Draft Police and Crime Panels (Modification of Functions) Regulations 2012
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con)
† Blunkett, Mr David (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
† Brake, Tom (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
† Crouch, Tracey (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Hepburn, Mr Stephen (Jarrow) (Lab)
† Herbert, Nick (Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice)
† Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
† Macleod, Mary (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
† Poulter, Dr Daniel (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
† Redwood, Mr John (Wokingham) (Con)
† Ruddock, Dame Joan (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
† Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Vara, Mr Shailesh (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
† Vickers, Martin (Cleethorpes) (Con)
† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)
† Wright, David (Telford) (Lab)
Sara Howe, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 3 July 2012
[Mr David Crausby in the Chair]
Draft Police and Crime Panels (Modification of Functions) Regulations 2012
10.30 am
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Crime Panels (Modification of Functions) Regulations 2012.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 lays out the framework for the strict checks and balances that will be fundamental to the introduction of police and crime commissioners. A key element of that is the introduction of police and crime panels, comprising local councillors and independent members.
The panels will be established in every force area to undertake an important scrutiny function and to provide support and challenge to police and crime commissioners as they perform their duties. Every force area must have a panel with arrangements in place to ensure that police and crime commissioners are appropriately scrutinised once they are elected in November.
We expect that, in every case, the process will happen smoothly. However, in the event of a local authority’s choosing not to engage or being deliberately obstructive, it is important that it cannot frustrate the efforts of the remaining local authorities in the force area to establish a panel. To that end, the regulations provide that, when a local authority defaults on its statutory duty to nominate and appoint one or more councillors to the police and crime panel, it will no longer be required to agree the panel arrangements. That will allow the remaining local authorities to establish a panel and, crucially, ensure that the panels are in place in time for the arrival of police and crime commissioners in November.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab): When two areas go in for a strategic alliance, as is the case with West Mercia and Warwickshire, how will the panels function? Will their operation vary because of the strategic alliance?
Nick Herbert: No, there will still be one police and crime commissioner, who needs scrutinising and supporting, for each of those areas, so there will be a panel in each area. There is nothing to stop the areas liaising when there is a strategic alliance between two forces, and we expect that sort of collaboration to continue to evolve throughout the country. However, they will have to continue to undertake their statutory responsibilities to scrutinise.
David Wright: What happens if they disagree?
Nick Herbert: The panels may take a different view in each force area—that is a matter for them— just as the chief constables and the police and crime commissioners may take a different view. The panels exist to scrutinise the police and crime commissioners in the exercise of their functions. They are there to ensure that the police and crime commissioners are doing the right job. They are not there to scrutinise the chief constable directly. It is right that, so long as there are individual police and crime commissioners, separate police and crime panels should be able to scrutinise them, thereby also giving local authorities a voice in each area.
The Home Office has developed the regulations in consultation with key stakeholders representing those who will be affected by the proposals. They provide clarity and necessary safeguards while minimising bureaucratic burdens and central prescription for police and crime panels. They will help ensure that police and crime panels are established later this month and are in full flow by November, in time to provide vital support to and scrutiny of the new police and crime commissioners when they come into office.
10.34 am
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank the Minister for setting out the contents of the regulations so clearly. I also offer the apologies of the shadow policing Minister, who is away on family business today.
The Opposition will not try to divide the Committee on the regulations, but I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Why, after rubber-stamping the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act only last year, are the Government making changes to the accountability and governance arrangements for police and crime commissioners? What has happened to make the Government feel that they have to introduce the regulations?
The Minister said that he drew up the regulations in conjunction with the Local Government Association, as one of the key stakeholders. Has he been made aware of any practical difficulties in implementing the regulations as they stand? Finally, there is to be no formal monitoring of the way in which local authorities comply with schedule 6 of the 2011 Act. Does he think it might be appropriate to monitor the development and effectiveness of these panels when they become operational, and will he commit to ensuring that the House is at least briefed on their effectiveness during the rest of this Parliament?
10.35 am
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It had not been my intention to speak in this debate, but yesterday a matter was brought to my attention that is pertinent to police and crime panels: the powers that the Secretary of State may have when a relevant local authority or authorities fail to discharge their duty in appointing a panel that reflects accurately the political proportions in a particular area.
The proposed panel for Thames Valley police authority would consist of 15 Conservatives and three Labour members, yet in practice the voting record locally suggests that it should in fact comprise 12 Conservatives, three Labour members and three Liberal Democrats. Does the Minister think that that is in keeping with what the
Government are seeking to achieve with police and crime panels? Does that make them much more political than was expected? “Gerrymandering” is perhaps too strong a word, but there has certainly been some coalition work between the Conservatives and Labour to ensure that the Liberal Democrats are not represented on that panel.10.37 am
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I, too, did not intend to speak in this debate, but I note what is stated in paragraph 2, and I agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The West Midlands police authority, for instance, is balanced and has representation from all parties; the danger is that this measure will not go down that route.
The regulations are devised to deal with local authorities that wish to block the creation of a police and crime panel. As I see it, unanimity is required from local authorities. We in the west midlands always have the Coventry question: there is the Greater Birmingham area—and Coventry always wants to do its own thing. We have an airport—and then Coventry wants to do something different. These regulations could enable a local authority to appoint somebody but then block everything by not agreeing to any of the arrangements.
10.38 am
Nick Herbert: First, I am grateful for the official Opposition’s support for these regulations, which are entirely sensible. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked why we are making changes to the accountability and governance arrangements. We are not—those arrangements are set out in the legislation. The regulations’ purpose is narrow: to ensure that, in the event that the police and local authorities are unable to reach agreement on forming a police and crime panel, there is a back-stop measure to make sure that a single local authority cannot hold up agreement, and would therefore be removed from the panel. Responsibility for forming panels is retained at the local level, which I think is right, rather than the centre assuming these powers, but a means is provided by which the panel can be established. It is a sensible measure to ensure that any problems cannot obstruct the performing of what is an important part of the check and balance process for police and crime commissioners.
We do not anticipate any problems. The first police and crime panel has already been established, in Gloucestershire. There have been some relatively small difficulties in some areas, and the Local Government Association has been working with local authorities to iron them out. We expect that all these panels will be formed, as the legislation intended, but this is an important back-stop measure.
On the formal monitoring of schedule 6, the Home Office will keep an eye on all the developments relating to that policy in the election of police and crime commissioners, in how panels are being formed and in the exercising of their powers. I have already had cause to remind stakeholders and those who are forming panels that they are not continuing the role of police authorities. Their job is not to hold the chief constable directly to account; it is to scrutinise the police and crime
commissioner. The fact that I have done so is evidence that we are carefully watching how the arrangements are being put in place, and we will continue to keep a weather eye on the establishment of such panels.Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): As the new accountability of the chief constable is to the commissioner, we do not want to have another group of people needlessly occupying the chief constable’s precious time. It is important that, if the aim of the panels is to achieve the accountability of the new commissioner, they should be limited to that. Otherwise, the chief constable will spend all his or her time answering the inquiries of all these different checking-up bodies and not have so much time to do the job that we want them to do.
Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. That is precisely the point. The legislation is clear. There is no ambiguity. Police and crime commissioners hold the chief constables to account. Police and crime panels are there to scrutinise the police and crime commissioner and, indeed, to provide support. Their role is to challenge and support. Their role is not to be obstructive nor is it to scrutinise the chief constable directly. That was explicitly ruled out in the legislation. It would be unfair on chief constables, who would find themselves answering to two bodies, not one, and it would fly in the face of the clear linear responsibility that we put in place, which is that the job of the panel is to scrutinise the police and crime commissioner and that of the commissioner is to scrutinise the chief constable. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make that absolutely clear. There is no requirement to amend the legislation, because that guidance is in the legislation. Indeed, a helpful reminder is set out in plain English in the protocol.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): I want to follow that up and a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North. The proposal is clear when put like that, until it is recognised that both the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner have substantial responsibilities for the financial arrangements for funding and for monitoring the implementation of those financial arrangements. I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on whether the Home Office and those advising him have actually thought through how the divide might occur given that the chief constable has specific operational responsibilities, as does the police and crime commissioner, for determining the financial arrangements for the forthcoming year.
Nick Herbert: The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the chief constable has operational responsibilities, but the legislation and Parliament’s intention are clear that the panel’s role is to challenge and support the police and crime commissioner. Its attention should be on the police and crime commissioner and on the decisions that they make on, for example, the precept, the budget and the plan. The panel should not ask questions directly of the chief constable about operational matters. It is an important change of focus. The roles of the police authority are effectively transferred to the police and crime commissioner. Police and crime panels are not continuing the role of the police authority. It is
important that they understand that that is a new role —it is important, but it is different—and that they do not set off on the wrong footing, as it appears they did in London until reminded of their statutory responsibilities.My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the Thames Valley police area and the formation of the panel there. We have not yet received notification of Thames Valley’s proposals for its panel, but when they submit the proposals, the host authority, which is Buckinghamshire county council, will need to sign to confirm that the balanced appointment objective, which is that political balance is required and is set out in the legislation, has been considered and is met, as the legislation says, “so far as is practicable”. I will not comment on reports about what is currently proposed, because I do not know myself what is being proposed. However, the legislation is clear that regard must be paid to political balance, and the authorities will have to sign that they have had such regard when forming the panel. They will no doubt note the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about whether the balance that he suggests that they may arrive at is correct.
John Hemming: One of the difficulties with balance is aggregate balance across the whole police authority area, as opposed to individual balance on individual authorities. There may be a situation whereby individual authorities appoint two Conservatives, one Labour, whereas, across the whole area, there should be some Liberal Democrat representation.
Nick Herbert: It is slightly different with police and crime panels, because each local authority has only one representative. The Thames Valley police area contains the largest number of local authorities of any police area—18—which means that they do not have the ability to top up with further representatives on the panel to achieve political balance. That means that they have to achieve political balance from within the 18 nominations. Nevertheless, that is the requirement and they have to reach an agreement and to sign that they have considered such matters properly.