Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Memorandum submitted by the Greater London Authority (PR 58)
1.
The Mayor of London welcomes the overall changes as set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
2.
The Mayor and the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) both welcome the policy intent of the Bill, giving greater democratic accountability for policing. There are, though, some aspects of the Bill as currently drafted which may not achieve the stated police reform policy intent and/ or may lead to unintended outcomes, which are outlined below.
3.
The Mayor supports the changes as proposed on licensing reform to allow more local control and flexibility responding to the needs of the local community. The Mayor supports the proposal of the late night levy, which for London, will be administered by the Mayor in his capacity as the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
4.
In addition the Mayor wishes to introduce new enforcement action to tackle the high level of alcohol related violence, a particular problem in London, with a new court enforcement power for compulsory sobriety to be imposed as part of community sentencing.
5.
The Mayor welcomes the Bill’s provisions on Parliament Square Garden (PSG) and considers that it will enable the more effective management of camped protests in PSG. The Mayor particularly supports vesting officers with powers of seizure in respect of prohibited activities and, more generally, breaches of byelaws.
Police Reform and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Part 1)
6.
The Mayor and the Chair of the MPA both welcome the policy intent of the Bill, which gives greater democratic accountability for policing and provides opportunity for better partnership working locally and across the criminal justice system to, for example, improve rates of reoffending. There are, though, some aspects of the Bill as currently drafted which may not achieve the stated policy intent and/ or may lead to unintended outcomes.
7.
Clause 19 of the Bill that deals with delegation of functions by the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime (MOPC) to the Deputy Mayor for Policing (DMP) precludes the DMP from undertaking the majority of the MOPC functions, including appearing before the Police and Crime Panel (PCP), which would be simply unworkable. Clause 3 requires clarity to provide for the DMP, the body responsible for holding the MPS to account, to fulfil the full range of MOPC functions if the Mayor becomes incapacitated.
8.
The stated policy intent is to strengthen democratic accountability. The Bill in fact represents a significant reduction in the role and powers of the MOPC compared with that of the MPA. If the Government intention is to re-balance the tripartite, in particular by reducing the central role of the Home Office, the local governance role needs to be strengthened as the drafting of the Bill gives the MPS Commissioner significantly more powers and the local elected policing body significantly less than at present.
9.
For example, the MOPC will have to agree the Police and Crime Plan, which will be a formal Mayoral strategy and the flagship document, with the MPS Commissioner who thereafter has only to give ‘regard to’ it in delivering local policing. It cannot be right that the MPS Commissioner can refuse to deliver the MOPC plan and priorities, both national and those that matter to Londoners.
10.
The Bill creates both the MOPC and Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Commissioner as a corporation sole, thereby indicating that both will own assets and estate, hold budgets and have borrowing and contract making powers. This will increase risk and muddy respective responsibilities as well as requiring duplicate audit staff and auditable accounts etc, which increases bureaucracy and cost. The creation of the MPS Commissioner as a corporation sole should be limited to the purposes of employing staff only. A robust scheme of delegation from the MOPC to the MPS Commissioner would allow a balance between keeping accountable control and allowing the MPS Commissioner managerial flexibility.
11.
If the MOPC is to be held accountable to the public, who will have access to more information and control under the new arrangements, it does not seem sensible to move senior officer conduct matters to the Commissioner, in effect hiding them. There are two likely consequences. First, the MOPC and PCP will request regular and detailed reports to ensure efficacy and probity of decision making, which will increase bureaucracy and second the public will realise that if they want the MOPC to deal with their complaint then they simply have to make a complaint against the MPS Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. As a matter of principle there should be an independent element in dealing with conduct matters for senior ranks and in their appointment.
12.
The Mayor and Chair of the MPA support the IPCC proposals for how low level incivility complaints should be addressed. An explicit duty in respect of monitoring all complaints against the MPS would be helpful.
13.
A duty placed on the MPS Commissioner to cooperate with the MOPC in the exercise of his statutory functions would be helpful.
14.
The Mayor feels strongly that the appointment of the MPS Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner must be on the basis of advice being provided jointly by the Mayor and Secretary of State to avoid confusion over lines of accountability.
15.
The Bill lacks clarity on the differences between engagement and consultation and the respective roles and responsibilities of the MOPC and MPS Commissioner. Clause 34 should be amended to put the responsibilities for engagement with local people and determining the neighbourhoods of a police area with the MOPC rather than MPS Commissioner, or at the very least jointly.
16.
The Bill needs to be amended to make it clear who may enter collaboration agreements and specify that if the MPS Commissioner wishes to enter into a collaboration agreement, it needs to be done with the consent of the MOPC. Furthermore, collaboration ought not to be restricted to policing bodies, for example, it should allow collaboration with other local authorities.
Licensing (Part 2)
17.
The Mayor fully supports the amendments proposed to the Licensing Act 2003 to enable local licensing authorities (in London this is the London boroughs and City of London) to determine licensing policy every five years and the wider flexibilities proposed to enable licensing authorities to respond to local needs, including being recognised as responsible authorities.
18.
The Mayor supports the proposal of the late night levy, which for London, will be administered by the Mayor in his capacity as the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The Mayor recommends that for London, 100% of the late night levy should be available to the Mayor to develop measures and distribute, in consultation with boroughs and other partners, to address the effect of alcohol related crime and disorder in the late-night economy.
19.
The Mayor supports the need to consider the health impacts as one element of licensing policy and is disappointed that the government has decided not to proceed with making this as an additional requirement for consideration in licensing policy at this time.
Parliament Square Garden and Surrounding Area (Part 3)
20.
The Mayor welcomes Part 3 of the Bill and considers that it will enable the more effective management of camped protests in PSG. The Mayor particularly supports vesting officers with powers of seizure in respect of prohibited activities and, more generally, breaches of byelaws. The new powers of the court on conviction will also make criminal prosecutions a more viable alternative to the expensive trespass proceedings the Mayor took in respect of the Democracy Village protest.
21.
The Mayor considers that Part 3 would be made even more effective if GLA officers were also given express power to require a person who is directed to cease or not to start doing a prohibited activity to provide his or her name and address and for it to be an offence to provide false details. This would also support the return of seized items.
Other issues to consider
Sobriety
22.
London has the highest rate of alcohol-related crime in England. The Mayor believes that more needs to be done to tackle alcohol related violent crime and anti-social behaviour using interventions which influence behaviour change and reduce the culture of binge–drinking.
23.
The Mayor wishes to introduce a " compulsory sobriety" scheme to tackle the culture of binge-drinking and other crimes that have strong links to alcohol such as domestic violence. The scheme would be provided as an option for the courts in the form of suspended sentences, community sentences or part of a release license. Compliance would be achieved through daily testing and non-compliance would lead to a swift arrest, return to court and imposition of sanctions (either a fine or custody).
24.
Under local freedoms and flexibilities the Mayor wishes to pilot a scheme in London, starting later in 2011, to be paid for through the existing system of court fines, and a daily testing charge levied upon those convicted.
January 2011
|
