• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 757-iv HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAK EN BEFORE THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS: PROGRESS TO DATE TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2014 COUNCILLOR JOANNA SPICER and ED HAMMOND COUNCILLOR DOROTHY ROSS-TOMLIN, COUNCILLOR ALISON LOWE and COUNCILLOR ROGER SEABOURNE STEVE WILLIAMS and STEVE WHITE Evidence heard in Public Questions 450 - 628 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 4 February 2014 Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair) Mr James Clappison Michael Ellis Paul Flynn Mark Reckless Mr David Winnick ________________ Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Councillor Joanna Spice r, Local Government Association, and Ed Hammond, Centre for P ublic Scrutiny, gave evidence. Q450 Cha ir: Co uld I we lco me a ll those present to the session of the Home Affairs Select Committee dealing with our ongoing inquiry into po lic e and crime commissioners? Could I refer everyone present to the Register of Members’ Interests, where the interests of all members of the Committee are noted? Are there any additional measures that need to be declared? Good. I we lco me Mr Hammond and Councillor Spicer. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to us today. You have probably been following some of our previous sessions. We have covered quite a lot of ground in the last few months. What we would like to focus on today is the LGA’s vie w o f police and crime commissioners. With you, Mr Hammond, we want to look at the issues of public scrutiny. Perhaps I could start with a question about public scrutiny. Do you think there is enough public scrutiny of the removal of chief constables? Ed Hammond: It is slightly difficult because it connects, I suppose, to the wider issue about the use of confirmation hearings more generally and hearings for appointment and dismissal of senior posts. The experience that some panels in some areas have had does suggest that there might be cause to look again at the powers of panels to examine at lea st the reasons for removal of chief constables in particular, yes. Q451 Cha ir: Councillor Sp ice r? One of our witnesses who is going to come in a little later, a fellow councillor, Roger Seabourne, described the legislation as so poorly set up, rushed and ill thought out that the panel has no teeth and they are not able to scrutinise. What do you feel about that? Cllr Spicer: I certainly saw the comments at the time and I have read them. The Local Government Association’s view is that it is still too early to come to firm views on the effectiveness of all the police reforms, both the police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels. I am here on behalf of the Safer and Stronger Communities Board, which is chaired by Councillor Mehboob Khan, who I expect some of you know. We have had reports throughout the last 15 mo nths on police reform, both the panels and PCCs, and although we have some thoughts that we want to share with you—and we have already submitted some of 2 them—as to how things could be improved, we certainly think it is too early to come to those sort of statements that you referred to. Q452 Cha ir: Councillor Sp ice r, do you think that the panels ought to have the power to veto the appointment of a chief constab le ? Cllr Spicer: You asked earlier about removals of chief constables. To be quite clear, although some of that was a bit rocky to start off with and has been watched very carefully by the LGA, we think that it is part of the learning that it is inevitable that there be changes. In terms of the veto, currently the position is that the police and crime panels are holding these confirmation hearings for deputies and chief constables. I think that as people get more experienced—and this is a relatively new process for local government—the fe w glitches there have been about that will soon be calmed. Q453 Cha ir: Ought they to have the power of veto? If you are looking at the legislation again and you are considering it, do you think that they should be able to dig their heels in and just say no? Cllr Spicer: I am pretty certain that the view shared across party at the LGA is that the power to send back is probably more correct than the power to veto. Ed Hammond: I would tend to agree with that. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the use of the power of veto would be appropriate. It would only be useful in extreme circumstances where, for example, the proposed appointment was considered to be so inappropriate, which would suggest a significant failing on the part of the office of the PCC and the PCC in terms of their internal HR and recruitment processes. Given the fact that the office of the PCC will have a monitoring officer whose job it is to ensure the probity of those arrangements, it is difficult to see what could be added. Also a veto, certainly in employment law and other terms—I am by no means a lawyer—could be seen as essentially career ending for any chief constable who would be subject to it. You can imagine a circumstance where a proposed chief constable comes before a panel and their appointment is vetoed. That would cast significant doubt on their ability to hold a senior policing post. Q454 Cha ir: Yes, of course. The Gwent situation is one that we have looked at. I don’t know whether you looked at the Gwent situation, where a commissioner says to a chief constable, “I am not going to renew your contract” and the chief constable then says, “Okay, I am going”. Have you looked at that? Ed Hammond: I have. I am somewhat unwilling to go into depth on my views or otherwise on individual panel— Cha ir: That is why you are here, Mr Hammond. You are here to give us the benefit of your views, otherwise you would not be here. Ed Hammond: O f course, but it is always difficult to talk about individual circumstances where I don’t know everything about the s itua tio n involved, and certainly when somebody from Gwent is not here. Cha ir: Give us your view on that. Ed Hammond: I can say in general terms that one would have expected, or certainly if I had been on the panel under those circumstances I might perhaps have expected, to look at that decision made by the commissioner. There may well be circumstances existing in Gwent of which I am not aware that made that impossible or made that difficult. Cha ir: Councillor Spicer? Cllr Spicer: The LGA have looked very closely, through the events they hold for police and crime panels, at the circumstances surrounding what happened in Gwent and also, 3 more interestingly for us in terms of learning, in Lincolnshire, which I believe you have had a view on as well. The view that we have at the moment is that we do not need a change in the legislation around that, but there is a need for some learning from those processes, both by police and crime commissioners and by panels and to a certain extent by public expectation. Q455 Cha ir: Lincolnshire is very close to home as far as you are concerned. Cllr Spicer: Suffolk does not quite join Lincolnshire. Chair: I thought you said you knew about the Lincolnshire situation. Cllr Spicer: The Lincolnshire situation was of interest as much as Gwent to us in local government. Q456 Cha ir: Assuming they have been on this learning curve, how could that have been handled better? Cllr Spicer: I think if you look at the timing of both those events, so early in some of the most radical police reform in 40 years, it was inevitable that there would be a mixture of misunderstanding combined with unusual behaviours. One would hope through the national bodies, including ACPO and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, that such events would not quite unfold the same way again. Q457 Mr Winnick: O ne could understand if a police and crime commissioner has been in office six, 12, 18 months and comes to the view that a chief constable should be removed, but is it surprising that a police and crime commissioner—there were two, in fact, in the areas named by the Chair—was in office for some four, six or eight weeks and suddenly decides that the long-serving chief constable should go? What fairness or justice could there be in making such a quick decision after being elected? Cllr Spicer: I s ho uld ha ve sa id at the beginning that I do answer some of these questions with the experience of having been on a police authority for many years, and I was the last chairman of our police authority, so I would like to think I know a bit about employment of chief constables.

Load more

  39

Copy Link