The
Chairman: I am happy to call the hon. Member for Oxford,
West and Abingdon, so long as the matter is entirely relevant to the
programme
motion. Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): When going
through clauses in Committee, an important issue is the commitment to
return to something on Report. It would help us if we knew that there
was a commitment from all parties to come back to those matters on
Report, and we always look to your guidance, Sir Nicholas, on whether
we are debating the matter exhaustively or prematurely before other
Members of the House have a chance to give their views. That matter
was raised in business questions last Thursday.
Generally speaking, there is sufficient time on Report to deal with
anything that emerges from a Committee’s deliberations, but
there are eight substantive parts to this Bill that we have to get
through according to the timetable. That suggests that eight groups of
amendments might emerge on Report, and I have never known eight groups
to be addressed on Report in one day. To aid us in our deliberations
according to this timetable, will the Minister indicate whether we are
likely to get that and whether he will hold open the opportunity for us
to have sufficient time on Report to debate, in particular, Government
amendments in response to points we raise that are restricted by the
timetabling motion? That would aid the Committee’s debates and
considerations.
The
Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman and ask the Minister
to respond to that point in particular. Sadly, matters relating to
Report are not in the hands of Committee Chairmen, but rest with the
Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the Leader of the
House.
Mr.
Coaker: I again thank members of the Committee for the way
in which they have begun deliberations, and I thank Mr.
Ruffley for his comments. He and I have worked together on several
Committees, as he said, and I have also worked with Mr.
Brokenshire. We have at times had fervent and passionate disagreements,
but only when fervent and passionate disagreement was needed and
because we believed in the arguments—that is unlike the
grandstanding that sometimes takes place. Hopefully, that will help
proceedings in this Committee.
I say to
Mr. Ruffley, and partly in answer to Dr.
Harris’s question, that we will always consider ideas that
emerge as we go through the Bill and that appear to be sensible. I know
that Mr. Campbell and Mr. Fitzpatrick are of the
same view. I cannot always guarantee that we will accept an amendment,
but as Members know, I have at times changed certain things in Bills in
that way, not only in Committee, but on Report.
In order that
the Committee’s proceedings are meaningful, I intend to address
any good ideas that Members come up with, as it has always seemed to me
ridiculous not to include a good idea at some stage. The point of the
Committee is to improve and adapt the Bill, notwithstanding the fact
that there are sometimes disagreements. I hope that that is helpful to
Dr. Harris, Mr. Ruffley and other members of the
Committee.
I cannot say
how much time will be available on Report, but I, like everyone else,
want an appropriate amount, because, as Dr. Harris will know, if
matters need to be brought back on Report, I bring them back. If
necessary, we will try to ensure that sufficient time is
available. My
understanding is that the debates on the police grant and the local
government grant will be held on the afternoon of Tuesday 3 February,
but that is not yet 100 per cent. certain. The usual
channels will keep it under review and, if necessary, bring forward an
agreed amendment so that we do not lose any time if it is necessary to
change the timings on the programme motion in the sub-committee. To be
fair both to Mr. Ruffley, given the amount of time he would
spend on his feet, and to me, given the amount of time I would spend on
my feet, I hope that the usual channels will consider us
in their deliberations. The commitment to the Committee is that, if we
do need to change the business that afternoon, we will obviously do it
with the agreement of the Committee, but in such a way that no time is
lost. The
Chairman: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the
Minister for that helpful response.
Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That,
subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence
received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.—(Mr
Coaker.) Written
evidence to be reported to the House
PC 02 UK
Network of Sex Work
Projects PC
08 Association of Police
Authorities PC
09 Object and the Fawcett
Society
The
Chairman: Copies of memorandums that the Committee
receives will be made available in the Committee Room. I can tell hon.
Members that eight have been submitted so far and have been
circulated. Resolved, That,
at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be
heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are
admitted.—(Mr.
Coaker.)
The
Chairman: I now request those witnesses seated in the
Public Gallery, and members of the public, to leave for a short
while.
10.50
am The
Committee deliberated in
private. 10.57
am
On
resuming—
The
Chairman: I welcome our witnesses to this first session of
the Policing and Crime Bill Committee. They are representatives of the
Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police
Authorities and the Airport Operators Association. Just as a formality,
will each of you state your name, position and the body that you
represent?
Ian
Hutcheson: Good morning. I am Ian Hutcheson, security
director for BAA. I chair the security committee for the Airport
Operators Association.
Robert
Siddall: I am Robert Siddall, chief executive of the
Airport Operators Association.
Bob
Jones: I am Bob Jones. I chair the Association of
Police
Authorities. Sir
Norman Bettison: Good morning. I am Norman Bettison.
I am chief constable of West Yorkshire police, representing the
Association of Chief Police Officers this morning.
Dave
Whatton: I am Dave Whatton, chief constable of
Cheshire, representing ACPO on the transport and aviation side this
morning.
The
Chairman: I am not biased in any way, but Mr
Whatton is the chief constable of my authority. You are welcome, and we
will start the evidence session with Mr.
Ruffley.
Q
1Mr.
Ruffley: Good morning. I would like to ask Sir Norman
about the principle of collaboration in this Bill, making it easier for
forces to collaborate, which you should be aware has cross-party
support. However, the history of voluntary collaboration is not
particularly a success story, which is why we have these clauses. Do
you believe that the provisions in this Bill would allow a Home
Secretary, whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, to divide
up the country on a regional or sub-regional basis and say to a cluster
of forces, “You have not been collaborating well and have been
dragging your feet. There have been personality clashes between police
authorities, and we Ministers are determined to make collaboration
work.”? Could a Home Secretary in effect mandate the five forces
and give them a lead force to collaborate on whatever five things they
think should be imposed, whether IT procurement, non-IT procurement or
fixed-wing helicopters, and then impose that on the five forces that
they think are dragging their feet? Speaking for ACPO, do you think
that that can be delivered by the clause and, more importantly, that it
is desirable for Ministers to mandate in that
way? Sir
Norman Bettison: My interpretation is that, because
of the way the Bill is drafted, that could be the ultimate end of the
spectrum of influence. The Bill will place requirements on chief
constables and chairs of police authorities and contains various nudges
and pushes that could be used before the point of mandation was
reached.
The other
thing that the Committee might like to think about is that it seems to
ACPO that at the mandation end of the spectrum there would come some
transfer of accountability, which currently is fairly and squarely on
the shoulders of individual chief constables in all operational
matters. If they choose to collaborate, that accountability remains
with them collectively, but it seems to ACPO that the Bill will create
several clauses that will encourage, nudge and push them towards
collaboration. Our reading of the Bill is that ultimately the Home
Secretary, who currently has the power, will have a mechanism by which
to mandate collaboration.
ACPO sees
collaboration not as an end in itself, which we are in danger of
lighting upon, but as a means to an end—a means of providing
either more effective policing services at the serious and strategic
end of our business, or creating more cost-effective services by
collaborating on procurement and back-office
services.
Q
2Mr.
Ruffley: Do you see a problem with police authorities
buying into more collaboration, because for collaboration to take place
there needs to by a buy-in from the chief constables of the forces that
might be part of a regional or sub-regional collaboration and from
police authorities? Why has the record been so dismal, taking the whole
of England and Wales, when it comes to collaboration for the right end,
which is squeezing efficiencies that mean more money for the front
line? Is it to do with clashes between police authorities or
disagreements between police authorities and chief constables? Is that
a fair characterisation?
Sir
Norman Bettison: No, that is not a
fair characterisation. Chief constables and police authorities often
see the benefit of collaboration. The problems are threefold. The first
problem is that the current 43 police forces have differential and
variable costs, so collaborating on an issue is rarely a fair and
equitable discussion, because different authorities and police forces
have different costs sunk in operations, equipment or plant. The second
problem is that there is variability in the vision of priorities. For
example, I am the chief constable of a large metropolitan police force
that is prepared to stand up and say that it has a problem with
serious and organised crime. When engaging with colleagues in
neighbouring forces and police authorities in more rural areas, we
often have different priorities. It might be for the general good to
collaborate on serious and organised crime, but there are different
views on the
priorities. The
third problem, which is probably driven by the first two, is something
that I refer to as the net donor syndrome. Every individual force and
authority imagines that they will contribute to a collaboration and
that they will be a net donor. If I were chief or chair of a big force,
I might consider that my current assets would be diluted. If I were
chief or chair of a smaller force, I might consider that my
contribution would be sucked into the bigger metropolitan
forces. Along
with a tendency towards local sovereignty, those three problems are
barriers to the voluntary end of collaboration. For the greater good,
there must be some nudges, pushes and pulls within the
process.
Q
3Mr.
Ruffley: Can I take it from that that ACPO would not
object to mandation by Ministers—whoever they may be—at
the extreme end of the scale and that some forces would have to take it
on the chin? Is it fair to say that ACPO would say that mandation by
Ministers will deliver the benefits that the amalgamation and merger
process would have
delivered? Sir
Norman Bettison: The strategic threats and risks that
mergers were intended to address are still present in policing. ACPO
believes that collaboration around some of those risks would be a good
thing. We see mandation as the extreme end of the spectrum. The Bill
allows for consultation, discussion and negotiation with chief
constables and chairs of police authorities before that point is
reached. I ought to answer your question directly, however. If ACPO is
convinced of the general good, we are prepared to concede to mandation.
ACPO would be vociferous in pointing out to Ministers of any hue where
the common good was being compromised rather than
advantaged.
The
Chairman: Although we want to make progress,
Mr. Ruffley, do you want to put a similar question to Dave
Whatton for a brief answer, because he represents a rather different
police authority to Sir
Norman?
Q
4Mr.
Ruffley: I know that Mr. Whatton has had
experience of this matter as deputy chief constable of Greater
Manchester police. I do not wish to hog the Committee’s time and
will allow other hon. Members to ask questions. However, I have a final
question for Sir
Norman. It
is fairly well known that quite a few chief constable posts do not
attract many applicants. I can think of two examples having met the new
chief constables of Thames
Valley police and Lincolnshire police. This is no
reflection on the incumbents because I regard them both highly, but
they were the sole applicants for those incredibly important jobs. Will
the clauses on reforming the senior appointments panel really effect
the step change that is required to get more high-potential officers
into chief constable
jobs? Sir
Norman Bettison: Not unless the intention is to mimic
the military approach of moving people to posts around the country
against their will. For that reason, ACPO does not necessarily think
that the senior appointments panel measures should be contained in
primary legislation. The aims of the senior appointments panel are
supported by ACPO. However, unless talent management is taken to the
extent of directing who applies for which jobs—there are
personal and domestic barriers against doing so—it is not clear
that the senior appointments panel arrangements will affect the number
of people applying for particular posts. Many different reasons play
into this. First, the differential between deputy chief constable pay
in a larger force and chief constable pay can be so small that moving
family and house makes no sense.
Secondly, the
imposition of a five-year fixed term appointment on postings affects
the number of people applying for particular posts. Officers are very
careful these days to ask themselves, “Is a five-year window
appropriate for me at this particular time in that particular
place?” Because it could be that, at the end of that five-year
fixed-term appointment, they will be left somewhere high and dry where
they do not want to be and, possibly, before reaching pensionable age.
So, the constraints in previous legislation that have been placed on
the employment of chief constables and deputy chief constables are in
themselves a barrier to free movement.
| 
