Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friends Lady Henig and Lord Beecham is, as they have said, to increase transparency and accountability through providing requirements in the Bill for the provision of information and consultation with and between the relevant bodies and individuals referred to in the Bill and with the local community. This group of amendments in effect comes back to the heart of much of the debate on the Bill that we have had so far and, in particular, the extent to which the Government’s proposals for a police and crime commissioner concentrate so much virtually unchallengeable power and authority over wide geographical areas in the hands of one individual.

The amendments seek to provide for consultation and taking account of views expressed before crime and disorder reduction grants are made, taking account of the views of witnesses, as well as victims, of crime on policing, appointing a member of the police and crime panel to sit on each crime reduction partnership or community safety partnership within the relevant police area, holding public meetings at which the business of the commissioner may be conducted and decisions made, the production of an annual report showing the extent to which crime has increased or decreased, obtaining through co-ordinated consultation the views of the community, and provision for the chief constable to attend a panel meeting when the annual report is presented and for the chief constable to provide information to the panel to enable the panel to carry out its functions. The local policing body appointing a member of the panel to sit on each crime reduction partnership or community safety partnership within the relevant area is to ensure that the functions of the local policing body are exercised effectively, as there must surely be a need for the local policing body to be aware of the concerns of the partnerships and their priorities and that the links between them are strong. Other amendments are designed to ensure that business is conducted in a public setting, and is seen to be done in public, to ensure greater transparency and accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

We now make rapid progress because my amendment jumps to Clause 80 but it is in this group for discussion. Clause 80 contains the general duty of the Secretary of State and states that it is to be best used,

“to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police”.

I take a quite different view. It is not the duty of the Home Secretary to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police because this Bill seeks to have elected police and crime commissioners to do that. Even if the first amendment on which we voted were to be accepted in another place and by this House when the Bill returns, and we had the continuation of police authorities, surely it should be their duty to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police.

I say to my noble friend that I would not dream of pushing my amendment to a vote because I seek to use perhaps an extreme form of words. I take the totally contrary view, suggesting that it is not the duty of the Home Secretary to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police but that she should interfere only to prevent the safety of persons in a police area from being put at risk. I suggest that the Home Secretary should intervene and use her powers generally in the Bill only in those dire circumstances. I accept that that goes to a more extreme position than even I might believe in at times. However, somewhere between that position and the general power which, I suggest, continues in Clause 80, of total interference by the Home Secretary in anything that he or she likes, there may be a balanced, happy medium which would permit an elected police and crime commissioner or a police authority to exercise their proper duty of efficiency and effectiveness.

As soon as I got the Bill, I turned to look at what powers of the Home Secretary would be abolished. I found Clause 82 and thought, “Jolly good. What about the rest?”. Unfortunately, I could not find many other powers of the Home Secretary that were being abolished, and there were still too many powers for the Home Secretary to call for reports from chief constables and elected police and crime commissioners, to call for statistics and to call for this, that and the other. Members of this House who have served in another place will know that if a Member of Parliament asks the Home Secretary for a single statistic about a police force, inevitably it will be replicated for other police force areas. The Home Office will then invent 10 forms so that the Home Secretary is never wrong-sighted, and we will build up a plethora of information gathering that will be excessive and unnecessary. This is not germane to the amendment, but I use it as an example to say that the Home Secretary's powers could be further circumscribed in the Bill without any risk to national policing and the proper co-ordination of policing throughout the country—a role that is better promoted by HMIC than by the Home Secretary.

I conclude by referring to Clause 80, much further down the line, which gives the Home Secretary the power and duty to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police overall. If the Home Secretary has and exercises that duty, what is the point of police authorities, and what is the point of the elected crime commissioner? That is what their job was supposed to be. I do not suggest that my amendment is perfect—it is far from that—but it adopts an extreme position in the hope that I can make a point to my noble friend and that, possibly by Report, we may have a slightly different form of words for what the duty of the Home Secretary may or may not be.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendments in this group deal with the powers of the Secretary of State. I tabled Amendment 226AA on police strategic priorities, but will speak to others in the group. Among other things, the Bill deletes the regulation-making powers and provisions relating to seeking the views of the community on policing. It deletes the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of performance targets for police strategic priorities, codes of practice for police authorities and reports from police authorities to the Secretary of State—as my noble friend Lord Beecham said when he moved his amendment. The amendments seek for the most part to preserve these powers for the Secretary of State, although I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has gone down a different road.

The Bill also places a general duty on the Secretary of State to exercise powers in a way that appears to the Secretary of State to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police. One amendment in the group seeks to replace the efficiency and effectiveness duty with a duty to exercise powers in a way that best ensures safety and security, which one would have thought was a rather more important consideration in relation to policing.

We have already had a debate today on consultation, with the Minister agreeing to look again at certain areas of concern. I hope that, as part of that further look, he will also reconsider the proposal in the Bill to delete the regulation-making powers and provisions on ascertaining the views of the community on policing. In the context of our previous debate, one would have thought that they were important powers for the Secretary of State to have.

As for my amendment on performance targets for police strategic priorities, there are national strategic police considerations, in particular relating to more serious crimes, to be taken into account and that would not be assisted by these powers being taken away from the Secretary of State. Unlike police and crime commissioners dotted up and down the country, the Secretary of State can take national strategic policing considerations into account. Surely there must also be a need for some consistency on basic strategic objectives over policing, which does not necessarily appear to be the way that the Government are thinking of going in the future. It is also not clear why there should be an efficiency and effectiveness duty on the Secretary of State rather than, as I said a moment ago, a duty to exercise powers in a way that best ensures safety and security, which is surely more important.

These amendments, as has already been said, obviously raise the issue of the future role of the Secretary of State in relation to policing powers in the light of the likely advent of police and crime commissioners. We hope that, in response, the Minister can explain why the Government take the view that the current powers of the Secretary of State to which I have referred, and which are referred to in these amendments, should be reduced rather than retained in the way that this group of amendments proposes.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

190A: Clause 52, page 33, line 9, at end insert “, and
( ) the person is not serving a prison sentence or is not on remand.”

[Lord Rosser]

I congratulate the Deputy Chairman on guiding us through that tour de force. I feel like something of an intruder in standing here to speak to some of the amendments in this group. My amendments are Amendments 190A, 194A, 199A and 201A.

I wondered whether to move the amendment as my amendments in the group relate to elected police and crime commissioners, which are no longer in the Bill. On reflection, I decided to continue to move it, at least to find out a little more about what the Government had in mind for the election arrangements. That is in view of concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission last September that work on a potential spate of elections and new arrangements for elections, including for police and crime commissioners, did not appear to be well co-ordinated by the Government. Of course, we are talking about elections which, prior to the deletion of the relevant part from the Bill, the Government were envisaging should go countrywide in May next year.

In moving the amendment, and speaking to the others in the group, which I have indicated are probing amendments, I would like to ask one or two questions about what the Government had in mind as far as those election arrangements were concerned. I ask them in part in the light of some of the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission.

First, is the Minister able to say something about what the Government had intended about how those elections would be organised and by whom? Returning officers work on a local authority basis, but in nearly all cases the police authorities overlap more than one local authority area. So although it would not be the first time that elections had been held in respect of an organisation, body or Parliament that went over more than one authority area, it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about what was intended about organising these elections, in view of this issue of returning officers working on a local authority basis, as the elections would take place for many of the police and crime commissioners over a number of local authority areas.

One of the amendments that I have tabled refers to the issue of those in prison and those on remand, and seeks to say that those serving a prison sentence or on remand should not be included among those eligible to vote. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on whether it was their intention that prisoners should be able to vote in the election for a police and crime commissioner or not. I am sure that some people would think that it was rather odd that prisoners should be able to take part in an election of that kind, just as others would think that it was entirely reasonable. Obviously, it is an issue on which there would be different views, but it would be of interest to hear the Government’s thinking on that score.

I appreciate that things came to grief, from the Government’s point of view, a few weeks ago. But as Governments usually prepare on the basis that the guts of the Bill will go through, it would also be helpful if the Minister could indicate what discussions were held with local authorities, registration officers and electoral administrators and, indeed, with the Electoral Commission, particularly in the light of the concerns that it expressed last September. Indeed, another of the amendments that I have tabled provides that for making orders under relevant provisions the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and publish its advice. It would be interesting to know if that had been part and parcel of the Government’s plans and intentions as well.

In the concerns that the Electoral Commission raised, it said that it asked the Government to create a cross-department working group to co-ordinate all these initiatives—bearing in mind the number of different elections that the Government seem to be envisaging—so the obvious questions are: had a cross-departmental working group in fact been established, had it started to address the issue of electing police and crime commissioners, and how many times had it met or how active was it? I also ask about the resources, since elections cannot be run for nothing and these could have been fairly complicated ones. What had the Government been intending to do where the provision of extra resources was concerned to cover the cost of these elections? It has been their intention to run them, as I understand it, in May of next year—presumably alongside the local elections that would be being run then.

Another amendment that I have tabled relates to the turnout for these elections and provides that there have to be 40 per cent or more of eligible voters voting if the result is to be deemed binding. When we were discussing the referendum on the alternative vote, we had similar debates and amendments were moved which I think provided for the same figure. Those amendments were defeated but, as it turned out, if memory serves me right—and it may have failed me—we got above 40 per cent on the AV referendum. However, were the Government intending on these elections to provide for any minimum threshold where turnout was concerned?

Some serious concerns had been expressed—they have been expressed in debates that we have had in this Committee—that, let us just say, some rather interesting individuals might choose to put themselves up for election and that some might regard it as unfortunate if they were the ones elected, particularly if it turned out that they were elected on a very low turnout. Did the Government have any views or intentions, concerning the running of these elections, of seeking to set some sort of threshold which had to be reached or achieved for the elections to be regarded as valid? That would perhaps have as one of its objectives keeping certain people out who might not necessarily be considered entirely appropriate for a position of police and crime commissioner. The point of the amendment is to seek to ask the Government whether they had any views on that score.

A further amendment that I have tabled takes out a significant chunk of Clause 58. That is for the purpose of asking some of the questions that I have been asking about how the Government saw these elections being run and organised, what steps they had in train and what kind of progress had been made when we reached the stage where the amendment which deleted the reference to elected police and crime commissioners was successfully moved. There are other issues as well. There does not appear to be much reference in the Bill, for example, to election expenses or donation caps and such things. Indeed, the only real reference in the Bill to those kinds of issues is an order-making power for the Secretary of State, so that the Secretary of State can come forward with some of those ideas later. However, subject to what the Minister may say, the Bill does not give us any feel for what the Government intend on how they will run and organise these elections while we are actually discussing it.

Presumably, there are also questions where it would be helpful if we could have some response on issues such as donations and spending on these elections by political parties or, indeed, by anybody else. Do the Government have any views on that? Were they moving in any particular direction on that score that they can share with us? Or—I conclude on this point, because I have asked a number of questions which I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to—are we still in the position that the Electoral Commission referred to last September? With a number of potential elections coming up, some of them new elections for new bodies and including those for police and crime commissioners, the commission was moved to say that this work does not appear well co-ordinated at present. Is that in fact still the reality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that response and for the information she was able to give the Committee on the Government’s intentions. I am not sure that anything was said about extra resources being provided to cover the cost of elections for police and crime commissioners, if they ever take place. Perhaps no conclusions have yet been reached on that point.

The Minister responded on the issue of prisoners being able to vote, or not vote, which was her response. Presumably, if there were any change as a result of the European Court decision—I am aware of the vote in the other place—that would apply to these elections for the police and crime commissioners as well. I assume that would be the case. In the light of the responses given by the Minister and the information she has provided, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 190A withdrawn.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I rise to make a short comment on Amendment 31E, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and to add a gloss on the earlier debate that we had in the context of Amendment 32, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

On Amendment 31E, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, spoke out for localism in deciding what these salaries should be. I find myself frequently reading in both the national and local press about the extreme distress caused by the salaries that are paid to the chief executives of local authorities, which seem to be totally out of order when compared with the salaries paid in a neighbouring county. Here we are talking about an office which is not elected, but where the decision is taken by the local authority itself. I understand the noble Baroness’s argument about localism but I recall doing these exercises from the centre for four years between 1985 and 1989, when the then Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby, delegated to me responsibility for the pay and conditions of the Civil Service. I negotiated with a number of people who now sit on the Benches opposite in connection with those matters. I recall that some jobs in public bodies went beyond purely the Civil Service and that in those cases the Treasury reserved the right to decide what the salaries would be. It was a difficult task and one which I think we discharged with reasonable consistency, accuracy and honour. I would be happier with something of that order rather than the provision which the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, suggested.

In the context of Amendment 32, I heard my noble friend Lady Hamwee say she did not believe that the police and crime commissioners would have a full-time job. I recall that on the previous occasion we debated these matters my noble friend Lord Eccles pulled up the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and asked him where the Bill stated that it would be a full-time job. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had made the perfectly reasonable assumption that it was likely to be full time. However, here we are on Amendment 32 going back to the situation where it is not likely to be a full-time job at all. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire whether the Government expected the job to be full time and received an immediate answer. I go back to a mild comment that I made on the previous occasion when I said that there was some danger of entering an Alice in Wonderland scenario if we did not keep track of the matters that we were discussing, particularly given the way in which we are dealing with the Bill.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have explained the purpose of their amendments, which we are discussing. I want to refer only to one or two aspects.

This group of amendments seeks to address the considerable powers that are given virtually unchecked and unchallenged under the Bill to police and crime commissioners, while very little meaningful power or responsibility is given to the new police and crime panels. As my noble friend Lady Henig has said, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to determine a commissioner’s salary. We know very little about how the Secretary of State might do this. At one stage, certainly in the media, there were suggestions of six- figure salaries, though it now appears that the Senior Salaries Review Body may be called in.

However, that raises the issue of why the Secretary of State wants to determine directly the salary of a police and crime commissioner. As has been said, the approach seems at odds with the Government’s declared stance of devolving responsibility as far down the line as they can. Is the view that Whitehall knows best on this issue? Is the Secretary of State of the view that each commissioner should be paid the same irrespective of the geographical size and diversity of the area covered, the population of the area, the size of the budget and of the force and the levels of crime? Or is the Secretary of State of the view that commissioners’ salaries should differ? If so, what factors does she consider should be taken into account? How will she take into account any specific local or area factors? Does she intend to take into account the views of the police and crime panels or, indeed, the views of anybody else other than those of the Senior Salaries Review Body, if that is to be used?

I acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and probably others, have about some of the salaries that are paid to chief executives of local authorities. But if you devolve responsibility and you believe that that is right, you have to accept the consequences and not simply say that because you are concerned about what might happen you will automatically keep everything at the centre. Of course, the salary of a local authority chief executive is, in that sense, determined by the local authority members, as are the salaries, if any, to be paid to council members and the council leader. One of the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lady Henig provides for the salary of a police and crime commissioner to be determined by the police and crime panel. The panel should be in a better position than the Secretary of State to know what salary will be appropriate to the responsibilities and complexities of the position, and what salary is likely to be needed to attract appropriate candidates for the position. It could be argued that that would also enhance the position of the panel and provide a check by the panel to the largely untrammelled authority and power given to a commissioner under the terms of the Bill.

We have discussed other amendments relating to the ability to enter into contracts. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the amendments were intended, at least in part, to probe what powers the Bill seeks to give or to remove. We have heard concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey about some of the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness.

I hope that because most of my comments related to the determination of the salary the Minister will recognise the concerns behind the amendments on salaries, reflect that in her response, respond to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Harris about the provision that appears to prohibit an elected policing body from entering into a collaboration agreement with another elected local policing body, and explain the Government’s thinking behind that.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, the Bill provides for the Home Secretary to determine the salary of Police and Crime Commissioners. These are unique positions, being directly elected. The Home Secretary has asked the Senior Salaries Review Board to make recommendations to the appropriate levels of pay by September this year. The SSRB is now calling for evidence to help it to decide on its recommendations. Furthermore, the SSRB will consult with partners as it considers appropriate, and this will ensure further that its recommendation takes into account the views of relevant groups.

Specifically, the Home Secretary has asked the SSRB to recommend pay arrangements that are adequate to encourage, retain and motivate candidates of sufficient quality; recognise the extremely challenging fiscal climate and wider constraints of public funding; meet the demands and expectations of the public in terms of getting value for money; reflect the essence of the role as an elected public figurehead and ambassador; provide transparency and robustness in determining PCC pay levels; recommend an approach to establishing PCC pay levels that is simple to administer and is based on a range of single salary points pay structures; and take account of, where applicable, the salary levels and responsibilities of other similar roles in the wider public sector, including elected executive mayors, MPs and MEPs. We believe that these requirements will ensure a fair pay level for PCCs, which I believe is the concern expressed by noble Lords.

The salary payable to a chief constable is one benchmark, but only one. There are other criteria that must be considered, such as demographics. In any event, the job of a chief constable is very different to that of a PCC. The SSRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration of holders of judicial office, senior civil servants, senior officers of the armed forces, and other such public appointments as may from time to time be specified. We believe that the SSRB is the right body to provide independent advice on the levels of PCCs’ salaries. Noble Lords have said that these are probing amendments, and I therefore ask for them to be withdrawn or not moved.

I turn now to contracts. The wording used in the Bill,

“contracts and other agreements (whether legally binding or not)”,

is designed to make it clear that the mayor’s office and the PCC can enter into contracts—in other words, agreements creating legal rights and liabilities, and agreements with no legal force, such as memoranda of understanding, protocols or service-level agreements. If the proposed amendments were made, the Bill would merely refer to “agreements”. Because a legally binding contract is a kind of agreement, we would say that the PCC would still be able to enter into a contract and there would not actually be any effect on the scope of the PCC’s powers.

I turn now to the amendments in relation to protection from personal liability. I understand that the intention is to reduce the protection available to the office of the PCC and its staff by reversing the burden of proof in relation to whether a questioned act or omission was done in good faith. Under the Bill as it stands, a person who challenged an act or omission of the PCC would have to prove that it was done in bad faith. The effect of the amendments would be that it would be for the PCC to prove that the questioned act was done in good faith. The concern here is with civil proceedings where the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Whether it is the claimant who has to prove that it is more likely than not that the PCC acted in bad faith, or the PCC who has to prove that it is more likely than not that it acted in good faith, is unlikely to matter in most cases.

I should also stress that these provisions are concerned only with the personal liability of the person holding the office of commissioner for policing and crime and their employees. The provisions do not restrict the liability of the office itself, and a claimant harmed by an act or omission of the PCC or their staff in the exercise of their functions would still have legal redress against the office.

Bearing in mind the high-profile nature of the role of the PCC and the difficult issues that it will have to deal with, it may be a tempting target for legal challenge. We would not want the office or its staff to carry out their duties in a defensive fashion, out of fear of attracting personal legal liability for their actions. Rather, the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance in allowing the legitimate claimant legal redress, while giving the PCC a sensible level of legal protection.

Much has been said about the supply of goods and services. I should stress that Clause 15(3) merely replicates Section 18(3) of the Police Act 1996, which applies to police authorities at present. The provision is not new. Noble Lords asked particularly about this, and perhaps I may examine what the amendments would do. We do not believe that there is a particular advantage in using the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 with policing partners instead of the Police Act collaboration agreement provisions. The 1970 Act simply allows for agreements to be made about the provision of goods and services. However, when both parties concerned are policing bodies, making an agreement under the 1970 Act would circumvent the safeguards in the police collaboration provisions of the Police Act 1996, which would take priority. For example, there would be no requirement to have regard to any guidance issued by the Home Secretary to provide advice on best practice in drawing up agreements, and there would be no requirement for consultation with the relevant chief constables before making the agreement.

Other noble Lords have raised the matter of panels in this group of amendments. Although I recognise the intention to ensure that all panels, regardless of how they are established, are treated equally in the provision of financial resources, that is already the case. It is for that reason that I resist the amendments. Funding for all panels will be borne by the Secretary of State, regardless of whether they are established by local authorities or by the Secretary of State. For panels established by local authorities, paragraph 11 of Schedule 6 makes clear that it is for local authorities themselves to decide how that money is paid to or distributed between themselves. The Secretary of State will provide funds amounting to those required for a scrutiny officer and to cover running costs of meetings, which will be distributed at the discretion of the legal authority. That leaves local authorities the freedom to establish their own processes.

For panels established by the Secretary of State, in the case of Wales, or where no panel was formed under other circumstances, it cannot be left to local authorities to make those arrangements. In those cases, the Secretary of State will work directly with the panel to provide financial resources. That is what paragraph 20 of Schedule 6 provides. The liabilities of police and crime panels established by local authorities will be borne by the relevant local authorities, as they are with other local authority committees. The liabilities relating to panels established by the Secretary of State will be borne by the Secretary of State.

If I have not answered any specific questions, some of which were quite technical, I apologise and I will ensure that they are responded to by letter. I hope that, under the circumstances, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

The noble Lord is quite right to chide me. In fact, as I was saying it, I remembered my words to him earlier; they were ringing in the back of my mind. This is not about the electorate; this is about the motivations of the candidate who is not as worthy as we would like to apply for these positions. If the salary has been set by a body such as the SSRB, through the Home Secretary, it is complete and divorced from anything that a candidate might say in seeking to put themselves forward or any questions a candidate may be asked during their selection.

[Lord Rosser]

I hope that the noble Baroness would accept that even if the Secretary of State was determining the salary, someone could fight an election knowing what the salary was and running their campaign on the basis that they would send half of it back.

[Baroness Browning]

Off the top of my head, given that many people’s salaries are set by the SSRB—I declare an interest that for many years mine was—I do not recall any of them sending any of it back.

[Lord Rosser]

Does that not show that the fears just expressed by the Minister are unlikely ever to occur?

[Baroness Browning]

No, my Lords, because in another place, where I served for nearly 20 years, it was not an uncommon practice—not when one appeared before the electorate but in the selection process—for people to be asked about their financial position with a view to that influencing the selection process. I think it is much healthier to have that professionally assessed and divorced from anything to do with either the selection or the election of the police and crime commissioners.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it is a late hour, but that is not anyone’s doing, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has sustained greater insults than that in his career.

I am not sure, either, what Amendment 155 is doing in this group. It was in another group. I observed that it should be in a group on London and this is where it ended up. It is one of a number of amendments that say that the London Assembly should be able to decide its own procedures and how it works as a policing and crime panel. However, we will debate that point in another group.

I have considerable sympathy with these amendments on the City of London. I am asking myself why there is a separate force and why the issue has not been brought within what seems entirely the right vehicle for addressing the matter. I can only assume that it is in the filing tray that has “too hard” written on it and that the Government are unwilling to take on the City. But it is an important issue. If we are being asked, as we are, to look at inserting democracy into the governance of our policing arrangements, the City should not be exempt from that. They have a lot of experience of elections in the City—there is no problem in carrying that out.

There are so many anomalies, with the separate precepting arrangements and what has always seemed to me unnecessary bureaucracy and complication because of the division. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to expertise, and I accept that there is enormous expertise, but it is transferable and needs to be so, because whether or not the City likes it London’s financial centre is not only where it used to be. It has moved eastwards, and the expertise in fraud and other matters specific to business are no longer, in the 21st century, relevant only to the Square Mile.

This Bill is the right context for this debate. There is a considerable distinction between this issue and that of teachers’ salaries in 1944, and I am sorry that the Government have not felt able to extend the new governance arrangements to the whole of England.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this is clearly a perfectly legitimate amendment and this is clearly the time when the issues that this amendment raises ought to be discussed. They ought to be discussed as part of this Bill. Having listened to the complaint that this is not a matter that should be discussed late in the evening, I am not sure whether that means—if the Minister is not going to accept the amendment—that if it appeared at Report stage at five o’clock in the afternoon it would be universally welcomed and supported. I was not quite clear on the significance of the comment about the time of day.

Clearly, the purpose of the amendment is to bring the arrangements for the City of London in line with the proposals for the rest of England and Wales—and one looks forward to the explanation that we will receive from the Minister as to why, one assumes, the Government are not entirely enthusiastic about going down this road. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the interesting and relevant point that, if the argument is that you need a separate police force for the City of London because it is a financial centre, it should be taken into account that we now have around Canary Wharf another financial centre. Presumably, it is under the Metropolitan Police, unless I am to be told otherwise. If the Metropolitan Police is considered to have the expertise to handle the issues that might arise there, why is it not considered that it could encompass, by taking over or by merger, the City of London Police as well? The Metropolitan Police force has considerable expertise which is recognised internationally and which is used on a national basis in England and Wales, not simply confined to its area. Yet the inference through having a separate force for the City of London is that somehow the Metropolitan Police, despite the expertise that it has, would just not be able to cope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

Would the noble Lord care to answer one thing? Will he comment on why the previous Labour Government, against what I would have thought were all their natural instincts, chose to confer on the City of London Corporation the right to have elections for democratic representation in the City, in which all businesses in the City were allowed to have a vote that was calculated in a particular way? Indeed, they pressed the Corporation to go down that route. Was it really not because there was a recognition that the City at large worked extraordinarily well and that fiddling around with it was not a very profitable use of time, not least in the context of the City of London's success?

[Lord Rosser]

I do not know specifically what the reasons were. They may well have been those that the noble Lord has said. However, I am not sure that that necessarily applies to an argument about the City of London Police, which is what we are discussing, particularly in the context of the expertise which the Metropolitan Police has—and in the context that the City of London is no longer the only financial centre in London. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the financial centre has moved further east to an extent and nobody has said that those responsible should set up or extend the powers of the City of London Police to cover those new centres, which presumably come under the Metropolitan Police.

It is not irrelevant for this question to be asked when we are talking about a major reorganisation of our police forces, with a major change in how they are run and in governance. Maybe there is a good answer, and I am waiting to hear what the Minister has to say, but the question should be asked: did the Government look at the issue of the retention of the City of London Police and was it justified? If so, what were the reasons for coming to the decision that they did, bearing in mind that they think that all other police forces should be covered by the changes that they are putting forward in this Bill?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the history that has been contributed. Not much of it appeared in my notes but it has helped me to put into context the City of London and the role of its police. I hope noble Lords will not mind if I begin by paying tribute to that police force. It is a small force but it has in recent times dealt with significant investigations and major incidents. It has dealt with them and acquitted itself extremely well. Because of its position it has a national role. I hear what has been said about the movement of financial services around not only the country but the globe. None the less, the force has taken a lead in tackling white-collar crime that continues today.

When the noble Lord, Lord Harris, began, I thought this would be one of those sublime moments when, as a politician, one could sit back, listen to two arguments and make up one’s mind as to which was the more persuasive. As a Minister, I do not have that luxury, as Members will know, more is the pity. It would be very nice to do so. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, lost me when he mentioned motoring offences in comparison with what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville said about the much more significant and recent role that this police force has played. Neither the Mayor of London nor the Metropolitan Police Authority has a role in the governance of the City of London Police.

The position of the Common Council as the police authority for the City of London Police has, as we have heard, remained essentially unchanged. It was not altered by the Police Act 1996, which created the police authorities that currently exist outside London. Nor, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was it changed when his Government introduced the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which created the Metropolitan Police Authority. Therefore, when he asked me why we are not doing this and said that the amendments are reasonable, I noted that he did not refer at all to what his own Government did. I assume they, too, when they were legislating for London would have looked at this issue. There was no offering or crumb there to persuade me that the previous Labour Government looked at this and decided that it was an appropriate thing to do.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister’s argument is that she has been so overwhelmed by the decision of the previous Labour Government that it cannot possibly be challenged or questioned. Is that the argument for keeping the City of London Police?

[Baroness Browning]

Not at all, my Lords. We studied very closely the actions or lack of actions of the previous Labour Government. I assure the noble Lord that they are on our radar screen all the time. However, we have this situation not just because of the many years that the City of London Police has been in place but because of the exemplary way in which it conducts itself. The size of the population of the City of London has been mentioned. There are 8,000 voters but one must put that in the context of there being 25 wards in the City, of which only four have residents. To translate that into representation would be quite complex. The City of London is unique and has unique policing governance to recognise that fact. I suspect that various Governments down the years have looked at this and probably all came to the same conclusion. It operates on a non-party political basis through its lord mayor, aldermen and the members of the Court of Common Council. The governance is tailored to the particular institutions and traditions of the City of London. I am sorry to disappoint your Lordships, but it is not my intention to change that tonight. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

I intervene very briefly. When I am attending your Lordships' House, I stay in a club in my former constituency. In the 1930s, a Duke was slumbering in that club after lunch one day when he became conscious that a man and a woman had entered the room. He waited until they had left and then pressed a bell. The club servant arrived and said, “You rang, your Grace?”. The Duke said, “What was that?”. The club servant said, “That, your Grace, was the club secretary and Her Majesty the Queen”. “Thin end of the wedge”, said the Duke, shut his eyes and went to sleep again.

I will not expand on the point at this hour of the night, but I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to know that I have noticed, as the thin end of the wedge, that the City of London again creeps into his Amendment 50.

[Lord Rosser]

One reads with interest the amendment, which, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, provides for the deputy mayor for policing and crime to be elected, on the basis that it ought to be done on the same terms as the Government proposed for everywhere else in the country under the Bill, namely, for the police commissioner to be directly elected. Clearly, as long as the Bill remains as it is, where there is no elected police commissioner, we will not press for the deputy mayor for policing and crime to be elected. We will be consistent and say that we will stick with the same arrangement in London as the Bill currently has, having been amended by your Lordships' House.

If the Government are to make an effort in future to restore elected police and crime commissioners to the Bill, it would appear rather odd if they did not also say that, if that is what is to happen outside London, Londoners should also be able directly to elect the person who in reality will be responsible for policing. The arrangement that we appear to have at present is for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor, who takes over the role that, if the Government get their way, an elected police commissioner will have elsewhere. I suppose the only parallel—although it is hardly a parallel—is that, if we had elected police commissioners and one were suspended or otherwise unable to operate, that elected police commissioner would, as the Bill stands, appoint someone from their own staff to act in their stead. The arrangement that we appear to be moving towards in London is not that of the mayor waiting to be suspended or otherwise unable to act before appointing someone, but that the mayor, immediately he or she comes into office, appoints someone else to act as the deputy mayor responsible for policing and crime.

We look forward to the Minister’s response on this. As I said, as long as the Bill remains as it is without elected police commissioners, we do not wish to be inconsistent by saying that the deputy mayor for policing and crime in London should be elected. However, if the Government intend to try to restore elected police commissioners to the Bill, we look forward to their explanation of why they think Londoners should not be able to elect the person responsible for policing as well.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, these amendments would prevent the mayor holding the mayor’s office for policing and crime and would instead create an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime to hold that office.

This Government’s policy is to introduce a directly elected police and crime commissioner in every force area in England and Wales outside London but, as your Lordships are only too well aware, these provisions have been removed from the Bill. It therefore seems rather odd that your Lordships should now be debating whether those self-same provisions should apply to the Metropolitan Police Service. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about wanting to remain consistent. However, having struck out from the Bill the part that proposed elected police and crime commissioners, your Lordships now seem to be applying the same arguments to elect the deputy mayor for London.

The Government had not intended to introduce a new elected person to hold the police to account in London for the very simple reason that the whole of London already elects a single person to take responsibility for strategic issues such as policing, and that of course is the Mayor of London. The mayor is in the unique position of having responsibility for a whole force area and, as such, it seems sensible for him to have overall responsibility for holding the police to account as well.

The amendment would create a situation in which both the mayor and the deputy mayor had a direct democratic mandate across a whole force area, although they might have different ideas about what should happen. I do not think that that could work. It is right and fitting that the mayor should take on formal responsibility for holding the Metropolitan Police to account and, in turn, the mayor should be directly accountable to the public for how that is done. I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, “Nice try”, but I regret that I am not able to accept his amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have had a lengthy and interesting debate. We have also had the pleasure of hearing three informative, knowledgeable, and at times moving, maiden speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which have rightly drawn much praise. I both hope and expect that they will all be regular contributors to debates in your Lordships' House.

There are some parts of the Bill which we can support in general terms. These are: the alterations to existing powers for licensing authorities and other responsible bodies with regard to alcohol licensing; the new regulations governing protest in Parliament Square; the new powers for the regulation of drugs; and the provision for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant is issued for universal jurisdiction offences. We will, though, want to probe further into the detail of the Government’s proposals on these provisions in Committee, particularly in the light of some of the comments made in this debate.

Most of those who have spoken on the issue have either been directly opposed to the principal provision of the Bill—namely, the elected police and crime commissioners—or have expressed strong and powerful reservations about the proposal and its potential implications. One of the concerns is: what exactly will the police and crime commissioners do if they are not, as claimed, going to become involved in operational matters? The Bill sets out the basic duties of the post, which hardly add up to a well paid, full-time job, unless, of course, the appointment, suspension and dismissal of the chief constable is to become a regular event, or police and crime plans and objectives are to be changed every five minutes in order to create a job.

We currently have police authorities which meet at regular intervals but not exactly every day. We have an individual who is the chair of the police authority but it is not normally a full-time position. If the police and crime commissioner is not going to be involved in operational matters, will the Minister set out exactly what duties and responsibilities the commissioner will be taking over from the chief constable, what duties and responsibilities he or she will be taking over from the chair of the police authority and the members of the police authority, and what duties and responsibilities will be entirely new and are not undertaken by anyone at all at the present time? Is the reality that much of the work of the police and crime commissioners will simply be duplicating work which the chief constable and his senior team already do, and will in effect create a further management layer with the need for further papers, reports and attendance at meetings by senior police officers who should be spending as much of their available time as possible leading the fight against crime? Is it the undeclared intention that the role of the police and crime commissioner will be extended at some later stage to other areas of the criminal justice system such as, for example, the probation and prison services, or even the local courts service?

What exactly will be the position in London? The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, which sounds a bit like a quango, will have the same powers as a police and crime commissioner, so will the mayor be the commissioner or will the commissioner in reality be a mayoral appointee, in which case what has happened to the Government’s much vaunted concept of the need for directly elected commissioners?

To whom will the police and crime commissioners be accountable during their period of office? It does not look as though there will be the equivalent of a Parliament, an Assembly or a local council with the power to accept or reject key proposals or changes that the commissioner wishes to take, or to hold the commissioner to account. Where is the check on inappropriate or overenthusiastic use of power by a single individual? It will certainly not be with the toothless police and crime panels—the PCPs that will be the police commissioner’s poodle—which, even in their own limited area of power, will need 75 per cent of all their members, not even just those present, to send back the commissioner’s proposed precept. Current police authorities are executive committees, but police and crime panels will be scrutiny bodies without executive powers. It appears, in reality, that the only person whose approval the commissioner needs to seek is himself or herself.

Those who may consider that elected national politicians have already politicised the police will be in for a shock when they realise the degree of party politicisation that single elected police commissioners will bring. If the intention is that the operational independence and impartiality of the police will not be put at risk, what is the Government’s definition of operational independence? The Government have said that they will produce a memorandum or protocol that will set out the terms of agreement on the relationship between the new elected police and crime commissioners and chief constables to ensure that operational independence is protected. Typically, the Government have failed to produce the document in time for today’s Second Reading. That is presumably because the Government, despite claiming that operational independence will be protected, do not yet know what the words they have uttered mean in reality. That is a not dissimilar situation to their lengthy silence when we asked them to define what they meant by the front-line policing that they asserted would be protected from cuts.

Does operational independence include decisions on how many police officers are required to be on duty for particular demonstrations, marches and protests? Does operational independence include the police tactics to be deployed on such occasions? Does operational independence include, within the parameters of an overall budget, the number of officers and civilian staff to be employed on the variety of different activities that a police force undertakes? Will a police and crime commissioner be able to dismiss or remove a chief constable when the issue or issues that have caused difficulty would appear to any reasonable person to relate to a chief constable’s unwillingness to carry out instructions from a commissioner on an operational issue?

Will not the reality be that we will find ourselves with police and crime commissioners who have won an election, but have yet to find a role? In trying to create a full-time job for themselves—incidentally, how many staff is it anticipated they will have, and at what cost?—they will seek to usurp the responsibilities of those senior police officers who currently manage and run our police forces and, in so doing, create a lot of frustration and conflict, as well as unnecessary and unjustified duplication and additional bureaucracy. The reality, as has been said on many occasions today, is that a commissioner who has the power to dismiss will always have the whip hand over a chief constable on issues regarding what is or is not deemed to be an operational matter.

For what purpose is all this being done? The level of crime reduced steadily by more than 40 per cent over a number of years under the previous Government, and confidence in the police is at a high level. That is not bad for police authorities that suffer the allegedly overwhelming defect of not having a chair or members who are widely known to the public. What exactly is it that is so deficient about the present structure that demands the introduction of police and crime commissioners and the potential politicisation of policing and dealing with crime, which should be independent and impartial? Are the imposition and additional costs of directly elected police and crime commissioners the Government's thank you to police officers and police civilian staff throughout the country for their success in reducing and tackling crime, for facing cuts in numbers and for facing pay and conditions being managed down?

The argument is that policing and crime have a significant impact on people's lives. The current arrangements of police authorities provide a level of accountability that includes a majority of locally elected council representatives, which should not simply be swept aside. People want managerial competence, an efficient and effective service, and an ability to have a say over what happens in their immediate locality—an ability that has been enhanced by community partnership working, and by the introduction of neighbourhood police community support teams, which spend time keeping in direct contact with those who live and work in their neighbourhood to make sure that they are aware of their principal concerns on crime and policing issues.

People do not want the politicisation and fragmentation of the police service because not all policing matters affect only one area or county. Counterterrorism and kidnap activity do not respect police authority boundaries, or at times even national boundaries, any more than do drug trafficking, human trafficking, e-crime and cybercrime. Co-operation between forces is vital, and the Association of Chief Police Officers does much good work in this area.

What will be the attitude of an elected police and crime commissioner who believes that his or her prospects of popularity and re-election will depend on allocating resources and on trying to deliver on promises made, however unlikely, during an election campaign, rather than on directing their resources at major national or international crimes that may not have an obvious immediate impact in their own area? We do not want more than 40 separate police service silos, but that is what we risk getting, and the Government certainly have not explained how the strategic policing objectives will ensure that this cannot happen.

The creation of police and crime commissioners will enable the Government, having made significant cuts in police budgets, to seek—in vain, I suspect—to wash their hands of any responsibility for the incidence of crime and how it should be addressed, on the basis that that is the responsibility of the elected police and crime commissioner. The approach will be similar to that adopted towards local government, where they reduce the amount of money received by local authorities and then seek to blame them when the inevitable happens and important services are cut or reduced.

We have seen the Government decide, following almost universal criticism of their proposals for the National Health Service, to take time to reflect on their position before proceeding further. A similar period of reflection on the proposals for police and crime commissioners would not come amiss. They will not make policing work easier. They will cost money that could be better spent on more police officers fighting crime. The election of police and crime commissioners will potentially politicise the work and activity of each and every police force, threatening the perception of the police as being impartial and independent in dealing with and fighting crime.

The work of policing will be further politicised if elected police and crime commissioners, elected local authority members or elected mayors have public spats with each other over where responsibility and accountability lie for levels of crime or the incidence of particular types of crime. Reducing and fighting crime requires a crucial partnership approach between the police and local authorities. Having different arms of that partnership under different political leadership, with different priorities and objectives, will jeopardise and not enhance successful partnership working, and with it the continuation of the reduction in the incidence of crime.

My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath referred to the absence of a Green Paper, pre-legislative scrutiny, an impact assessment on the proposals for commissioners from HMIC, proposals for referenda on the introduction of PCCs and any provision for pilot schemes. The Government should think again. The continuation of effective, impartial and non-politicised policing is more important than delivering, without due regard or consideration of its consequences and implications, what appears to have become a pet project of at least one half of the present Government.

Police: Deployment of Workforce

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Rosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect serving police officers to be moved from front-line roles to cover back-office functions of civilian staff who have been made redundant.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

No, my Lords. As Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has established, one-third of the police force—that is, 80,000 people—are not on the front line. There is significant scope for major savings in reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency in such matters as procurement and IT without touching the front line. Furthermore, in its recent report, Demanding Times, HMIC shows that front-line officers can be deployed much more productively. There is “significant variation between forces” in the visibility and availability of officers and PCSOs. Some constabularies manage to have only 9 per cent of their officers on the street at any one time; and the average is only 12 per cent.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, in the light of the disclosure that in Warwickshire, full-time police officers are being removed from the front line to fill back-office vacancies caused by the government cuts; the finding by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary that 68 per cent of police officers and civilian staff combined are involved in the front line and will be very hard to retain in the face of the 20 per cent cuts; and the statement by the chief constable of Lancashire, who is the ACPO lead on police performance management, that with the scale of the cuts being experienced, they could not leave the front line untouched; can the noble Baroness confirm to the House that the undertaking by the Prime Minister that front-line police services will not be cut, but will be protected, still stands?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government believe that front-line services will not be affected by the savings that have to be made. As HMIC has established, there is considerable room for savings to be made without touching the front line. I have given some illustrations; many more could be given. To give one example, at the moment, the average percentage of available officers who are at any one time visible on the street is 12 per cent. That is 18,795 officers. If all the forces were to reach the best practice available, which is that of Lancashire, that would amount to 26,627 policemen. Very big increases in efficiency can be made.

Draft Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2010

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, of course we welcome this order, which corrects a serious error of judgment by the previous Government. We also welcome the Minister’s careful explanation of its purpose and consequences. She said that there was evidence of an increase in the number of sham marriages in the figures for 2009 to 2010. If I have the correct figures, the number of sham marriages increased from 561 in the first of those years to 934 in the second. However, is it not a fact that people do not acquire any additional rights to remain as a result of a marriage when they have entered the country for some other purpose? It would be interesting to find out what the subsequent immigration experience of the people was whose marriages were reported as possibly being sham. I am sure that the UK Border Agency carefully followed up all the reports that the Minister has mentioned. For future reference it would be useful to know how many of the people were subsequently prevented from remaining in the country because it was established that the marriages were not only suspected of being sham but were actually false.

The Minister also spoke about the experience of the police in detecting particular cases. She mentioned the Czechs who were convicted and sentenced to between 16 months and five years for facilitating sham marriages, and said that in some cases those marriages were proved to have been bigamous. Obviously, an offence was committed by those people quite apart from the immigration offence and they would have quite properly been convicted for that reason.

When the Labour Government introduced certificates of approval for marriages between people, either or both of whom were subject to immigration control, there were immediate warnings from those with experience of immigration law and the European Convention on Human Rights that the scheme was discriminatory. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association briefing to your Lordships for the Third Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act said that the provisions on sham marriages did not apply to those who marry in the Church of England and were therefore discriminatory against all other religions, a point that was taken up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report of 30 June 2004 and by every single court that subsequently ruled on the matter.

The incompatibility with the convention was identified by the domestic courts as early as 2006, so the remedial order that we are now considering, which is intended to be “fast track” corrective action following a declaration of incompatibility, has taken five years to mature. Not surprisingly, the Joint Committee on Human Rights regrets the substantial delay. Having set out their intention to use a non-urgent remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, this Government acted as quickly as possible to abolish the certificate of approval scheme in response to the House of Lords judgment in the case of Baiai, which had been delivered on 30 July 1998. Will my noble friend say whether it would have made any difference if the matter had been treated as urgent? Does she think that there is any way of speeding up the process generally in any future cases, of which, fortunately, there have been very few so far?

The lesson to be learnt from this episode, however, is that it is dangerous to rush solutions to immigration problems through Parliament towards the end of the proceedings on a Bill without any consultation and in the face of reasoned criticism. The clauses embodying the certificate of approval scheme were introduced on recommitment, a wholly unsuitable mechanism for radical proposals that affect the very institution of marriage, as we said at the time. We were not satisfied that the scheme was effective, proportionate and compatible with the ECHR. The failure of the previous Labour Government to listen to the warnings by the Liberal Democrats, the JCHR and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has cost the taxpayer perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds in litigation and compensation, and there may be further claims still to come. In particular, there is one case before the European Court of Human Rights, and the JCHR proposed in its 31st report of Session 2007-08 that where there are multiple claims for compensation, the Government should adopt an approach that minimises the burden on the court and expense for the taxpayer. The Government do not consider that there is a significant risk of multiple repeat cases because potential litigants have had plenty of time to challenge the certificate of approval scheme since it was ruled to be unlawful.

There was a scheme for reimbursement of the certificate of approval fee of £295, or £590 where both partners to a marriage were subject to immigration control, but only where the payment caused the applicants real financial hardship at the time of payment. Of the 1,213 requests for repayment of the fee, only 170 had been granted and 49 remained outstanding at the end of January this year. In his letter to the JCHR of 21 December 2010, the Minister said that ILPA was wrong to say that the test for repayment was difficult to satisfy, because anyone able to meet the financial hardship test would qualify. However, the point that ILPA was making was that there was a four-and-a-half year interval between the introduction of the scheme and the date on which the UKBA first made arrangements to reimburse those who had suffered financial hardship. Most people do not keep records for that length of time and might well be unable to produce the evidence required. It does not seem to have occurred to the Minister that this could partly explain the relatively small number of applications for repayment and the 82 per cent failure rate of the ones that were made. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that measure.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this order removes the requirement, known as the certificate of approval scheme, for those who are subject to immigration control to obtain the Secretary of State's written permission to marry in the UK. The Minister has set out the Government's reasons for terminating the scheme on 9 May this year, namely that our courts have ruled that the scheme is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the changes that were made following those rulings have significantly weakened the effectiveness of the scheme.

The certificate of approval scheme was introduced in 2005 and clearly had a not inconsiderable effect on addressing the issue of sham marriages. During the life of the scheme there were 120,000 applications for a certificate of approval, of which 5,463 were refused. As has been said, under Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, civil registrars have a duty to report any suspicious marriage to the UK Border Agency. In 2004 there were 3,578 reports of suspected sham marriages. Following the introduction of the certificate of approval scheme in 2005, reports fell to 452 in 2005, or one-eighth of the total in the previous year, and stayed below 400 cases each year until 2009, when 561 reports were made.

In the light of the court judgments, we support the order, but we need to know a little more than the Minister told us about the measures that the Government are now taking to address the issue of sham marriages, and why they believe that those measures will be successful. The Government have said that the increase in 2009 and the further increase in 2010 to 934 reports of suspicious marriages is an indication of the work that they have undertaken with registrars to focus on this issue. In other words, if the figure increases, we are having more success. However, the figure reduced dramatically when the certificate of approval scheme came in during 2005. That would suggest that a reduction in the number of reports, rather than an increase, indicates success. It could well be, in the light of the current Supreme Court ruling that has reduced the effectiveness of the current scheme, that those involved in sham marriages have started to become somewhat bolder again, and that the increase in the number of reports in the past two years is because of a significantly larger increase in the number of sham marriages.

It would be helpful if the Minister could say why she believes that the possible scenario that I have painted to explain the increase in the number of Section 24 reports is not likely to be the case, and that the scenario that the Government have painted to explain the increase in the number of Section 24 reports is correct. Mr Damian Green MP, the Minister for Immigration is on record in Hansard as saying that the increase in the reports of suspected sham marriages in 2010,

“shows that the certificate of approval scheme was becoming less effective, as well as the success of our crackdown on sham marriage and the subsequent publicity”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 29/3/11; col. 4.]

That could be the case; but if it is, what is the hard evidence that shows that the recent work by the UK Border Agency is actually having an impact on reducing the number of sham marriages, as opposed to simply scratching the surface of an increasing problem?

The Minister for Immigration also referred at the end of last month to more than 130 operations having been carried out over the past 10 months, leading to more than 150 arrests. There is, of course, a big difference between being arrested and being charged, and between being charged and being convicted. Of the 150 arrests to which the Minister for Immigration referred, how many led to charges and how many then led to convictions in relation to sham marriages? Are we to assume from the comments of the Minister for Immigration that the number of people being charged and convicted for involvement in one way or another with sham marriages has increased in the past couple of years as the number of reports of suspicious marriages has started to increase again?

If the number of sham marriages being reported is increasing, how many more years can there be, with figures increasing year on year, before the noble Baroness is no longer convinced that more reports are a reflection of the work done by the UK Border Agency and instead that the increase in reports could be because the measures the Government are pursuing are not as effective as the certificate of approval scheme, and that the problem of sham marriages is getting worse?

I appreciate that targets have gone out of fashion as far as this Government are concerned, but how do they intend to measure the success or otherwise of the measures they are taking to combat sham marriages that were set out in the letter dated 21 December 2010 from the Minister for Immigration to the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights? I should also be grateful if the noble Baroness could say something about resources available to combat sham marriages, both human and financial—particularly since sham marriages are a route for illegal immigration—and that dealing with sham marriages is a declared priority for the Government. What will be the number of full-time equivalent staff at the UK Border Agency at the end of this year dealing with sham marriages, compared to the number of full-time equivalent staff in the agency doing so at the end of last year? Is the number projected to increase or decrease in future years? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient resources are being devoted to this issue to prevent an increase in the number of sham marriages, and is there a plan B if there is compelling evidence that the number is increasing?

For the reasons that I have mentioned, we support the order, but I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points I have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, a number of points have been raised. I will deal first with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He is right to say that no additional rights are acquired by this conduct. On the question of the measures that we might be putting in place to deal with the absence of the certificate, I will say two things. The noble Lord asked whether we could have done this more speedily. We laid the orders within three months. The other thing is that it is wise, in order to limit the extent of the abuse and the absence of having the certificate scheme, to intensify and put in place really effective measures. One of the things we have been doing during the time between laying the order and being able to bring it to the House is ensuring that the measures that we have in place are as effective as we can make them. So the time has not been wasted. We have been as fair as we can be about the question of payments and when there has been a question of hardship the money has been refunded. The reason why there are relatively few applications, as the noble Lord said, is that people have had good warning. We do not believe that there is going to be a great splurge of demands following the repeal of this order.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, misquoted me and then asked me to approve a whole lot of assertions that I had not made. I did not say that I had a strong belief or confidence that our remaining powers would be effective. It is most unfortunate that the previous Government put in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly said, a scheme which they were warned would be discriminatory and which has now been struck down. It would have been better if they had put in place one that was capable of continuous implementation. What I said was that it was hard to know what the effect of the abolition of the certificate would be. I also commented that we did not know the extent to which the rise in numbers was attributable to better reporting or to increases.

[Lord Rosser]

The quote I gave was actually from Mr Damian Green, the Minister for Immigration, who is on record in Hansard as saying that the increase in the reports of suspected sham marriages in 2010,

“shows that the certificate of approval scheme was becoming less effective, as well as the success of our crackdown on sham marriage and the subsequent publicity”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 29/3/11; col. 4.]

So the person to whom I was attributing the success of the Government’s measures was not the noble Baroness but Mr Damian Green, the Minister for Immigration.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My honourable friend in another place was pointing to the efforts that the Government are making to compensate for the absence of a scheme that, had it not been discriminatory, might still exist. Great efforts are being made to ensure that the hinge position now occupied by registrars will be effective. That is why the links between UKBA and registrars’ offices are being increased and intensified, why guidance is being issued to the clergy and why registrars’ offices are being given training to ensure that they can recognise an application for a suspicious marriage if it comes their way.

We have to intensify all those methods. It is difficult to know at this stage whether that will be effective. The Government will do our very best, because it is important and in the public interest that this should not be a route for covert immigration, which it has been becoming—people have been engaged in what we can only call organised crime to get people into this country via that route. We have conducted two publicity campaigns, as my honourable friend in another place mentioned, designed to alert both those who enforce and those who may try to abuse the system that measures are being taken against that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that in Scotland all register offices are designated, so the issue of having to travel does not arise. Only the application has to be made through approved offices. For people who marry abroad, other immigration rules still apply, including an English-language test, so not all the barriers against abuse fall away as a result of the absence of the certificate scheme. The answer to the noble Lord’s question—is a failed asylum-seeker subject to continuing immigration control?—is definitely yes. Anyone without status that enables them to stay will certainly be subject to immigration controls.

No other route will arise from the absence of the certificate scheme that will make it easier for people to abuse the system. We are doing our very best to ensure that the absence of the certificate scheme does not render either the sham marriage route—the suspect marriage route—or any other route to abusing the immigration system any easier to operate. As a general proposition, I think that the House would agree that there is increasing effort both to publicise the fact that the Government intend to act against abuse of the system and to put in place effective measures to ensure that, having said that we will do that, that is the outcome.

Although there is some anxiety in the House, which I share, about our ability to control the situation, we will be monitoring it carefully and making our best efforts to ensure that that route is not used. I hope that the House will feel it necessary to abolish the scheme and, on the basis of the Government putting in place the best methods that we can to control this, approve the order.

Police: Officer Numbers

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government have great confidence in the leadership of the police and their ability to manage change. The police have grasped well the agenda that is before them. Of course the question of police remuneration is being looked at independently and we await the outcome of that.

[Lord Rosser]

In a Question for Written Answer two months ago my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath asked for a definition of “front-line police services”. As of yesterday, he still had not had a response. Why not? Can the Minister now give the House the Government’s definition of the front-line police services that they said they would protect from the cuts? Does the definition include the many specialist units, including the rape and domestic violence units, all actively involved along with officers on the streets in the fight against crime, which fell by 43 per cent under the previous Government? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that none of the approximately 2,000 full-time police officers already lost since the election was involved in those front-line police services? Finally, in the light of the Minister’s previous answer, is she aware of the recent surveys that clearly show the link between numbers of police officers and levels of crime?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the number of police officers has been reduced and the level of crime continues to fall. There is no simple link between the numbers of police officers and the levels of crime. The services that the police themselves wish to deliver to the public clearly include the prevention and investigation of crime and would obviously include the specialist forces dealing with certain different kinds of crime.

Counterterrorism Review

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Home Secretary’s Statement made in the other place earlier today.

Recent events in Moscow have reminded us, if we needed reminding, of the devastating impact of terrorist attacks, and of the vital importance of the work that our police and security services undertake to protect us and the dangers they face in carrying out that work. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

Although we want to support the Government on matters of national security wherever we can, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition we also have a responsibility to scrutinise in detail the Government’s proposals and the evidence on which they are based. We support many of the measures that the Government have announced in the Statement repeated by the Minister. We support the Government’s approach to deportations, with assurances, to countries with which we can reach agreement, which continues the work we did when in government.

The Government have decided to continue with the existing regime for proscribing groups that are engaged in terrorism, which seems appropriate. The Minister confirmed to the House the other day that decisions for proscribing groups would continue to be made on the basis of the facts and hard evidence available. Does this mean that the Prime Minister’s commitment to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, made prior to the election, presumably without knowing the facts, will be abandoned or is his decision now supported by the evidence?

While we will scrutinise the detail to ensure that councils can continue to take action on issues such as tackling underage sales of tobacco or alcohol, we agree that the use by local authorities of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act should be restricted, as some of the uses to which those powers have been put have gone far beyond the intention of the original legislation.

We also support sensible changes to stop-and-search powers in order to prevent their misuse, and it would appear that the legislative changes proposed largely reflect the practical changes already introduced. However, in respect of Northern Ireland, stop-and-search powers have played an important role in preventing terrorist attacks. Are the Government completely confident that the police will still have all the powers they need in Northern Ireland under the new arrangements?

Turning to pre-charge detention, in the past three years no case has invoked pre-charge detention for more than 14 days, and if police and security evidence shows that we can reduce the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days with sufficient safeguards then we should do so. However, the Government’s review concludes:

“There could be circumstances in the future in which detention for longer than 14 days will be required. There may be rare cases where a longer period of detention may be required and those cases may have significant repercussions for national security”.

It recommends an emergency option to return to 28 days if necessary. Where, then, is the emergency legislation to do this? The old powers lapsed on Monday and the emergency legislation is not, it seems ready. Why did the Government not wait until the emergency legislation was ready before letting the old powers lapse?

Last Monday, the Government said that they could extend detention through an order under Section 25 of the Terrorism Act, yet the Government’s review appears to conclude that it would be very difficult to extend detention to 28 days in that way in response to, or during, a specific investigation, since time would be needed to get the necessary measures through Parliament. Again, recent events in Moscow have reminded us that this is an area where we cannot predict what may happen. What are the police and the Crown Prosecution Service meant to do if a difficult and dangerous case suddenly emerges now in the absence of the emergency provisions being in place? It appears as though the Government are relying on being able to rush emergency legislation through in respect of an individual and difficult case. Is that a sensible way to proceed? What would be the position if an urgent issue arose during a recess, or even during the weekend break?

On control orders, the Government’s review concludes that there is,

“a continuing need to control the activities of terrorists who can neither be successfully prosecuted nor deported”.

The proposals that the Government have set out today are not an alternative to control orders, but simply amendments to control orders. This is the view that appears to be held by Liberty, which has expressed its disappointment that control orders will continue in all but name. Many of the elements remain, including restrictions on movement, restrictions on communications, an overnight residence requirement in place of a curfew—it will look remarkably similar in practice—at the instigation of the Home Secretary and reviewed by the court. I shall say a little more about that later. The Deputy Prime Minister told the BBC that he had abolished control orders. The truth is that he has simply abolished the name.

First, the Government are introducing a two-year limit with a requirement for new evidence before a control order can be renewed. The last annual review of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on control orders said that:

“There is significant and credible intelligence that”,

three of the controlees, I think it was,

“continue to present actual or potential and significant danger to national security and public safety. I agree with the assessment that the control order on each has substantially reduced the present danger that exceptionally they still present despite their having been subject to a control order for a significant period of time”.

Those three individuals have been on control orders for more than two years, one of them for over four years. In the light of the proposed two-year limit, will they have their orders revoked? What measures will be put in place to keep the public safe from the threat that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the police clearly believe those individuals pose?

Secondly, will the Minister tell us whether these changes will mean a reduction in the restrictions that the Government are currently imposing on the rest of the eight people on control orders at the moment, and what measures will be in place to protect public safety?

Thirdly, the Minister has made clear that she intends to rely more heavily on surveillance and less on measures under control orders. We support greater use of surveillance if it increases the chance of prosecution, but why do the Government believe that exchanging court scrutiny for that of the security services improves transparency and enhances civil liberties? I also note in the Minister’s Statement in relation to these new measures on control orders that:

“These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases”.

I am not clear exactly what that means. Have there been any discussions with the judiciary to see if they will take on what appears to be an extra burden, since they will have to give the Home Secretary prior permission? Or is that not what the Minister’s Statement means? Normally, the courts review decisions made by, for example, a Home Secretary, but that sentence in the Statement appears to mean that the Home Secretary can act only with prior permission from the High Court—in other words, the other way around.

I mentioned the Statement’s reference to greater surveillance, but there are issues about the extent of the resourcing of these increased surveillance operations. The Minister announced a significant increase in resources for the police and security services to cover this surveillance. The Daily Telegraph appears to know rather more, since today it said that MI5 would be given £20 million. Surveillance is extremely resource-intensive and expensive. Can the Minister confirm that this money, whether it be a significant increase in resources or the Daily Telegraph’s £20 million, follows a £150 million cut in the counterterrorism budget and billions in cuts for the police? Can she assure the House that this will be extra money and will not be taken from the resources already needed elsewhere to fight existing threats to our security? Is she confident that the police and security services will have the resources that they need to keep Britain safe from terror?

This has been a delayed and confused review, riven by leaks, as today’s further story in the Daily Telegraph only emphasises, and influenced by the need to resolve differences between the coalition parties. It is the security of our nation that should be paramount and it is against that test that we will judge the detail of the Government’s proposals.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B and D) Order 2011

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Before the debate on the order commences, perhaps I may ask noble Lords please to be kind enough to turn off their phones. The rather curious noise is caused by having mobile phones still switched on.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the order, which brings into force changes to codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in order that the codes in question reflect changes in legislation and policy, including in the light of court judgments. As the Minister has said, the changes relate to stop and search, entering and searching premises, and seizing property and identification. The changes under stop and search remove the requirement to record stop and account, and leave it to police forces following consultation to decide whether they continue monitoring such encounters.

These changes also implement a lower level of information to be recorded for stop-and-search incidents. They make changes in the use for the stop-and-search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 following a European Court of Human Rights judgment to require a greater degree of suspicion that the person stopped is a terrorist. They give further guidance on the use of the stop-and-search powers of persons and vehicles under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. As the Minister has said, the changes on entering and searching premises, and seizing property, have been made in the light of the judgment in the case of Khan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the power of the police to enter and search premises.

Finally, the changes on identification take account of amendments to the powers to take fingerprints and samples for recordable offences. They allow fingerprints to be taken on the street using mobile fingerprint technology and they make new distinctions between visual identification taken from images, such as CCTV, and that from eyewitness recognition.

Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the order refers to the outcome of a four-week consultation with statutory consultees. The Minister has indicated that in reality the consultation went on rather longer than that. But in addition to the statutory bodies, the Explanatory Memorandum states that while this was,

“not a public consultation … subject to 12 weeks’ duration … other relevant organisations, including groups (Liberty and Justice) who have a specific interest in human rights issues”,

were consulted.

Apparently, the main concerns from the consultation, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, were about stop and search and, in particular, whether the changes proposed,

“would allow officers to take into consideration a person’s ethnicity when stopping and searching under this power”,

which comes under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The department says that it considered the responses and decided to amend its proposals, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum.

We understand that the Government believe that their proposed changes in relation to stop and search, and stop and account, will reduce bureaucracy and free up to 800,000 hours of police time. Over the past few years, there have been huge efforts to cut police bureaucracy, including changes to the stop-and-account form. Those efforts were extended further by the Crime and Security Act early last year, which included the provisions for reducing the length of the stop-and-search form we are considering in this order.

The issue of the police stop-and-search powers is controversial because the figures show that a minority-ethnic person is more likely to be stopped than someone who is white. African-Caribbean people are already at least six times more likely to be stopped than white people under powers where an officer has reasonable suspicion to carry out a search. Stop and search is a power that is exercised frequently. One figure suggests that in 2009 there were 2 million instances of stop and account by police, and the figure for stop and search was 1 million.

Under Section 60 of the Public Order Act, officers do not require the same reasonable suspicion to stop someone, meaning that the police have maximum discretion. I understand that Section 60 enables the police to stop and search an individual when there are no grounds for suspicion of the particular individual in a designated area for a period of 24 hours. In 2008-09 just under 150,000 incidences of stop and search under Section 60 were used. I come to an issue raised by the Minister on the figures for these stops and searches, which show that a young black man is 26 times more likely than his white counterpart to be targeted, which leads to allegations of discrimination. However, as the Minister has already said, three-quarters of Section 60 stop and searches in 2008-09 were carried out in London, so the disproportionate use of these powers is probably not quite as stark as the “26 times more likely” figure would indicate.

The case of Stephen Lawrence led to measures aimed at tackling alleged police discrimination. That included a specific requirement for recording stops and searches by officers, which meant data becoming available to show whether or not there was overtargeting of minority-ethnic people by police. There have also been press reports that a national community panel set up to reduce the overtargeting of minority-ethnic people was abolished last summer. Will the Minister say whether that is true, and if so whether any alternative provision has been used to achieve the same objective? If the requirement to record stop and account is to go, will the Government replace that important source of information on fairness? While it would be possible for a police force to reinstitute stop and account if local concerns were expressed, it is not clear how police forces would take such soundings. What would constitute a valid local concern and what would happen if a police force decided not to respond to local concerns?

There will also be a reduction in the amount of information recorded on the stop-and-search form in the light of the amendments to Section 3 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act made by the Crime and Security Act 2010. Among the information that will no longer be required is the name of the person who is being stopped and searched, whether anything was found as a result of the stop and search and whether any injury or damage arose as a result of the search. I assume that the Government have no issues with these provisions that arise from the Crime and Security Act 2010.

As the Minister commented, the Merits Committee has drawn the special attention of the House to this order on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. The Committee said that while changes had been made to the initial proposals, commentators remained dubious about how the rules would be applied in practice. Unlike the Minister, whose Explanatory Memorandum tells us little about the nature of the concerns expressed under the consultation process and the extent to which the Government’s changes to their proposals addressed the concerns raised, the Merits Committee contacted certain interest groups on individual rights for comments on the final versions of the codes. In response, Liberty, as set out in the Merits Committee report, expressed support for the changes that had been made by the Government to their proposals in the light of its representations, but went on to say that the Section 60 power was still too broad and open to abuse and that scrapping the stop-and-account form would make the monitoring of equal treatment in policing harder. Liberty went on to say:

“This will see a direct reversal of a recommendation of”,

the,

“Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence just over a decade ago”,

and,

“ignore recommendations of later inquiries, including Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s independent review of policing in 2008, that this record be maintained, even in the context of rolling back centralised bureaucracy”.

Justice commented that there should be a clearer reminder that there is no police power to compel a person to account for themselves or to detain them to ask them to do so. It went on to say:

“We are concerned that the absence of a recording requirement may mean that disproportionate use of ‘stop and account’ against particular groups … may go unmonitored and unaddressed”.

Stressing that Section 60 powers should not be used routinely but only at a time of particular risk of offences being committed, Justice argued that reducing the items of information recorded would do little to reduce overall bureaucracy and that a reduction in the number of such stops would be a more effective way of saving costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their helpful and thoughtful contributions. I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for expressing the willingness of the Opposition to support these orders. Let me take the points that have been made and allay any anxieties that there may be.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at the end of his speech about the need to ensure that there is no unnecessary bureaucracy but that valuable information is not lost is extremely pertinent and quite right. What we are trying to do in modifying—it is no more than that—some practices is to try to strike that balance. I shall spend a little more time on stop and account than on stop and search, but I should say on the latter that everyone agrees that stop and search is a much more intrusive activity on the part of the police, so it is really important that, when it takes place, it is fully and properly recorded. For that reason, we have no intention of changing practice on stop and search.

On stop and account, it is certainly the case that not all those who were consulted were as convinced as the Government are that change would be desirable. However, let me say straightaway that, if it is demonstrated that the changes are not helpful, it will be right and proper to think again, and consultation is still going on. One effect of instituting more local obligations on the part of the police will be to ensure that questions will be raised about whether such measures are accepted—which seems to me to be the criterion that we should look at—and whether they give the local population confidence that their security is being protected and that justice is being served. With the police and crime commissioners that we will have in due course, the vehicle for both the obligation and the means for local accountability will be much more clearly stated.

On the question whether discretion will extend to the local level, it is in the logic of giving the obligation to local police forces—in the first instance, to the police and crime commissioner working with the chief constable—to decide exactly how, given local circumstances and the distribution of the local population, recording should take place. The whole point of our proposal is that recording need not be uniform to be helpful in serving the interests of protecting the public and of justice and in gaining the confidence of the local population. That is why we take the view that uniformity and efficiency are not necessarily quite the same thing, given the need to ensure that the systems are not only efficient but acceptable and just.

I should also say that stop and account, unlike stop and search, should be a brief matter in which the policeman simply says, “Why are you here?”. It should not develop into an encounter that is remembered on both sides. That is partly why we think that stop and account should be restored to the normal relationship between an individual and a policeman. If, say, a crowd is building up, the policemen present will want to retain the confidence of the people on the ground. Reducing the bureaucracy associated with stop and account is justified both by the nature of the encounter and because it will help such encounters to be seen as less intrusive for individuals than they might otherwise be. As I said, if it is demonstrated that these changes are not helpful, I have absolutely no doubt that that will be thrown up in the consultation process and that it will be right to respond. Clearly, codes of practice are never the last word.

The arrangements with communities will deliver the necessary monitoring. I was asked whether we would do anything as regards the NPIA-run stop-and-search panel, which has been abolished because it was not inciting any great engagement—community members were not turning up and it did not seem to be very useful. The NPIA is looking at whether a replacement should be instituted. Perhaps noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we regard the local consultation as an important part of what would replace something that was run by the NPIA and certainly would contribute to it. That issue is still being looked at.

I hope that I have already explained that our approach to consistency is that it should relate to local conditions and not to numerical equivalents at a national level. Having said that, we take seriously the need to ensure that the outcome serves the public interest.

I am wondering whether I was asked about any points that I have not covered.

[Lord Rosser]

I asked the Minister whether she had any further comments to make, in addition to those in her opening speech, on the concerns that are expressed in the Merits Committee report both by the Merits Committee and on behalf of the organisations that it had contacted directly, which, while welcoming the changes that the Government have made to their original proposals, were clearly still unhappy with the situation.

Since consistency of application seems to be an issue, perhaps I may come back to the point that the Minister made about that. I appreciate that the Minister has said that there will not be national consistency across the board as forces will have to reflect what may be happening in different areas. Does she think that that is the cause of inconsistencies at the moment, as opposed to police forces taking different approaches and perhaps very different interpretations, which may not be based on what local communities think?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that we all have learnt. I would not try to claim that there was never any disproportionality, for instance, in the way in which different ethnic groups have been stopped and searched. The way to regulate the proper use of these powers is with the involvement of the local community, which will be extremely aware of whether the local police are using their powers disproportionately or improperly. That is why we believe that that kind of consultation will have a much more direct and helpful effect on the police using their powers in a proportionate and proper way than waiting to collect a lot of national statistics and then deciding that it looks as if there is something wrong.

I suppose that we are offering a different and, I hope, more practical approach to ensuring that the use of powers is regulated in a proper manner, but I believe that our approach will be effective. Of course, clearly the forces will have to record what they are doing overall and we will get to know over time whether the variation represents satisfaction in local areas.

The Merits Committee was concerned about the relative shortness of the time allowed for consultation. I hope that I have explained that the reality was that the time was rather longer. The committee also remarked on the fact that not all the groups supported all the proposals that we have decided to make. Liberty feels that the powers under Section 60 remain too broad. As I said, a case before the courts at the moment is an element in the situation. Perhaps I should also remind noble Lords that the Section 60 power can be used for only very short periods; it is not in the Section 40 category.

Justice’s concerns were also mentioned. I think that Justice is worried about the absence of statistics—I am afraid that I cannot read the note—but, if there is a problem, we will need to look at that and make sure that absence of information does not lead to improper outcomes. We are clearly embarking down a slightly different road and I assure the House that, precisely because we are doing that, we will watch the outcome carefully. I hope that the House will feel sufficiently reassured that the changes that we are making are intended to have a favourable outcome and that we will monitor their use in a way that will ensure that that is the outcome.