 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Policing and Crime Bill |
Policing and Crime Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Andrew Kennon, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee WitnessesMr.
Vernon Coaker, Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and
Policing Mr. Alan Campbell,
Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department Mr. Jim
Fitzpatrick, Under-Secretary of State for
Transport Public Bill CommitteeThursday 29 January 2009(Afternoon)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Policing and Crime Bill1
pm The
Committee deliberated in
private. 1.8
pm On
resuming—
The
Chairman: I welcome our witnesses who are changing places:
having been part of the Committee questioning witnesses in the earlier
sessions, they are now to be subject to questions from other members of
the Committee. I welcome particularly Vernon Coaker, the Minister for
Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, Alan Campbell, the
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Jim Fitzpatrick,
the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
We are going
to take the various sections separately. The first will be policing,
the second airport security, the third prostitution, the fourth
alcohol, the fifth proceeds of crime, and the final one extradition. We
have agreed to spend a certain amount of time on each one, and we will
start with questions on policing from the spokesman for Her
Majesty’s
Opposition.
Q
162Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): Thank you, Sir
Nicholas. My questions are addressed to the Minister of State in the
spirit of honest inquiry that we have had on so many
occasions—not always, but most of the time. On the issue of
collaboration, I think there is one thing we can agree on. We all heard
the evidence from Sir Norman Bettison on how mandation would be looked
at by any Home Secretary or Minister from whichever political party. He
suggested—I put the idea into his head—that Ministers in
the Home Office should draw up a map dividing up England and Wales and
say that those regions or sub-regions will collaborate on five issues
that will be mandated across those forces. He suggested that that was
at the hard end of the collaboration procedure that is provided for in
the Bill. My question is a straight, practical one and it is not in any
sense party political, as I am sure you will concede. Is it in the mind
of the Home Office to do what I have suggested, to divide up England
and Wales and have a structured programme of mandation, with specific
forces for specific
activities? Mr.
Coaker: Good afternoon, Sir Nicholas, and members of
Committee. In answer to that question I wish to make the point, as
Mr. Ruffley did, that we have constructive engagement. I say
that at the beginning of every meeting, but it is important to put it
on the record. Given that this is an evidence session rather than a
regular Committee sitting in which it sometimes becomes a bit more them
versus us, I will try to engage in the constructive way that he
suggests.
The first
thing to say is that the mergers debate was about closing a gap that
everybody accepted existed. If that was not the correct route and the
Government withdrew from proposing the mergers because of the
resistance, the problem of what to do about protective services and
serious and organised crime was not necessarily resolved. That
fundamentally goes to the heart of the question, because if you are not
going to sort this by mergers, how will you? How will you deal with
serious and organised crime, cross-border issues and all those types of
things? The
approach over the past few years, and our approach, has always been
that we need to encourage collaboration. I am sure that if members of
the Committee thought about it they could point to really good examples
in their own areas of when their police forces have collaborated with
other police forces to tackle problems. Certainly our view, in line
with what Sir Norman said, is that the best way forward is to bring
about that collaboration by voluntary means—by agreement.
Alongside that, work is going on to look at what decisions are best
made to help inform the choice that local police forces will make. For
example Denis O’Connor, the acting chief inspector, has under a
letter from me been asked to consider at what level decisions are best
taken, so that we get the subsidiarity debate out into the open and
looked at. So work is going on, in the first instance to inform the
debate about whether a decision should be taken at the local, regional
or national level. We are not looking at a master plan, but we are
looking at the best way to ensure
collaboration. In
the Bill we have given some certainty to the legislative framework
because police authorities and police forces tell us that it is not
clear. That is the reason for many of the clauses. We have tried to be
clear in the Bill that mandation is not a first resort. It is something
that we need to consider when it is clearly in the public interest and
when there just seems to be obstruction to something that everyone
agrees would be of benefit to not only those police forces but the
local areas. It is a last resort, based on an informed choice at a
local level, rather than being some sort of great master plan that is
sent
down.
Q
163Mr.
Ruffley: In using the words “master plan” I
was not luring you into a trap, Minister. I did not mean to be
pejorative. I wanted to ask whether there was something more structured
than just the voluntary ad hoc collaboration arrangements that we have
had up to now. Behind these clauses is the recognition by the Home
Office and the observation of outsiders that voluntary collaboration
does not work. It does not get enough collaboration quickly enough. You
are speeding that up and facilitating it. It therefore follows
logically that if the voluntary arrangements are not satisfactory after
the strategic merger debate—and they have not been—the
Home Office might want to force the pace. In my view, it would be right
to do that. I think that you have answered the question, but I want to
know whether you are aware of any work that seeks to mandate a master
plan or a structured plan for England and
Wales. Mr.
Coaker: No. To tease this issue
out, we talk about protective services and serious and
organised crime as if they are the same thing. When you are looking at
collaboration, you are talking about serious and organised
crime—whatever that means—but you are also talking
about IT systems, transport systems, horses and
dogs, things that are related to murder investigations and protecting
people from the most serious offenders. Some of those issues require
different approaches from others. Serious and organised crime might
need a more regional focus, whereas two or three forces might be
involved in the issue of how many police forces have a mounted section.
It is important to think about what is appropriate at a local level
alongside the national
parameters.
Q
164Mr.
Ruffley: May I ask again how these clauses will help the
police service in practice? I have in mind clause 11 and related
clauses, which firm up the powers of direction for Ministers. To make
this real for people who are following the debate, the clauses give
more centralised powers to Ministers. That need not of itself be a bad
thing. I am not saying that all centralisation is bad because it
clearly is
not. Would
it be fair to say that you could use these powers to mandate what Sir
Ronnie Flanagan correctly said in his interim report—not so much
in the final report—that there should be a national suite of
forms for the most frequently committed offences that officers can use
with minimum reporting requirements? As you will recall, in the interim
report, Sir Ronnie said that he expected the national suite of forms
that would save police time to be drafted by the Association of Chief
Police Officers and the National Police Improvement Network by July
2008. That has not happened. Would the powers in clause 11 and related
clauses tempt you to mandate a national suite of forms and similar
time-saving measures, which need an element of
centralisation? Mr.
Coaker: You can clearly use them
for the purposes that you think
appropriate.
Mr.
Coaker: If you wanted to use the powers to introduce
that, you could. However, we do not think that we will need to. There
will be announcements from Jan Berry in the next few weeks that will
deal with some of the issues with bureaucracy. Sir David
Normington’s report into reducing the annual data requirement
will also be released soon. There will be a number of measures that do
not require the compilation of templates for a national suite of forms
that could be mandated. The purpose of clause 11 is to inject a sense
of momentum, urgency and pace into the procedures and processes. It is
correct that there has been progress. We want to enhance that progress
and push it further. We will mandate where necessary, but that will be
a last
resort.
Q
166Mr.
Ruffley: I gave the example of the national suite of
forms, which you have discounted. Just so that these clauses are
brought to life, will you give the Committee a couple of examples of
how this power might be used? In what areas of policy would you seek to
use these powers to direct and mandate in ways that the Home Office
does not already? I would like real-life practical
examples. Mr.
Coaker: You could mandate the IT systems and software
that are used by some
forces.
Mr.
Coaker: If anybody looked at police forces across the
country, they would have to be persuaded that having 43 IT solutions to
a problem was for the best.
Mr.
Coaker: I know.
Mr.
Coaker: IT could certainly be
looked at and there are other operational things that we can do. If you
look, as I know you have done, at some of the clauses dealing with
collaboration, you will see that they try to address some of the
practical problems of, for example, police moving across borders and
issues of direction and control. It is about trying to come to an
agreement voluntarily and looking to see what needs to be mandated
where necessary.
I am not
seeking to make a party political point, but my final question is about
the very detailed proposals that were in the Green Paper that do not
appear in the Bill about direct elections of crime and policing
representatives. I am sure that others will want to pick up on that.
Instead, in clause 1 there is
a “requirement to have
regard to the
views” of
the public on policing. Can you give an indication of where the Green
Paper proposals stand? Should we expect them to be enacted after David
Blunkett’s report? Although they are not in the Bill, I
understand that they are still alive in some netherworld. What is the
status of those Green Paper proposals?
Mr.
Coaker: Clearly, as you say, they
are not in the Bill; we took them out for the reasons that you and I
have rehearsed. We worried about the politicisation that could result
from direct elections of that type and, frankly, about the lack of
consensus. I am not trying to make a party political point, but you
know from different authorities across the country how controversial
they are. In a sense, all three Front Benches of the major political
parties were completely at odds with their local parties and their
local authorities. We have moved to what we think is a more sensible
approach to police
authorities. You
asked about David Blunkett’s review and the issue of direct
elections. The proposal will not be brought back in the near future
and, clearly, there will be a general election before they could be
brought back, so we will see what happens after that. The Home
Secretary has asked David Blunkett to look at direct elections and see
whether we, within the Labour party, can move from complete hostility
towards a model that will meet the concerns people have raised about
politicisation and the election of minority or extremist groups to
police authorities. You are aware of many of the
arguments.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 30 January 2009 |