| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): This is rather a sneaky Bill and, potentially, a pernicious one. If not substantially amended in Committee, it will reduce the freedom of the individual, increase the power of the state, remove the autonomy and capability of bodies on whom we rely to hold the police to account, allow direct Government intervention in police business without any objective basis on which to do so, increase the surveillance society, extend summary justice, possibly damage community relations and run the risk of increasing human rights abuses in prisons. Even the seemingly welcome development of involving the local community in policing has the potential to create dangers and difficulties, so there is much to be done in Committee.
To begin on a more amenable note, however, we support a number of the Bill's provisions. The incorporation of the Central Police Training and Development Authority and the Police Information Technology Organisation into a national policing improvement agency is a logical and sensible step forward. It almost goes without saying that we support the Government in their attempt to tackle better the problems caused by computer hacking. Given their penchant for creating surveillance databases, whether on national identity or on DNA, the security of those databases is paramount. Whatever the dangers they pose to civil liberties, they must be secure. Of course we support the Bill's proposal to tackle the illegal possession of indecent photographs of children and, indeed, the harmonisation and the extension of powers for community support officers.
The proposal that the Independent Police Complaints Commission should take on the role of ensuring that complaints and misconduct in the immigration and asylum system are properly investigated is another
6 Mar 2006 : Column 632
welcome measure. Only last week, I visited the IPCC, which will now investigate complaints against immigration and nationality personnel and exercise specified enforcement functions. That new area of expertise is a perfect translation of its function to investigate police complaints. Such work is extremely sensitive and the proposal will not only create a better system but, equally vitally, it will improve public opinion of the system.
Before I move on to the meat of Liberal Democrat concerns about the Bill, I shall touch on the section on extradition. I shall not go into detail as most of the proposals are technical. However, it is not lost on us that the Government's track record on matters connected with extradition is hardly exemplary, given that they have so singularly and spectacularly failed to deal with the unfair, unequal and embarrassing nature of our extradition arrangements with the United States. We give the US what they want—all they have to do is demonstrate to us that the person in question is the person they want—whereas when we want someone, we have show evidence against that person.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): This is an extraordinarily important point, and one that we argued vigorously at the time of the introduction of the provisions. Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment at the Prime Minister's response last week, when questioned on this subject? He suggested that the only purpose of the unequal and unfair extradition arrangements with the United States was to deal with terrorism, but we know perfectly well that they are being used to deal with fraud offences, which are in no way related to terrorism. Does she not find that offensive?
Lynne Featherstone: Indeed; my hon. Friend is right. The previous Home Secretary signed the treaty in Washington. We put it into force by statute, but the US did sweet nothing so there is no law to be executed on their side. We undertake our unfair and unequal treatment voluntarily. That sums up our current relationship with America—we jump, even when we do not have to.
I shall cover some of our primary concerns about the proposals in the Bill. We have serious misgivings about the Government once again seeming to believe that crime can be tackled directly from the Home Office and giving powers to the Home Secretary to dictate the form and function of police authorities. The Government clearly want to match their new super-size police forces with police authorities newly reduced in size, but the proposals will reduce local accountability and take away independence and autonomy. The Bill allows for a reduction in numbers on authorities, theoretically down to one member. Tempting though that might seem to the Home Secretary, I do not believe that it is the purpose of the proposal.
Under the present system, the appointment of local authority members to such a body should reflect the political balance on the appointing authority or authorities, so the idea that each principal authority should have one seat on the new police authority and that that person should be the lead member on community safety will inevitably mean that the composition will reflect the majority party on the local
6 Mar 2006 : Column 633
authority. Applied around the country, that will not lead to political balance of any sort. Political proportionality, which has long been a tradition on those authorities, will disappear unless it occurs accidentally.
The other aspect of authority membership that concerns me is the removal of the magistrate members. They are a specified component of such an authority, and they will still be able to apply as independents. However, in the five years that I served on the Metropolitan Police Authority, I observed that the knowledge and experience that the magistrate members brought from the criminal justice system was invaluable in holding the police force to account. At a time when we are aiming for joined-up working and joined-up technology so that cases can be chased through from the police to the criminal justice system, the proposal seems a serious and unnecessary change for the worse. There will have to be an extraordinary justification or rationale for dispensing with such a valuable component of what is meant to be an independent authority holding the police to account for local people. Perhaps that is the problem—the magistrates are a bit too clever and might frustrate the Home Secretary's direct intervention in future.
The Home Secretary will be able to decide which issues a police authority looks into. That involves constraining the function of police authorities, which he will be able to control literally at will. If he believes that all or part of a police force is failing or may fail, he may direct the chief officer and/or the police authority to undertake specific measures to remedy or prevent such a failure, which will take place on his own cognisance. As has been said, in broadening the trigger that decides when he can direct police authorities, there is a risk that the power will be overused and misused. I would therefore welcome further explanation from the Minister on objectives, plans and reports for police authorities and on the Home Secretary's new role in relation to issuing such directives.
Once again, it seems that the Government are trying to diminish local accountability by allowing Whitehall to dictate, intervene and direct. The shift of control to the Home Secretary without the need for a negative report automatically means that there will be less accountability. Although the Minister may say that such interventional powers will be used only as a last resort, we do not have a definition of what the Home Secretary means by "failing" and "last resort". The power is a carte blanche for interference, and we need the Minister to clarify the terms "failing" and "last resort".
At first sight, the mini-safeguard on public engagement appears to be an innovative and welcome step, because it gives the local authority scrutiny committee a role in examining how persons and bodies responsible for tackling crime and disorder carry out their functions. As a Liberal Democrat, localism and community involvement play into our fundamental philosophy of power to the people, but we must build in safeguards both for the community and for the police. A
6 Mar 2006 : Column 634
scrutiny committee sounds great in theory because local people know what is best for the local area, but there are concerns about whether the provision could be misused.
Mr. Francois : The hon. Lady has discussed the Liberal Democrat commitment to localism and local people. Will she explain how it squares with the Liberal Democrats' traditional support for regional government, given that when that concept was put to the vote in the north-east it was destroyed by a margin of 78 per cent. to 22 per cent.?
Lynne Featherstone: I am happy to explain our policy outside this debate, which is about the Government's proposals.
Lynne Featherstone: Yes, that is it.
Could the proposal allow one persistent, complaining constituent to divert resources on unreasonable complaints? I am a local councillor—I am sure that other Members are or have been local councillors—and it is not unknown for those who should the loudest for our attention to hijack resources, time and issues on a repeated and regular basis. Those who need police action and who cannot get a police response will not necessarily trigger that function or use that power.
On the extension of powers on antisocial behaviour, youth offending teams will be able to issue parenting orders if they believe not only that a child is engaging in antisocial behaviour, but that a child may engage in such behaviour, which continues a worrying trend of legislation involving the prediction of bad behaviour. Although the Government's intention is obviously to help all parents to ensure that their children do not engage in bad behaviour in the future, and to help those parents who are not currently coping—which is a measure that I heartily support—the proposal may stigmatise children who have done no wrong.
When I intervened on the Home Secretary, I mentioned that youth offending teams have some experience on which to base such a judgment about a child or parent, but the Bill extends the right to make parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders to registered social landlords. Those issues are difficult for communities and my concern is that the decision should be made by those with the right expertise, which I am not convinced that the RSLs have got.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |