we must look at the financial cost, and or dog fouling I am not convinced that someone who surely pilots are the best way of doing so. lives in Berwick, Alnwick or Morpeth could sufficiently 153 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 154 Responsibility Bill [Bridget Phillipson] My final point is on cost, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has covered address the needs of my constituents in Sunderland, the matter well. The cost is not clear, but if, through and I do not see how that could be arguably an improvement the pilots, we decide that the benefits outweigh the on the system that we have. We have police authorities, cost, let us proceed. If local people feel that it makes a imperfect though they are, and local people at least have difference to their lives and the cost is worth it, let us one representative sitting on those bodies. I would proceed. However, at a time when my constituents are appreciate some clarity regarding the policing and crime facing huge cuts to policing budgets and damage could panels because I am not convinced that the diversity be done to front-line policing, I am not convinced that and geographic breadth will be dealt with by the new system. the change would be a priority for them. We talk about If we had a pilot, we could also look at how existing democratic accountability, so why can my constituents partnership arrangements work. I certainly do not have not have a say as to whether they would rather the a clamour of local people saying to me, “I’m desperate money be wasted on pointless commissioner elections, for a directly elected commissioner.” They say that they or be spent on bobbies on the beat, which face being absolutely want solutions to local policing problems, cut? I can tell hon. Members which they would prefer, but many of the steps that we have taken in my area and it would not be pointless elections. address that, with a multi-agency approach. For example, Through the pilots, we could establish whether the when someone has a problem with an antisocial tenant new approach offers value for money, and we cannot or a family on an estate that continually causes huge establish that now because we do not have accurate problems, that is dealt with in a co-ordinated way by costings. The briefing from the House of Commons housing, the local provider, the council and the police. Library suggests that it could be an additional cost, I am concerned that the new arrangements will jeopardise estimated at £136.5 million over 10 years. In our straitened the effective local partnership working that we have in financial circumstances, I can think of a far better way Sunderland. to spend more than £130 million, and that would be in We need to see the case for the new arrangements. If maintaining front-line policing and the often unseen they work, fantastic, but can we not try them to see if but very valuable work that police forces do. Before we they work, to see whether local people believe that there press ahead, I ask the Government to reconsider and is an improvement or whether they have less to say than look at the evidence to see whether the new approach before? At the moment, local people in my area can offers value for money or whether the solution simply directly approach their local councillor, and he or she does not fit what they are trying to achieve. can take the matter, whether it is a particular family or a particular issue—fly-tipping, for example—to a local multi-agency problem-solving group. The groups do Chris Ruane: May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to not deal exclusively with crime, but with the whole serve under your able and capable chairmanship, range of problems that an area faces, including crime, Mr Howarth? the criminal justice system and some issues that people I am a great believer in “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”. regard as a blight on their lives but are not necessarily I am at a loss to understand why the Con-Dem Government crime per se. The councillor who takes the issue forward chose to push forward—or ram forward—this Bill at can ultimately raise it with the police authority; the such an early stage in this Parliament. Consider all the method is effective. Why, therefore, rush to this hasty, problems that have accrued from the biggest international ill-considered approach, which has no support, without recession the world has seen since the 1930s, and the considering the damage that it could do to existing local economic and social impact that that has had on this partnership arrangements, particularly on issues that and other societies. The Government have chosen to perhaps are less prominent but that really affect people’s focus on a massive change—the biggest we have seen in lives, for example child protection and domestic and policing organisation for decades—and to push it through sexual violence? Will the police and crime commissioner at speed as a top priority. I am not saying everything in be desperate to get votes off the back of fouling and the garden is perfect—there need to be changes at the litter, to the detriment of the less visible but incredibly edges—but if things are not broken, why change them important aspects of policing that sometimes are little in such a drastic way? understood but make a real difference and, in some If changes are to be implemented, we should have families, save lives? pilots to monitor the changes. I mentioned the 43 police Visibility has been put forward as a reason to move to forces in England and Wales in my earlier intervention. police and crime commissioners. In its submission to In my constituency in the Vale of Clwyd, we have the the Home Affairs Committee, Northumbria police authority North Wales police authority. It is one of the best stated that it carries out surveys of how local people functioning police authorities in the country. Out of the view its work, and that between 2005 and 2010 there 376 crime and disorder partnerships in England and was an increase in visibility, in local people being aware Wales, we were the third best in my county of Denbighshire. of the police authority’s role and of what it could do, I fear that the system that we have in north Wales will be and in their feeling that the authority met their needs. If upset if a police and crime commissioner is thrust on us. that is the case, why not look at improving the democratic His or her priorities may not be the priorities of my accountability of police authorities, pushing to increase community. I mentioned that the 43 policing authorities both accountability and visibility, without suddenly are grouped into families. We need pilots on geographical moving towards a completely different system? Why not areas. We also need to pilot different models. We should pilot the alternative model of an independent police pilot a model that includes a list of things that the board that Northumbria police authority put forward commissioner should do. A commissioner should visit in its submission, to see whether that works and whether other areas—I think we are going to visit that later. The it is the role that we see for police authorities? commissioner should ensure that the articulate middle 155 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 156 Responsibility Bill classes, who can read and write sufficiently, will not we are all looking forward immensely to more speeches dominate the time and the agenda of a police and crime like the ones that we heard this morning as we scrutinise commissioner, because those are the people most likely this important Bill. I am still adjusting to finding myself to vote. on this side of the Committee Room. Given the average We need a pilot in which it is specified that the duration of a Home Office Minister, I suspect that I am commissioner must visit every community and listen to at least half way through my tenure as a Minister of the them, especially the communities that may not articulate Crown. I will enjoy it while it lasts. their concerns. In such a pilot, the commissioner would A long time ago, I was sitting in the Public Gallery go to the most crime-ridden communities at least two or watching a young, up-and-coming rising star on the three times a year and attend to the people verbally and Labour Benches debating with the then Secretary of orally rather than in writing. They would go out at State for the Environment, Michael Howard, who is grass-roots level to see what those people’s concerns now Lord Howard of Lympne. The up-and-coming were and address them. If that is not specified, there rising star on the Opposition Benches was Tony Blair. will be a logical willingness on the part of the police and I am sure that he was fired by the same passion as the crime commissioner to go to the communities that elect hon. Member for Gedling. him. The hon. Gentleman’s case for pilots, which is really a I fear the implementation of the legislation now—without case against police and crime commissioners in general, piloting—at a time of massive economic and possibly rested first on the suggestion that there is no crisis. He social unrest. We have seen the figures today—gross and other hon. Members asked what problem we are domestic product has fallen by 0.5%. I think we are trying to fix. I do not think that hon. Members have heading for a second recession, and we all know the understood the importance of our agenda to decentralise consequences of recession—an increase in crime levels, power in this country and release the grip of the centre especially among the young. The Government have and the Home Office over policing matters that should made other changes—abolishing education maintenance be local. To do so, we must enhance local accountability. allowances and the future jobs fund—affecting the very Otherwise, we would effectively be allowing the use of cohort that tends towards criminality. Those young capture. people could be tempted to go back to a negative way of life instead of a positive one. Although the hon. Gentleman points to falling crime figures as evidence that the system is not broken, he did We must consider the timing of the introduction of not attend to the figures showing that in spite of the fact the legislation and not rush. We need pilots in different that confidence in the police is rising, which I welcome, geographical areas, using different models so that we it is still too low. Roughly half the public—less than can learn which is best. We might have different types of half—do not have confidence in the police. In particular, police commissioner and different rules in different a recent opinion poll conducted by a reputable consumer areas of the country. research organisation found that one third of those members of the public who come into contact with the 11.45 am police are dissatisfied with their performance. No Again, the pace, temper and tone of the measures, organisation can be satisfied or complacent with such a which are being rammed down people’s throats without level of consumer dissatisfaction. Our contention is any pilots, will lead to poor legislation. The No. 1 that there is an important need to rebuild the bridge concern of people in my constituency is not the structure between the police and the local public, and having or who is at the top; it is who is at the bottom dealing direct accountability for the police, to give the public a with them and their problems. As Rick Muir of the greater say, is the right way in which to do so. IPPR articulated in his evidence: So we do not accept that there is nothing broken in “the public are most concerned about…whether the police are the system. The hon. Gentleman did not seem able to responsive to their concerns. If they ring up, do the police make up his mind about whether he supports the status respond quickly? Do the police deal with their problems adequately? quo—he seems to be having it both ways. At times he The commissioner model does not tackle the whole set of issues around responsiveness, which is key to improving public confidence seemed to be arguing—and certainly Labour Members in the police.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social argued—that there was nothing wrong with the system. Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2011; c. 48, Q58.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has said, Rick Muir was one of our key witnesses last week. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That has been his Those are his concerns, and I echo them. If the police repeated line. do not address issues on the ground, they will not win We know, however, that when the right hon. Member public confidence. According to Rick Muir, who is an for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) expert on the subject, they do not do so at the moment, was Home Secretary for that brief and glorious tenure, so let us tinker around with the system. Let us have he said that police authorities were sub-optimal. He pilots—hopefully in my area, if the Committee accepts conceded that they were not fit for purpose—he failed our amendments—that deal with ensuring that police entirely, of course, to set out how they should be commissioners go to the communities that need them. reformed. The measures are totally rushed and flawed. We might Are Labour Members and, in particular, the Opposition learn from past rushed legislation: legislate in haste and spokesman saying that police authorities should be repent at leisure. reformed? If he is saying that they should, we are entitled to know how. The force of his criticism of our Nick Herbert: I join the hon. Member for Gedling in proposals is affected if he agrees that they need to be welcoming you to the Chair of this Committee, reformed but just does not like the way in which we are Mr Howarth. I welcome hon. Members; I am sure that doing that. 157 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 158 Responsibility Bill Steve McCabe: It is true that I said, “If it ain’t broke, as currently constituted, are capable of doing the job of don’t fix it.” However, if the Minister was reading the ensuring effective and efficient policing, which is their other part, he cannot have missed that I also said: statutory duty, at a time when the challenges facing “I invite any Conservative Member to show me a recent police forces are very great. inspection report that raised major concerns about the functioning Therefore, a second reason to drive forward this of police authorities.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, reform is that it is important to improve the governance c. 758.] of policing. I am not saying that there are not matters that we could deal with, but there have not been major concerns. The Steve McCabe: I want to return to the Minister’s problem is that the measures are too big a solution to a point about visibility. He has told us his second reason. problem that is not clearly identified. His first reason for abolishing police authorities and instituting this paraphernalia is that most people do not Nick Herbert: I am happy to answer that directly, and know the members of their police authority. I asked a doing so takes me to my next point, because Opposition group of constituents on Friday night to name the Front Benchers have also asked who supports the provisions. Conservative home affairs team, but they were unable The first groups of people, whom the hon. Gentleman to do so. I am terribly sorry to report that they were adduced in evidence of opposition to the measures, are unable to identify the right hon. Member for Arundel police authorities. It is hardly surprising that police and South Downs, although in fairness they recognised authorities, which the Bill will abolish, are not jumping the Home Secretary. Two of them were able to mention with joy about the measures. Suggesting that they oppose another member of the team. On that basis, would it be the measures does not present a strong case. reasonable to conclude that we need to change the By the way, that has not stopped a large number of home affairs team, because it clearly has a visibility the police authority chairs, who are publicly expressing problem? opposition to the provisions, preparing their run for office as elected police and crime commissioners. Such Nick Herbert: I am wounded by the hon. Gentleman’s chairs include two prominent Labour party representatives intervention. Were I to be allowed to remain in office who chair major Metropolitan police force areas. We for years, that position could be improved. If the public look forward to their having the courage publicly to were asked to name their local MP, particularly long- declare that they intend to run. standing and distinguished MPs, as we see facing us—I In response to the point made by the hon. Member cannot count myself among that number—I think that for Birmingham, Selly Oak, the problem is that, contrary the recognition would be much greater. Survey evidence to what he has said, police authorities are not performing backs that up. People know their local MP; they know properly. First, they are invisible to the public, so no how to get hold of them; and ultimately they have a one knows who the members are. I defy anyone to go to choice whether to keep them in office. a public police authority meeting and ask people who That takes me to my next point. The Opposition’s the chair of their police authority is. I have done so on a case seems to be that the public did not want these number of occasions, and I have never found that positions. According to the Opposition, there was no people knew who they were. Cabinet Office research in demand for police and crime commissioners. However, 2008 found that only 7% of the public even know what a in the survey evidence we know that there is a demand police authority does. for greater democratic accountability for policing. The public are quite clear about that. It would be surprising if there were not demand for a greater say. Bridget Phillipson: I draw the Minister’s attention to a survey that was conducted in 2010 on behalf of Northumbria police authority, which identified that Chris Ruane: Will the Minister name the survey and 88% of those surveyed knew about the existence and who paid for it? role of police authorities. Clearly, 88% of those surveyed in my area knew, so I am not clear what his case is. Nick Herbert: Yes, the survey was conducted by the Association of Police Authorities, which cannot be charged with having an interest in that outcome. I am Nick Herbert: I would take a close look at that survey particularly grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s previous evidence. Without pre-judging the issue, if the survey intervention. The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI, were conducted by Northumbria police authority itself a reputable polling firm. It found that 68% of the public for one of its publications, I wonder whether the authority like the idea of better and democratic accountability for got the answer that it wanted and how many people policing. responded. All credit to the APA for publishing that survey I want to answer the hon. Member for Birmingham, result, even though it certainly did not support its case. Selly Oak on the performance of police authorities, My judgment is— because here is a serious point. In Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission’s recent survey and study of police authorities, only four out of Chris Ruane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? 22 authorities inspected were performing well in setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money. A Nick Herbert: I would not have another, if I were you. careful reading of that report will not lend confidence My judgment is that the public want a greater say over on either side of the Committee—perhaps underlying policing in their area, which can be achieved in lots of the fact that the Opposition do not think that police ways. It can be achieved through the greater development authorities are fit for purpose—that police authorities, of community and neighbourhood policing, which was 159 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 160 Responsibility Bill an important development under the previous Government, Nick Herbert: The Liberal Democrats had a commitment as I have always said, and one we must seek to protect. to introduce directly elected police authorities, and that It can be achieved through the beat meetings that we has been shaped into a coalition agreement to have have committed to in our coalition agreement, to ensure directly elected police and crime commissioners subject that the police have regular meetings with the public. to strict checks and balances. This is a perfectly All the forces which I talk to understand the importance straightforward point, and I am amazed that hon. Members of that. In the end, we have to answer the questions of are so astonished, as though this is news to them. It is who is going to hold forces to account and what say the important that they understand it. There is a dual public should directly have in that. mandate, from both parties, to have greater accountability I do not believe that we differ from the Opposition to in policing. We have two parties saying in their manifestos the extent that the hon. Member for Gedling has suggested, that there should be democratic accountability in policing, because, when he asked me who supports the principle, and another party, which twice proposed it before giving he implied that the policy is absolutely friendless and up when it ran into opposition. that nobody supports it. I want to adduce the support It was in our manifestos that there should be greater of somebody whose backing for the policy of direct democratic accountability. It is also in the coalition accountability for policing I particularly value. It is agreement, and that is why we are proceeding with the somebody whom I am sure that the Committee will policy. grow to love and respect. It is the hon. Member for Gedling, who, just two years ago, said that Steve McCabe: Before the Minister leaves that point, “only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will I want to say that that was about as tenuous as one can deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical.” get. First, will he accept that the parties stood on He went on to say that different manifestos? The Conservative party wanted “under the current system, 93 per cent of the country has no directly elected individuals. It is reasonable to suppose direct, elected representation. This is why we have proposed the that, if one voted Conservative, that is what one was Green Paper model; so that people know who to go to and are voting for. If one voted Lib Dem, one was voting for a able to influence their policing through the ballot box.” different form of election altogether. That was two years ago. Secondly, is it not also the case that, if the responsibility 12 noon of parties is to implement their manifestos, the proposal is flawed, because it was not in either manifesto in the It was a different form of direct accountability, but it form that the coalition now proposes? The problem is was direct accountability, which, of course, the hon. that the coalition has come up with a new plan that was Gentleman did not mention in his speech. The previous not subject to any electoral mandate. Government twice proposed a form of direct accountability for policing, and they dropped it twice. They did not even pilot it. They simply encountered opposition and Nick Herbert: The mandate is to have greater democratic ran out of nerve. That is the wrong approach. accountability for policing. That is what both parties The Government share the view that police authority stood on. Of course, we have a coalition Government governance needs to be changed and that this democratic and, therefore, an agreed programme. The coalition form of accountability is important. The difference is agreement was that we should have a directly elected that we are determined to see it through. That is why we individual, subject to strict checks and balances. That is will not be derailed by the suggestion that there should why the police and crime panels policy was developed. be a pilot, because the real reason for that is not that I notice, by the way, that Opposition Members were Opposition Members think that it is a good idea. They not opposing the idea of police and crime panels outright. did not really make a good case for it. Their entire case They were merely sniping at the policy, saying that they rested on opposition to this form of accountability, yet did not know what the PCPs were for. No doubt we will we know that, just a couple of years ago, they were debate that later. The checks and balances are important. standing up and proposing it. How convenient it is for I want to deal with a couple of the other points that them to have changed their minds so quickly. hon. Members made along the way. The issue of Wales We need, therefore, to reflect on the fact that the was introduced by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. public have already had their say to this extent. It is an Policing is a reserved matter. It is the responsibility of established principle in this country that, when political the Home Office to oversee policing in England and parties stand for office and place policy proposals in Wales. Nevertheless, we have taken great care to seek to their manifestos, they are entitled to implement their protect the Welsh devolution arrangements in relation programme. That is what the public expect. Indeed, to wider community safety matters, which are devolved. there is a great row if parties do not implement their I have therefore had several meetings, as have officials in manifesto policies. [Interruption.] my Department, with the Welsh Assembly Government and Ministers, to seek to reach an agreement that The Chair: Order. respects the particular position in Wales.

Nick Herbert: If hon. Members are patient, they will Mark Tami: Were they in favour of elected police hear my point. commissioners? The Conservative party had a manifesto commitment to introduce directly elected individuals to replace police Nick Herbert: The Ministers in the Welsh Assembly authorities. Government are loyal Labour members and toeing the current party line, which is to oppose this form of Vernon Coaker: You did not win. democratic accountability. I do not know what their 161 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 162 Responsibility Bill [Nick Herbert] I do not think that the transition argument is one that merits our having pilots, but I want to make this broad view is about the previous two Labour party lines. The point. In a sense, we have already had a pilot, which Welsh Assembly Government Minister, Carl Sargeant, took place in London. It seems to me that the introduction has been quite open about the fact that he does not of the Mayor in London, with responsibility for the support the policy. He recognises, as I do, that if the governance of policing, was a good policy, and it was policy is going to be introduced— one that, I remind Labour Members, they proposed when in government and hon. Members on this side, or at least Conservative Members, opposed. I think that Mark Tami: Answer the question. we were wrong to do so. The policy has been a success. Nick Herbert: I have answered the hon. Member; Londoners like it. They like the greater say that they there is no need for him to barrack. have over policing, and I am sure that they would not want to reverse it. In addition, we have learned lots of The Chair: Order. I have been trying to allow some lessons from the way in which policing governance has latitude on sedentary interventions, but it is getting a changed in London. I would argue, in response to the little out of hand. Conducting our proceedings in good concern expressed by the hon. Member for Gedling that order needs to be in the forefront of everyone’s mind we are discussing an untried model, that to an extent it from now on. has been tried in London and therefore we can safely roll it out across the country. Nick Herbert: I am grateful for your protection from the unbridled barracking from the Opposition Whip, I want to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Mr Howarth. I repeat that I have no problem agreeing Selly Oak, who said that it would not be possible for a that Carl Sargeant does not support the policy on police single individual to represent the electors in the west and crime commissioners, but we have been having midlands, because the West Midlands force would cover sensible discussions about how these arrangements should 2 million electors—he did not say that, but I am telling apply to Wales—I wanted to reassure the hon. Member him that that is the number. I do not think that he for Vale of Clwyd about that. They include ensuring would support the break-up of the West Midlands force that a Welsh Assembly Government representative is into smaller units, so we have the situation in which the appointed to the police and crime panel. I hope that, force is that big, and the chief constable has to work even though he does not agree with the policy, he will across that number of electors. concede that we have been respectful in the way in which we have sought to address the issues around the However, the Mayor of London has responsibility devolved arrangement with Wales. for policing with a far bigger electorate than any of the other force areas, even the big mets in the rest of I want to remind the hon. Member for Gedling of England. He has responsibility for 5.6 million electors. what two of the people who gave evidence to the Committee I do not think that those electors feel disconnected from said last week, since he mentioned their contribution. the Mayor and unable to express their point of view. We First, I do not agree that it was overwhelmingly the view know that the volume of complaints to the Mayor of those who gave evidence that police and crime increased. Therefore, simply citing the number and commissioners were a bad idea. I heard the two academics suggesting that it means that the individual cannot get speak broadly in support of the idea of greater local around all those people completely misses the point. accountability, albeit with reservations about this particular The direct line of accountability gives the public the model. I heard a powerful intervention from the victims’ knowledge that they have someone to whom they can commissioner on the importance of building that bridge go, who will answer to them. The reason why that between the police and the public and representing the person will answer to them is that they are elected and views of victims. I also note that the chairman of the responsive. We should not be quite so disparaging of Police Federation, who wisely kept out of the debate on the idea that they will be elected. I rather disagreed, if I how governance of policing might be changed, said that may say so, with the tone of the hon. Member for in his experience pilots were only precursors to the Houghton and Sunderland South, who talked about actuality of the reform and that they were a cause for pointless elections and a waste. We need to be careful delay—I agree with that. I also strongly agree with the not to show contempt for the electorate in this respect. victims’ commissioner, Louise Casey, who said that rather than running pilot schemes, I believe that the public can be trusted, that they do “People should be throwing their weight behind” know best—that point was made—and we can trust the reform them by giving them the say in these elections. Were we “to make sure that we get it right”.––[Official Report, Police not to proceed on a national basis, we would potentially Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 18 January create an uneven pattern across the country. That would 2011; c. 6, Q5.] prejudice a very important component of the reform, That would be a better focus. We should not confuse which I want hon. Members to understand. This is an arguments against the reform as a whole with arguments exchange. We are seeking to reduce the burden of direction against the pilot schemes. on police forces from the centre—from the Home Office Transitional arrangements were raised. I want to and from others—and to do that, we have to exchange it reassure hon. Members that we are fully addressing the for stronger local accountability. My concern is that transition. I am chairing a transition board, on which if we reduced that burden without stronger local there are representatives from police authorities and accountability, we would allow an element of producer chief constables. The Bill provides for transitions, and capture. It would make the police more remote from the we shall deal with those when we reach the relevant people, not less; it would give the people less of a say, debate. not more, and it would therefore be a great mistake. 163 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 164 Responsibility Bill For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that it Nick Herbert: I am going to end. I say to Labour would be a mistake to accept the Opposition amendments. Members that they should not misunderstand or Hon. Members made many particular points that we misconstrue our motives. Our motives for introducing shall come to later, because they relate to the detail of this reform are to ensure a better fight against crime the Bill. We can certainly talk about the potential future and to help the poorest. role for police and crime commissioners and the criminal justice system, but that would not be picked up in a Vernon Coaker: To start with the last point, my hon. pilot because it will evolve over time anyway. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak did not question any individual Committee member’s desire to 12.15 pm reduce crime. Everyone accepts that the Government I absolutely disagree that the relationship between want to do that. No one thinks that the Government are police and crime commissioners and police and crime deliberately introducing a reform that will worsen the panels is unclear. These are important checks and situation. My hon. Friend’s point was that he believes balances. The functions are set out in clause 28 and we that the opposite will be the case. It is a bit unfair—and can debate those properly at the relevant time. The uncharacteristic—of the Minister to suggest that my provision is all about giving local authorities a voice. hon. Friend was saying that the intention of any Committee Individual local authorities in an area such as member was to worsen the situation, or that he was Northumbria will have a stake in the governance of questioning anyone’s motives. That was not my hon. policing because the unitaries that are, for example, in Friend’s intention. Northumberland will each have a representative on the May I deal with some of the points on pilots? I just police and crime panel. That answers the point about want to say good luck to the right hon. Gentleman. I the extent to which we can ensure that those who are was in the Home Office for a few years, so we will see responsible for the governance of policing have a whether he lasts longer than me. I was trying to work connection with the local area. That is one of the out how long I was there, but I cannot remember. reasons why the developments on police and crime panels are important. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the I disagree that police and crime commissioners will Home Department (James Brokenshire): Three years. solely focus on local issues, although it will be a good thing if they do so and respond to local concerns. We are proposing that there will be strategic policing plans, Vernon Coaker: Three years was it. I walked out for which the police and crime commissioner must rather than being carried out, which is always a good hold the chief constables to account. That will reflect sign for the Home Office. That is the other thing the national and strategic policing priorities. I strongly right hon. Gentleman ought to aspire to. disagree that there is a problem with the idea that I shall make a couple of points. First, in defence of extremists will stand. That is a complete red herring myself on the mandate point, interestingly, I did what I and I am happy to debate that any time. The idea was am accusing the right hon. Gentleman of not doing. shot down in terms by Opposition Members when they When I met with universal disapproval not just from were in government and made their own proposals for self-interested parties but from a range of different these elections. If we consider the performance of the bodies, I listened to what they said and was convinced British National party at the last general election or in by their arguments. The right hon. Gentleman does not local elections, it shows that it could not possibly poll believe in pilots, because he believes that he knows sufficient votes to gain a constituency of the size that better and that the reform will make a difference. I was police and crime commissioners would be standing for, convinced by people that, notwithstanding the point which would have a minimum of 400,000 electors. That that I had made, I did not know better. People change is simply not a good argument and we should be wary their minds. about even airing it and giving it publicity because it I am slightly concerned that sometimes in politics we does not deserve it. do not listen and change our minds when the evidence is The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd said that he put before us—we all do it and then we all get criticised feared that the articulate middle classes would dominate for it. Then, when we change our minds, that is described the agenda of police and crime commissioners. Let me as a weakness. All of us should reflect on that, because say this to him in response. It is true that crime affects if that is the case nobody will ever change their mind or the poorest in our society disproportionately. Hon. speak their mind, because all they will be worried about Members on my side and I are motivated to introduce is what is said in the future. this reform by a real concern about levels of crime and a If I ever get back into the position that the right hon. desire to ensure that they are reduced because they Gentleman is in, there are two things that I would not particularly impact on the poorest. My driving ambition do. The first would be not to use things that people have is to secure a better performance for the poorest in said in different circumstances against them, because I society.I do not accept that police and crime commissioners realise now how things change and how people take would behave in a way that ignores their constituents, different points of view. The second thing relates to any more than hon. Members ignore constituents in pilots. The right hon. Gentleman was in opposition as parts of their constituency just because they think we are now in opposition. Now that we are in opposition that they did not vote for them. We can disagree about it is clear to me, having drafted the amendments on the effectiveness of the provisions and the merits of pilots, that any Opposition of any type or party need pilots. more resources to do their job than they get at the present time. I just want to put that on the record, Chris Ruane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? because it is quite an important point. 165 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 166 Responsibility Bill [Vernon Coaker] I am, again, astonished that the hon. Gentleman has frankly trashed the police authorities by saying, I am absolutely astonished by the right hon. Gentleman. “Well, they’re police authorities. What do you expect To be fair to him, he is usually intellectually rigorous, them to say?” With his own police authority, and with but the idea that the Government got a mandate from the police authority of every hon. Member, one could the British people at the last election to introduce argue, putting one’s views to one side, that, because the commissioners—one individual who is directly elected—is police authority has a vested interest and argues against complete and utter nonsense. [Interruption.] We lost this reform, pilots are not necessary. Why would turkeys the election; someone just said, “You lost”. Absolutely, vote for Christmas? My police authority is made up of we did lose. However, the Conservative party did not dedicated people who have spent years working in policing, win and neither did the Liberal Democrat party. It is all and they are sincere and genuine in their belief that this very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that is a bad reform. they cobbled together a deal after the election to come I asked the hon. Gentleman to reflect when he argued to an agreement about directly elected commissioners against pilots. It is fair enough to say that he does not being a single individual, but to use the argument that agree with police authorities, but it is not fair to go on he used—that the British people voted for what he is to say, as he did, “Well, they would disagree with the proposing—is simply and utterly not the case at all. Government’s proposals.”On reflection he might concede So to pray in aid the British people for this reform that they are more sincere and genuine in their opposition is frankly absolutely astonishing and I am amazed than that. by it. With these amendments on pilots we are seeking to We want pilots and the right hon. Gentleman responded address some of the issues with PCCs and some of the to the issue of pilots, but again it was all high-level stuff, issues that will come up later in the Bill. The Minister is saying, “We are looking at what the transition will quite right to say that we will be listening very carefully, mean, we will look at what the accountability arrangements because he has now said that he will not answer the will be, we are looking at and trying to understand”—it points here about transition, cost, elections, collaboration, is all about having high-powered arrangements in place and other such things, because they will come up as we to look at what the arrangements should be. They are go through the Bill. We will look very carefully at that. not actually answers. The clarity that each and every With the reassurance that the Minister has given us that one of the stakeholders is demanding was not there at we will deal with some of those issues and address some all in the Minister’s answers. It was the stock-in-trade of the specific points that I have made, I beg to ask leave answer, “Yeah, that’s a fair point to make and we’re to withdraw the amendment. working on it”. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly Vernon Coaker: I beg to move amendment 82, in well what I said. I said that he was raising specific points clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out ‘commissioner’ and that relate to later clauses in the Bill and we will come to insert ‘commissioner’s office’. them and debate them, whether they are about the police and crime panels or transition arrangements. I The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss was simply avoiding going outside what I think are the the following: amendment 83, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave terms of the debate on these amendments, which are out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioner’s office’. about pilots, and being drawn into a discussion that— assuming we ever get there—we will have later in the Amendment 84, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out Committee. ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioner’s office’. Before I sit down, I ask the hon. Gentleman to Amendment 85, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out respond to a point that I made. Since his party agree ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioner’s office’. that police authority governance is sub-optimal, what Amendment 86, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end are his proposals to improve it? insert— ‘(3A) A police and crime commissioner’s office is to consist of— Vernon Coaker: Mr Howarth, you would rule me out of order if I went on to the next group of amendments. (a) a police and crime commissioner; and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has prepared at (b) a police and crime panel.’. great length for the next group of amendments. In that Amendment 87, in clause 28, page 20, line 9, leave out group, we have put forward an alternative model of subsection (1). police authority governance for consideration by the Amendment 107, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out Committee. We actually laid amendments that produced subsection (5) and insert— another model. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton ‘(5) A police and crime commissioner will sit as chair of the and Sunderland South also talked about Northumbria police and crime panel.’. being willing to host another pilot. All I am saying is Amendment 108, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out that we have proposed an alternative. I am astonished subsections (6) to (9). that the hon. Gentleman has accused me of not laying an alternative, because we laid an alternative specifically Amendment 167, in clause 84, page 52, line 12, leave so that he could not say that we have not laid an out ‘local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and alternative; yet he now accuses me of not laying an crime panel’. alternative. We have tabled a shed-load of amendments Amendment 168, in clause 84, page 52, line 18, leave that detail a different model, and we will consider those out ‘local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and in the next group. crime panel’. 167 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 168 Responsibility Bill Amendment 169, in clause 84, page 52, line 18, leave Amendment 193, in clause 102, page 63, line 25, leave out ‘body’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 170, in clause 85, page 53, leave out Amendment 194, in clause 102, page 63, line 30, leave lines 8 and 9. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 171, in clause 85, page 53, line 15, leave Amendment 195, in clause 102, page 63, line 31, leave out ‘local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. crime panel’. Amendment 196, in clause 102, page 65, line 5, leave Amendment 172, in clause 85, page 53, line 16, leave out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. out ‘body’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 197, in clause 102, page 65, line 7, leave Amendment 173, in clause 85, page 53, line 18, leave out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. out ‘local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and Amendment 198, in clause 102, page 65, line 8, leave crime panel’. out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. Amendment 174, in clause 85, page 53, line 20, leave Amendment 222, in clause 36, page 25, line 9, leave out ‘body’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 175, in clause 85, page 53, line 21, leave and crime panels’. out ‘local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and Amendment 223, in clause 36, page 25, line 11, leave crime panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 176, in clause 90, page 56, line 7, leave and crime panels’. out ‘policing bodies’ and insert ‘police and crime panels’. Amendment 224, in clause 36, page 25, line 13, leave Amendment 177, in clause 90, page 56, line 9, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police out ‘policing bodies’ and insert ‘police and crime panels’. and crime panels’. Amendment 178, in clause 90, page 56, leave out Amendment 225, in clause 36, page 25, line 16, leave lines 14 to 18 and insert— out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police ‘(b) provision about support by a policing panel for and crime panels’. another police panel (“policing panel collaboration Amendment 226, in clause 39, page 26, line 11, leave provision”); out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. (c) provision about support by a police and crime panel Amendment 227, in clause 39, page 26, line 14, leave for the police force which another police and crime out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. panel is responsible for maintaining (police panel and force collaboration provision).’. Amendment 228, in clause 40, page 26, line 31, leave Amendment 179, in clause 90, page 56, line 23, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 229, in clause 41, page 27, line 34, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 180, in clause 90, page 56, line 25, leave out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 230, in clause 38, page 25, line 32, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 181, in clause 90, page 56, line 27, leave out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 267, in clause 38, page 25, line 34, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 182, in clause 90, page 56, line 28, leave out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 271, in clause 38, page 25, line 36, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 183, in clause 90, page 56, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert— Amendment 312, page 122, line 7 [Schedule 7], after ‘must provide for’, insert ‘the remaining members of’. ‘(a) the police and crime panel, or each police and crime panel, to which the provision relates;’. Amendment 313, page 122, line 10 [Schedule 7], at Amendment 184, in clause 90, page 56, line 35, leave end insert ‘the remaining members of’. out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 314, page 122, line 18 [Schedule 7], at Amendment 185, in clause 90, page 56, line 42, leave end insert ‘the remaining members of’. out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 335, in clause 5, page 5, line 6, leave out Amendment 186, in clause 90, page 57, line 5, leave ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 336, in clause 5, page 5, line 8, leave out Amendment 187, in clause 90, page 57, line 6, leave ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 337, in clause 5, page 5, line 10, leave out Amendment 188, in clause 90, page 57, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. line 9 and insert ‘policing and crime panel or members Amendment 338, in clause 5, page 5, line 12, leave out of the staff of that panel, or’. ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 189, in clause 90, page 57, line 10, leave Amendment 339, in clause 5, page 5, line 13, leave out out ‘policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 190, in clause 90, page 57, line 43, leave Amendment 340, in clause 5, page 5, line 17, leave out out ‘policing bodies’ and insert ‘police and crime panels’. ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 191, in clause 94, page 60, line 40, leave Amendment 341, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, leave out out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘panels’. paragraphs (c) to (f). Amendment 192, in clause 95, page 61, line 10, leave Amendment 342, in clause 5, page 5, line 26, leave out out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. subsection (7). 169 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 170 Responsibility Bill [The Chair] Amendment 362, in clause 9, page 9, line 28, leave out from second ‘the’ to end of line 30 and insert ‘local Amendment 343, in clause 5, page 5, line 29, leave out police and crime panel will secure, or contribute to ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. securing, crime and disorder reduction in the panel’s Amendment 344, in clause 5, page 5, line 31, leave out area.’. ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 363, in clause 9, page 9, line 31, leave out Amendment 345, in clause 5, page 5, line 33, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and paragraph (b) and insert— crime panel’. ‘(b) in particular, review the police and crime plan in light Amendment 364, in clause 9, page 9, line 33, leave out of any changes in the strategic policing requirement body’ and insert ‘panel’. issued by the Secretary of State under section 37A of Amendment 365, in clause 10, page 9, line 35, leave the Police Act 1996.’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 346, in clause 5, page 5, line 39, leave out and crime panel’. ‘commissioner who’ and insert ‘panel which’. Amendment 366, in clause 10, page 9, line 39, leave Amendment 347, in clause 5, page 6, line 6, leave out out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police subsection (12) and insert— and crime panel’. ‘(12) It is for the panel to determine the manner in which a Amendment 367, in clause 10, page 10, line 6, leave copy of the plan is to be published in accordance with subsection out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police (10)(b).’. and crime panel’. Amendment 348, in clause 5, page 6, line 13, leave out Amendment 368, in clause 11, page 10, line 29, leave ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 349, in clause 7, page 7, line 35, leave out and crime panel’. ‘elected local policing body’s’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 369, in clause 11, page 10, line 35, leave and crime panel’s’. out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert— Amendment 350, in clause 7, page 7, line 38, leave out ‘(3) A local police and crime panel must publish the ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and information which the panel considers to be necessary to enable the persons who live in the panel’s area to assess— crime panel’. (a) the performance of the panel in exercising the panel’s Amendment 351, in clause 7, page 7, line 41, leave out functions; and’. ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and Amendment 370, in clause 11, page 10, line 43, leave crime panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 352, in clause 7, page 7, line 45, leave out and crime panel’. ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and Amendment 371, in clause 11, page 10, line 45, leave crime panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 353, in clause 7, page 8, line 1, leave out and crime panel’. from beginning to end of line 3 and insert— Amendment 372, in clause 11, page 11, line 1, leave ‘(2) The local police and crime panel’s police and crime out ‘body’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. objectives are the panel’s objectives for— Amendment 373, in clause 12, page 11, line 4, leave (a) the policing of the panel’s area,’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 354, in clause 7, page 8, line 9, leave out and crime panel’. ‘elected local policing bodies’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 374, in clause 12, page 11, line 6, leave and crime panels’. out ‘body’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. Amendment 355, in clause 7, page 8, line 12, leave out Amendment 375, in clause 12, page 11, line 8, leave ‘elected local policing bodies’ and insert ‘local police out ‘body’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. and crime panels’. Amendment 376, in clause 12, page 11, line 9, leave Amendment 356, in clause 7, page 8, line 14, leave out out subsections (2) to (7). ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and Amendment 377, in page 11, line 26, leave out Clause 13. crime panel’. Amendment 378, in clause 14, page 12, line 17, leave Amendment 357, in clause 8, page 9, line 2, leave out out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. subsection (1) and insert— Amendment 379, in clause 14, page 12, line 21, leave ‘(1) A police and crime panel must, in exercising the functions out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. of the panel, have regard to the police and crime plan issued by Amendment 380, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, leave the panel.’. out ‘body’ and insert ‘and crime panel’. Amendment 358, in clause 8, page 9, line 8, leave out Amendment 381, in clause 14, page 12, line 39, leave ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 359, in clause 8, page 9, line 14, after and crime panel’. ‘person’, insert ‘or panel’. Amendment 382, in clause 14, page 12, line 45, leave Amendment 360, in clause 8, page 9, line 16, after out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police ‘person’, insert ‘or panel’. and crime panel’. Amendment 361, in clause 9, page 9, line 26, leave out Amendment 383, in clause 15, page 13, line 6, leave ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police crime panel’. and crime panel’. 171 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 172 Responsibility Bill Amendment 384, in clause 15, page 13, line 9, leave Amendment 409, in clause 22, page 17, line 18, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. and crime panel’. Amendment 410, in clause 24, page 18, line 2, leave Amendment 385, in clause 15, page 13, line 10, leave out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘panels’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 411, in clause 24, page 18, line 4, leave and crime panel’. out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘panels’. Amendment 386, in clause 16, page 13, line 17, leave Amendment 412, in clause 24, page 18, line 5, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. and crime panel’. Amendment 413, in clause 24, page 18, line 6, leave Amendment 387, in clause 16, page 13, line 19, leave out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘panels’. out ‘body’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 414, in clause 24, page 18, leave out Amendment 388, in clause 16, page 13, line 21, leave line 8 and insert ‘different panels or different classes of out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police panel.’. and crime panel’. Amendment 415, in clause 24, page 18, line 9, leave Amendment 389, in clause 17, page 13, line 26, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and crime panel’. Amendment 416, in clause 24, page 18, line 15, leave out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. Amendment 390, in clause 17, page 13, line 27, leave out ‘body’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. Amendment 417, in clause 24, page 18, line 16, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 391, in clause 17, page 13, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4). Amendment 418, in clause 24, page 18, line 17, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 392, in clause 18, page 14, line 2, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 419, in clause 25, page 18, line 24, leave out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘panels’. Amendment 393, in clause 18, page 14, line 3, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 420, in clause 25, page 18, line 32, leave out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘panels’. Amendment 394, in clause 18, page 14, line 4, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 421, in clause 25, page 18, line 41, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 395, in clause 18, page 14, line 17, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d). Amendment 422, in clause 25, page 19, line 2, leave out ‘local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and Amendment 396, in clause 18, page 14, line 25, leave crime panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 423, in clause 25, page 19, line 4, leave Amendment 397, in clause 18, page 14, line 27, leave out ‘local policing body’ and insert ‘local police and out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. crime panel’. Amendment 398, in clause 21, page 16, line 30, leave Amendment 424, in clause 25, page 19, line 8, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘panels’. and crime panel’. Amendment 425, in clause 25, page 19, line 11, leave Amendment 399, in clause 21, page 16, line 32, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘elected local policing body’s’ and insert ‘local police and crime panel’s’. Amendment 426, in clause 25, page 19, line 12, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 400, in clause 21, page 16, line 34, leave out ‘elected local policing body’s’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 427, in clause 25, page 19, line 15, leave and crime panel’s’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 401, in clause 21, page 16, line 36, leave Amendment 428, in clause 25, page 19, line 16, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. and crime panel’. Amendment 429, in clause 25, page 19, line 17, leave Amendment 402, in clause 21, page 16, line 40, leave out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘local police Amendment 430, in clause 25, page 19, line 19, leave and crime panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 403, in clause 21, page 16, line 41, leave Amendment 431, in clause 25, page 19, line 20, leave out ‘body’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. Amendment 404, in clause 22, page 17, line 6, leave Amendment 432, in clause 25, page 19, line 22, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 405, in clause 22, page 17, line 7, leave Amendment 433, in clause 25, page 19, line 23, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 406, in clause 22, page 17, line 8, leave Amendment 434, in clause 26, page 19, line 29, leave out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 407, in clause 22, page 17, line 12, leave Amendment 435, in clause 26, page 19, line 32, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 408, in clause 22, page 17, line 17, leave Amendment 436, in clause 27, page 19, line 40, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. 173 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 174 Responsibility Bill [The Chair] Amendment 542, page 104, line 37 [Schedule 1], leave out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police Amendment 437, in clause 27, page 20, line 4, leave and crime panel’. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. Amendment 543, page 105, line 2 [Schedule 1], leave Amendment 520, page 103, line 5 [Schedule 1], leave out ‘police and crime commissioners’ and insert ‘police out ‘police and crime commissioners’ and insert ‘police and crime panels’. and crime panels’. Amendment 544, page 105, line 4 [Schedule 1], leave Amendment 521, page 103, line 11 [Schedule 1], leave out ‘a person who is a police and crime commissioner’ out ‘police and crime commissioners’ and insert ‘police and insert ‘a police and crime panel member’. and crime panels’. Amendment 545, page 105, line 6 [Schedule 1], leave Amendment 522, page 103, line 12 [Schedule 1], leave out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police Amendment 546, page 105, line 8 [Schedule 1], leave and crime panel’. out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police Amendment 523, page 103, line 14 [Schedule 1], leave and crime panel’. out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. Amendment 547, page 104, line 6 [Schedule 1], leave Amendment 524, page 103, line 19 [Schedule 1], leave out subsection (2) and insert— out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police (a) a police and crime commissioner must agree all staffing and crime panel’. arrangements with the police and crime panel; and (b) both the police and crime commissioner and the police Amendment 525, page 103, line 27 [Schedule 1], leave and crime panel shall have a duty to ensure a balance out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police of staffing resources between the commissioner and and crime panel’. panel such that the panel is sufficiently resourced to effectively hold the police and crime commissioner to Amendment 526, page 103, line 32 [Schedule 1], leave account as under Chapter 4.’. out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police and crime panel’. Amendment 527, page 104, line 1 [Schedule 1], leave Vernon Coaker: For the convenience of the Committee, out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. many of the amendments in this huge pile are consequential amendments. At its heart, this group seeks to replace Amendment 528, page 104, line 2 [Schedule 1], leave the model of a single person being responsible for out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. the role that the Minister envisages for the PCC. The Amendment 529, page 104, line 4 [Schedule 1], leave fundamental point is to make the PCC the chair of out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. the PCP. The PCC would still be directly elected, but the PCC would be encapsulated with the PCP. In other Amendment 530, page 104, line 5 [Schedule 1], leave words, those two bodies would be merged. The Minister out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. could, of course, keep the two separate and enhance the Amendment 531, page 104, line 6 [Schedule 1], leave role of the PCP, but through this set of amendments we out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police seek to address the concerns that people have with one and crime panel’. person being responsible for the police commissioner Amendment 532, page 104, line 7 [Schedule 1], leave role for the whole of an area. The model is a positive one. out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. 12.30 pm Amendment 533, page 104, line 8 [Schedule 1], leave I hesitate to quote police authorities whose opinions out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘panel’. the Minister is not certain about, but Avon and Somerset Amendment 534, page 104, line 10 [Schedule 1], leave police authority has said: out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police “Given the size, complexity, and diverse nature of the Avon and crime panel’. and Somerset area, we have concerns that a single individual will be able to sensibly act as PCC”. Amendment 535, page 104, line 13 [Schedule 1], leave The Cheshire police authority has stated: out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police “The role is clearly too important and large for one person to and crime panel’. perform”. Amendment 536, page 104, line 16 [Schedule 1], leave The Greater Manchester police authority is out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. “opposed to the proposal that the oversight and scrutiny of individual police forces by one Person”, Amendment 537, page 104, line 22 [Schedule 1], leave out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police and the Lancashire police authority has noted: and crime panel’. “It is the strong view of Members that the role is unworkable for one individual.” Amendment 538, page 104, line 26 [Schedule 1], leave The West Yorkshire police authority also strongly opposes out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘police directly elected individuals, and so it goes on. and crime panel’. Moreover, I know that the big society is in trouble, Amendment 539, page 104, line 27 [Schedule 1], leave but the House of Commons Library research paper on out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. police reform and social responsibility shows the results Amendment 540, page 104, line 32 [Schedule 1], leave of a big society survey. It asked half of the participants out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. whether they supported the following statement: “Currently the general public do not directly vote people on to Amendment 541, page 104, line 33 [Schedule 1], leave the police authority. One suggestion that has been made is to out ‘commissioner’s’ and insert ‘panel’s’. replace these authorities with a directly-elected individual who 175 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 176 Responsibility Bill would be responsible for setting the priorities for the local police I talked earlier about people in Nottinghamshire who force and would be accountable to local people.” live very close to Leicester at one end of the county and In response, 40% expressed support for that statement, very close to Sheffield at the other end. In a police 26% were opposed and 33% were either neutral or and crime panel where all the functions of the police answered “Don’t know”. and crime commissioner and the police and crime panel are married together, they will be able both to work out The other half of the participants were asked the the strategic plan for the whole of the police force area same question, but with the addition of the following and to ensure that there is the local input, which is so sentence: important for the policing of an area. “However, some senior police officers say they are worried this will bring politics into the running of police forces.” The democratic accountability problem that the Minister says will be addressed as a result of direct election is still In response, 32% expressed support for that version of there. I continually point out to the Minister that it is the statement, 37% were opposed and 32% were either the wrong level of accountability; in other words, having neutral or answered “Don’t know”. Again, that is hardly somebody at only a force-wide level does not address a ringing endorsement of the Minister’s proposals. the local democratic problem in the sense that our Finally, Devon and Cornwall police authority—I do constituents see it as a problem. In their particular not want my examples of police authorities to be dominated village, town or area, they would know that through the by big, northern conurbations—has said that it will be police and crime panel representative for their area their the responsibility of the PCC to both collect and represent views would be fed directly in to the police and crime the views of all those people living within the force area, commissioner. but how can that possibly be done by one person? How That is nearer to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh can one person sitting in, for example, Exeter, represent West and the Liberal Democrats put forward at the the views of a community in west Cornwall? most recent election. I know that that proposal concerned The amendment addresses that particular problem. direct elections to the police authority en masse, but it is Such areas are too big for one individual to act as the a closer model to the one on which he fought the police and crime commissioner. However, if we made election. He knows full well, although he will not say so them a chair of the police and crime panel, that would in the Committee, that my arguments about the need start to address the problem. They would chair a panel for such decisions to be made by a group of people of representatives that, according to the Government’s rather than an individual are dealt with in some ways by proposals, will be composed of at least one person from amendment 107. It addresses many of people’s real each of the local authorities in the police force area. concerns about the one-person model, particularly regarding Every single authority at every single level would therefore problems such as politicisation. It is much more difficult have one person on the panel. It will have a minimum of to believe that politicisation of the police will occur if 10, or more if there are more local authorities within control is exercised on the police and crime commissioner the area, plus two independent members who will be through the police and crime panel. It is much more co-opted on to it. difficult to believe that people will be so concerned about operational independence or operational responsibility One of the criticisms of the Minister’s proposals is vis-à-vis the PCC and the chief constable if the operation that one person cannot cover the whole area, but linking of that directly elected individual is through chairmanship the directly elected individual to the police and crime of a police and crime panel rather than as a stand-alone panel—I am trying to help the Minister—would maintain figure. direct election and that person would still be responsible to the whole of the area through the ballot box. They For such reasons, the amendment is a genuine attempt are linked in to each of the areas—across, say, Devon to provide an alternative, and to give the Minister a and Cornwall, Wales, West Yorkshire, Merseyside and different model so that he can at least start to address—as so on—much more tightly through the police and crime he will have to, specifically—the very real issues of panel and the representative on that panel. linkage between one person and local communities. Why is having a directly elected chair of the police and The Minister has asked me for an alternative and I crime panel to work with to deliver the greater accountability am offering him one. It goes some way towards the the Minister wants not a better model than what he is direct election that the Minister wants, but also—particularly proposing? in amendment 107—helps to ensure that there is the With those brief remarks, I am interested to hear local linkage that is so important, which my hon. Friends what the Committee and the Minister have to say. I will have mentioned. That proposal merits consideration, come back to them when I respond to the debate. because it overcomes a number of problems, in particular how the services of local authorities, which are so important to the reduction and prevention of crime, Chris Ruane: I shall make a short speech to support will relate to the work of the police and crime commissioner. my hon. Friend’s proposal for directly elected chairs of That is totally unclear to me in the Bill. If, instead of the panel. For a PCC to succeed, he needs local government being a stand-alone figure, the PCC is part of the police buy-in. I mentioned in my previous contribution that and crime panel they will be able to talk to each of Denbighshire, of the 376 crime and disorder partnerships, those local authority individuals who are part of the was third, and it was able to obtain that position PCP. They will be able to discuss what is happening in because of co-operation with the local authority. their area and what needs to be done with respect to the Given a problem on a council estate with a young lad services that are being provided, and they will be able to or group of young people, the issue is not just for the make a real difference there. A real concern is how the police but for the local housing and education authorities PCC will link to the local services, but my proposal and social services. Only by sitting round a table together overcomes that problem. can they face such problems in the round, drawing up 177 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Police Reform and Social 178 Responsibility Bill [Chris Ruane] equal say, which would mean that the individual could simply find himself frustrated by the committee. Such a specific measures for the individuals or groups involved process would result in slower decision making and and resolving the problem. That is how we obtained our bureaucracy. It would not address any of the problems position. of police authorities in their current form, which we If a PCC—especially if newly elected, on a party debated under the previous group of amendments. political ticket—tries to force his philosophy down the I drew attention to the weaknesses that HMIC has throats of local government authorities, which might identified in relation to the key role of exercising governance not be of the same political persuasion as him, that is a in relation to ensuring value for money. The proposal recipe for disaster. Working in partnership, getting the would have none of the advantages of creating the balance right and increasing co-operation will enable office of a directly elected individual such as we have the PCC to fulfil his or her functions. The Conservatives seen in the Mayor of London, who can then set up an and Liberal Democrats are not offering a policy for executive office to give him the necessary support and co-operation, but for confrontation. We definitely need focus. It would also confuse the clarity of the governance local government buy-in, which the model proposed by arrangements that we have introduced under the Bill, my hon. Friend will allow us to achieve. I hope that the which are to separate the police and crime commissioner Government will listen. from responsibility for holding the force to account and assuming all the responsibilities of the police authority. Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): I shall outline The police and crime panel will be a scrutiny body, why we, as Liberal Democrats, oppose to such a model. which will hold the police and crime commissioner to The fundamental problem with what the hon. Member account. for Gedling said is that the Bill’s proposal is not a The amendment would undo the separation that is so one-person model, but one person with significant checks important for the purposes of transparency and proper and balances. The model in the amendment poses significant accountability. It would be a step in precisely the wrong questions about legitimacy and accountability. On a direction for governance. It would undo the real advance police and crime panel, an elected police and crime under the Bill, which is that district councils will have a commissioner, with a significant mandate in a police voice in the governance of policing for the first time. area with possibly millions of votes, would have only They will have a say on police and crime panels, which equal prominence with a representative appointed by a they do not have under existing police authorities. local authority. How would that equalise the legitimacy The hon. Member for Gedling has proposed the of all the members of the police and crime panel? How worst of all worlds. It is not surprising that such a could police and crime commissioners, elected in such a model was rejected by the previous Government. He way and with a potentially huge mandate, realistically was at great pains to explain why it was so important to be held accountable for being unable to push through learn from mistakes and how he had learned from the the priorities on which they were elected? It leaves them mistakes of the previous Government. I accept that, of in the situation four years down the line of saying, course, yet he does not seem to have noticed that the “I tried my best, but ultimately I simply did not have the model was rejected by the previous Government because power to push through the priorities that you wanted.” it had all the flaws that I have set out. Where does that leave the electorate? Having identified Furthermore, over the past few weeks, and again priorities and having elected someone to push those today, we have heard a lot from Labour Members who priorities though, the system will effectively rob the have outlined their objections on the grounds of cost, elected representative of the ability to deal with those for instance, to the democratic reforms that we have priorities. introduced. The hon. Gentleman is now proposing a model with a directly elected chair of the police authority, 12.45 pm so the election costs will be precisely the same. Although Nick Herbert: I am trying to understand whether the he is complaining about the costs of this legislation, support for the model is now the policy of the Labour Labour proposes a model that introduces exactly the party. It was certainly offered by the hon. Member for same cost. Let there be not one further word of criticism Gedling in the spirit of a genuine attempt to arrive at from the Labour party about the cost of our reforms some new form of governance that he thought would because it has now proposed reforms that have exactly work. Perhaps this is a probing amendment. Perhaps the same election cost, which is the first key point. the hon. Gentleman will explain it to me one way or Secondly, the costs of the Labour model will actually another. He certainly told the Committee earlier that be greater than ours. We have said that PCCs and the reason why he was tabling the amendments was to panels together must cost no more—other than the avoid the charge that he had no alternative model of election costs—than existing models of police authority policing governance. We must therefore take his attempt governance. By keeping authorities in their current form at face value. with all the paraphernalia of allowances that police We are discussing the model of governance that the authority members claim, the hon. Gentleman’s model Labour party now proposes. My hon. Friend the Member will cost more than the existing model of police authority for Edinburgh West briefly but effectively explained the governance. He has proposed a more expensive model absolutely key flaw in the proposal. An individual would of policing reform than the one that we have proposed. still stand for office in an area such as the west midlands Opposition Members complained that extremists would or Northumbria. They would stand on a mandate, but be elected to these positions. What is to stop an extremist possibly be wholly unable to deliver it because in office being elected to the chair of a police authority? Opposition they would only be the chair of a committee. The other Members complained that a single person could not members of the committee would not be elected, but possibly represent a whole area. How could a chair of a nominated by local authorities, yet they would have an police authority represent a whole area? Every single 179 Public Bill Committee25 JANUARY 2011 Police Reform and Social 180 Responsibility Bill key argument that Opposition Members have advanced, Vernon Coaker: We have discussed previously the and no doubt will advance again, against our reforms difference between being in government and being in have been comprehensively shot down by the hon. opposition, so the Minister knows that the Government, Gentleman, who has made a great mistake in tabling unless the Whip has not done his job properly, will vote this amendment. He has shot his own arguments down through their proposals. I am, however, doing exactly as and he has shot himself in the foot with this amendment. the Minister and his hon. Friends have done—I have It shows, I am afraid, that the Opposition are completely heard them do it. at sea when it comes to having a view about the proper We fundamentally disagree with what the Government form of policing governance. They do not know whether are doing, and with the concept of PCCs. We do not to keep the current system or to propose an alternative think that that is an appropriate way forward, and we model. The hon. Gentleman, I think, has just proposed recognise that to be a real Opposition we have to try to an alternative model; it is the wrong one and all the improve the legislation, raise issues that outside people flaws that he claims to have identified in our measures and bodies are raising, and propose alternatives. We are would apply to his model, but a great deal more so proposing some alternatives and suggestions that people on top. have made, to try to improve what the Government are Vernon Coaker: Well, that was an astonishing statement doing. by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me give one example. The Minister can totally disregard everything that Speaking of a directly elected individual, he says that the Opposition say, but I know that he will not. He will the extremism argument is complete nonsense when not vote for our proposals, but he will reflect on them, applied to his model. When I get up and say that we can and when he goes back to his Department he will say, have one directly elected individual for the force area, “This wasn’t a very good point, but that was a reasonable he says that extremism is a real risk. It is exactly the one. What are we going to do about it?” He will reflect same. It is one individual being elected for a force area. on what the outside bodies have said. However, if I did The right hon. Gentleman says that the extremism not come up with any alternative to what the Minister argument does not apply to his own model, yet it was proposing, he would say, “You’re clueless. You’ve applies to my model, which is exactly the same as got no idea. You present no alternative. All you’re doing his—one individual for the whole force area. is defending the status quo.” So either I face the attack that the Minister has just made on me, or I face the Nick Herbert: This really is not hard. I reject the attack that I am clueless. arguments about extremism, cost of elections and the That is the reality, and the Minister knows that. Our individual not being able to represent an area of a alternative might not be the best model, and there are certain size. The hon. Gentleman was the one who was many others that we could put forward, so in that spirit, advancing those arguments. I am now making the point I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I that he is proposing a model in which all of his own wish to press amendment 107 to a vote. arguments apply. I want to understand why he has proposed a model of policing governance that includes Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. all of the factors that, just a few minutes ago, he was so Amendment proposed: 107, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave roundly criticising. out subsection (5) and insert— ‘(5) A police and crime commissioner will sit as chair of the Vernon Coaker: The right hon. Gentleman is usually police and crime panel.’.—(Vernon Coaker.) a lot calmer that he is at the moment. What I am Question put, That the amendment be made. proposing is a model that tries to address some of the real concerns that individual associations and groups The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. have with the idea of one person being totally responsible Division No. 1] for a whole area. What our proposed model seeks to do is overcome some of those problems. The right hon. AYES Gentleman puts forward the notion that he is right and Coaker, Vernon Phillipson, Bridget they are wrong. If we have a situation in which one Efford, Clive Ruane, Chris individual is the chair of the police and crime panel, it is Johnson, Diana the one model that can be used to overcome some of the McCabe, Steve Tami, Mark points that individual associations and groups have made to us. That individual, working with the police NOES and crime panel, has, for example, the local linkage to Brokenshire, James Macleod, Mary local authorities and local communities that the right Burley, Mr Aidan Mills, Nigel hon. Gentleman’s model, in which the PCP and the Crockart, Mike PCC are separated, does not have. Ellis, Michael Offord, Mr Matthew Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman Herbert, rh Nick Wright, Jeremy for giving way in the spirit of debate over these measures. I am trying to understand his position. He proposes a Question accordingly negatived. directly elected chair of a police authority, so does he The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question agree that there will be an election cost that will be put (Standing Order No.88). exactly the same as the cost for the election of a PCC? Can he explain how he can simultaneously criticise us Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock. for introducing a model with an election cost, and yet propose one with the same cost himself?