Mr.
Coaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his
support for the independence of the chair of SAP. I agree that it is
important. As I said, I tend to agree with ACPO a lot, but not always.
I was trying to make the point in the previous debate that it will
sometimes in the end say, “This is our view, but you are the
Government and you govern.” That is a sensible, grown-up
approach. It
would not be appropriate for HMCIC to hold the role under the new
system, as it takes on its strengthened role of performance
improvement. That changes the situation. Of course, it does not mean
that HMIC, and the chief inspector in particular, will not play an
important part in the senior appointments process and how all of this
will work. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, about the chair of the
panel. As
always, the difficulty is moving from one system to another. As we all
know, that is often where the greatest difficulty occurs, even when
people agree with the changes. That is why we have tried, in the
interim, to use the high regard that everyone has for Sir Ronnie
Flanagan and put him into that position to help us move to where we
want to be. That seems to have helped
somewhat. I
welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the greater
independence of HMIC from the Government. It is not only a case of it
being independent so that it can hold the police to account, and help
the police to improve by inspecting them. It is also about us saying to
HMIC, “You have that new strengthened independent role from
us.” It is beneficial to have that set out much more
clearly. The hon.
Gentleman asked about fixed-term appointments. No evidence has come to
me in the Home Office to say that that is a particular problem. It
sometimes gets raised, but people have not said that it is a real issue
that is causing problems. Other aspects of the appointments
process—how we encourage and develop it—are much more of
a problem. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the five-year term
can be extended should the police authority wish to do so. Although I
understand the sentiment of what he is trying say with respect to
publicising the work of SAP, part of the way in which he is trying to
do that could give rise to an unnecessary level of
bureaucracy.
The purpose
of amendment 51 is to ensure that the reports of the senior
appointments panel are published and laid before Parliament. I do not
think that I will assuage all of the hon. Gentleman’s doubts,
but it was always our intention to publish its reports to increase the
transparency of the senior appointments process. I am happy to put on
the record our commitment to doing that. The requirement will be set
out in SAP’s constitutional arrangements, which will be made
under clause 2. Although the theme of the amendment is in line with
that transparency, requiring a report to be made to Parliament is not
the appropriate mechanism to achieve it. The Home Office annual report
will make appropriate reference to the work of the senior appointments
panel in
future. In
keeping with the theme of probing for transparency in the senior
appointments panel, amendment 52 would place a duty on HMIC to provide
an annual report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the
senior appointments process in every police force area. In my view, it
is the panel itself that will publicly report on the functioning of the
appointments system and the strategic challenges to address, taking
into account the views of APA, ACPO and others, as well as the
professional input of the inspectorate. Moreover, the Secretary of
State already has the power—an important point, which I am sure
the hon. Gentleman knows—under section 54 of the Police Act 1996
to require HMIC to prepare reports on particular functions of a police
authority, which could include, where the Home Secretary felt it was
appropriate, the workings of the senior appointments process in that
force. In
the light of my comments, and my commitment to publish the senior
appointments panel’s reports, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can
see that, although I have some support for his amendments, they are
unnecessary and, potentially, overly
bureaucratic.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Ruffley: Having heard the Minister’s remarks and
his commitment to publication and airing of such important matters, and
to not doing so in a bureaucratic way, I am satisfied that he has met
the points of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Therefore, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Ruffley: Having regard to your earlier ruling or
indication that you would allow a clause stand part debate,
Mr. Bayley, I point out that I raised all the
issues of a clause stand part nature that I wished to raise in my
speeches to the two groups of amendments that we have just debated. The
Minister indicated in his speeches that he wanted to pick up in the
clause stand part debate on some of the things that he did not cover in
reply to me during the amendment debates. I am happy to reiterate that
there is broad support on the Opposition Benches for reform and
enhancement of the SAP, but I would be grateful if the Minister fleshed
out in a bit more detail what the nature of the new directive powers
will be and whether he can describe how this greater direction will
operate. In short, does it go as far as the militaristic-style
direction of individuals into certain posts at certain times that Sir
Norman Bettison
indicated? If
it is not that—I imagine that the Minister will say, “It
is not” and I agree that it should not be—in what way
will the clause deliver more directive power than the existing regime
that the clause seeks to reform? I am unclear how the new regime will
enhance things. Sir Norman, wearing his ACPO hat, suggested
that he is not clear how the clause will improve things. I repeat:
short of militaristic-style direction—his words, not
mine—it is difficult to see how the new regime can make a
significant difference. I would be grateful to hear the
Minister’s
views.
Mr.
Coaker: I try very hard to answer the questions put. I
recognise that I do not always answer them to the satisfaction of hon.
Members, so I apologise profusely for not specifically answering that
question about militaristic-style direction. The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right. We do not believe that the measures should lead to
militaristic-style direction in which people are ordered to go to
different parts of the country in order to take up various positions. I
hope that that is
clear. I
thought that the hon. Member for Chesterfield was going to make a
couple of remarks. The clause is extremely important. There is no doubt
that everybody accepts that there is a need to increase the number of
candidates putting themselves forward for senior positions and to
encourage greater diversity among candidates. How do we deliver that?
It must be said that the response, given that we do not have and would
not want the ability to order people around, can often appear almost
weak. It sounds good, but what difference will it make?
One
of the reasons why we are saying that we should move from the current
basis to a statutory basis is that we can then start to influence the
work of the senior appointments panel and give it greater clout,
greater credibility and a greater sense of importance. I think that
that is what it will do. The current membership of the SAP is seven.
They are important and good people, but we want to have a much broader
membership than is currently the case.
Currently,
we have an independent chair, representatives from ACPO and APA,
independent members, somebody from the Home Office, a representative of
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and somebody from the
Metropolitan Police Authority. When there is something that the SAP
particularly wants to discuss, other people
are invited along. However, we are saying—we can all read the
clause for ourselves—that the panel will consist
of “a
chair and other members appointed by the Secretary of
State”. That
could include people with particular expertise, judgment or points of
view to bring. They will not represent any body in particular, but they
might have a particular opinion or skill that makes a
difference. The
panel will also include representative members. They will be nominated
by the tripartite Government system that I mentioned earlier,
consisting of the Home Office, APA and ACPO. To answer the hon. Members
for Chesterfield and for Bury St. Edmunds, the SAP will have much
broader membership, bringing together people with a much greater
diversity of views and opinions, and it will be tasked specifically
with certain things to do, rather than sifting appointments as its
primary function.
I point out
to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that, importantly, although the
SAP does an admirable job sifting through appointments, members of
police authorities consider appointments to senior police positions in
their own area and then give them to the SAP to look at. Instead, the
SAP will take a much more proactive role. Rather than reacting to the
people sent to it, the SAP will be charged with increasing the number
of people that police authorities consider in the first place. That is
a significant and fundamental change in how the new body will operate.
Instead of being a passive organisation—I must be careful,
because I do not want people to read this and think that I am having a
go—it will be a proactive, dynamic body charged with doing
something to make a
difference. If
the Home Secretary is concerned about something, she could refer it to
the new body, so that matters relating to the training needs of senior
officers could be considered. People would be considered not only on
the basis of whether they were any good for a job, but on the basis of
what would need to happen for their training needs to be improved,
developed and supported, so that the pool
increases. I
am surprised that police officers have not been saying for decades,
“Why don’t we have what is regarded as good practice in
other professions, so that we are helped to develop?” Perhaps
they have been saying that, but they have not been heard. I was a
teacher—I think some other members of the Committee were
too—but I have worked in different professions. The first thing
that a person wants in their profession is to be supported in
developing the talents, abilities and skills that they need to
progress. That happens to a certain extent within the police force, but
charging a body with the function, aim and objective of increasing the
number of people who come forward for senior appointments is
fundamentally different from what happens
now. There
are lots of papers on black and minority ethnic recruitment, including
one that I helped to put together. We should tell people to support
that work—I am not saying there has been no progress—so
that, instead of our being surprised when somebody from an ethnic
minority is appointed, the surprise will be when there is no ethnic
minority candidate. Getting to such a position would be a significant
change. Surely a new, high-profile SAP is part of delivering
that.
Paul
Holmes: I have listened with great interest to the
Minister. He has thrown more light on what I said earlier—I was
not sure how having an SAP of 10, 15, 20 or however many people would
solve the problem of the lack of people coming forward for positions
such as chief constable. He referred to his background in education. I,
too, was a teacher, and there was a much more decentralised system. All
the way through schools, middle management were encouraged to develop
people’s skills. The Government set up the National College for
School Leadership in Nottingham, which was very effective, but things
are more decentralised now. There are 3,000 secondary schools, whereas
there are only 43 chief constables and police authorities, but to what
extent is relying on one small panel of people, rather than embedding
career development all the way through the system, the
answer?
Mr.
Coaker: Change has taken place in the police service in
this country, and it is trying to embed career development. We can see
that if we look at the training and development that is taking place in
forces up and down the country. The police service is trying to do many
of the things that I am talking about from a national perspective
through the SAP. We are attempting to give development a strategic
direction. If I were to sum up what it is about, I would say that we
always need something to be the catalyst for change. Things will not
necessarily happen if people simply wish for them to happen. If we want
something to happen, we must create a mechanism and some sort of
process to drive it.
To be fair to
the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Bury St. Edmunds, they have
supported the SAP. If we get it right—there will be tension
about that—it will act as a dynamo, or as a catalyst for change.
It cannot change things from the centre, but it can create momentum
from the centre to support the work of individual forces. That and the
power to confer additional functions, should it prove necessary, are
important parts of the reform programme that is taking
place. Notwithstanding
some of the debate about the independence of the chair and the role of
this or that, the police service should sometimes take more credit for
the way in which it is trying to embrace some of the reforms. The
service is not the always the last bastion of resistance to proposals;
rather, it embraces change. However, sometimes, rightly, it asks us to
reflect on what a proposal will mean.
We had a
great debate about clause 1, but clause 2 is a hugely significant
change. If the SAP works, which I believe it will, it will support the
police in bringing about the changes with respect to senior officers
that they, we and the communities of this country
want. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
3Regulations
about senior
officers Question
proposed, That the Clause stand part of the
Bill 6
pm
Mr.
Ruffley: I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. I
had not planned to speak to clause 3, but I noticed that it makes
provision
for “payments
to senior officers who cease to hold office before the end of a fixed
term appointment.”
That caught my eye
because of the debate that we have just had, in which I quoted remarks
by the APA and ACPO about the current operation of the FTA regime. I
said that I was not strongly against it. Helpfully, the Minister added
that he had seen no empirical evidence that there were problems with
FTA. He said that there was anecdotal evidence, but that no evidence
had come across his desk that would lead him as a Minister to
reconsider the whole regime. Fair enough; so far, so good. I wonder,
therefore, why clause 3 takes specific steps to make such payments as I
just quoted. Is it because more and more senior officers are exiting
fixed-term appointments before the end of the due term? Otherwise, why
do we need this clause? I would have thought that that would be
provided for under existing legislation. I would be very grateful,
therefore, if he could explain why the provision in clause 3 is
necessary. Is it because there are more breaks in fixed-term
appointments than was the case
formerly?
| 
