Police and Justice Bill

The Bill offers the House the opportunity of a wide-ranging debate on policing. I noted that the Home Secretary emphasised that in his initial comments, when he said that the Bill would have an impact at every level of policing. I share his aspiration of creating safer communities, although I may approach the topic from a different perspective. It has been interesting to hear Members’ comments during the debate. There is clearly a strong feeling that the intent behind certain aspects of the Bill is to implement the regionalisation agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke about his support of his local police force. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) dealt with the situation in Essex and whether that county will push for a referendum on the implementation of any changes to the Essex police force. As a Member whose constituency borders Essex—many of my constituents would probably like to be in Essex—I find that an interesting proposal. I and other hon. Members will follow developments in Essex with great interest. I shall focus my remarks on three issues arising from the Bill—first, there is the direction of travel and the prospect of centralisation. Although local control may be emphasised, it will not necessarily be implemented through the provisions. Secondly, there is the impact of the creation of the new chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody. Thirdly, there are the missed opportunities in relation to extradition. The Bill allows us to debate the role and function of the police. I begin with some comments from Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in his recent Dimbleby lecture, when he said:"““We don’t want one kind of police force being nice to people and another one arriving in darkened vans wearing the balaclavas. Whoever is responsible for the one has to be responsible for the other.””" That provokes an interesting theoretical debate about the control of the police and where that direction comes from. Some of the emphasis in the Bill seems to take a dual approach, rather than the single approach for which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner called. Centralised control takes the form of the right of intervention by the Home Secretary in the operation of the police, whereas local control is much less defined or thought out and lacks teeth. On the powers of intervention, the explanatory notes to the Bill contain the soothing comment that those would be used only as ““a last resort””. I am not wholly convinced by those words. The approach outlined in the Bill will strengthen the internal culture of direction from the centre, with more limited input and direction from the local bodies intended to reflect the differing needs and aspirations of communities. The Home Secretary was tut-tutting from the Front Bench and the Minister is shaking her head, but when we analyse the Bill in Committee, we will see what the direction of travel is and what protection is afforded to local communities. The Bill appears to give the Home Secretary greater control and greater power. Sir Chris Fox, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:"““These measures may lead to more centralised direction at a time when forces are trying to give a local response to local problems.””" The Bill could have strengthened local police authorities by giving them, rather than the Home Secretary, the power to set strategic objectives and to be more relevant to the public by greater accountability, perhaps through election. What we have is very different. Schedule 2 reserves specific powers to the Secretary of State to play a greater role in the composition of individual police authorities and to determine strategic priorities for police in police authority areas. From my reading of the schedule, there is nothing to suggest that different priorities can be set for different police authorities, rather than a straightforward structural approach setting out parameters for all police authorities. The Minister may be able to offer some clarification in her winding-up speech. There are significant powers to give directions to chief police officers and to police authorities in much wider circumstances than previously. Although there is a requirement for the Home Secretary to allow an opportunity for police officers and police authorities to make alternative proposals, it seems to be entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary to ignore those, without even offering the chance for such measures to be implemented to see how they work out. I appreciate that the Home Secretary may wish to intervene rapidly in a failing authority, but that circumstance would have been apparent for some time. The swingeing powers that the Home Secretary has reserved to himself to intervene, without the police authority or the chief police officer having an opportunity to offer an alternative proposal, seem to be extremely strong. No doubt we will hear more soothing words this evening about the implementation of that power and how it would be used, but it does not give much protection and allows the Home Office to intervene more readily than in the past. The comments of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) are germane. If that approach were taken, it would make the Home Secretary responsible for policing throughout the country. Perhaps that is what he wants. We will find out as the Bill proceeds. It is interesting to contrast those powers with the backstop, as the Home Secretary called it, or what I might describe as window dressing—the community call for action, which would impose duties on local ward councillors to sort out crime and disorder in the areas that they represent, backed up by a council overview and scrutiny committee that can issue reports to relevant authorities, but without any teeth to ensure that any of the recommendations in its reports are followed up. The process seems highly bureaucratic and less effective than existing arrangements. Safer neighbourhood teams are already holding public meetings and fostering a direct relationship with their communities. A direct relationship with a safer neighbourhood team may be more effective than the bureaucratic approach of referring an issue to a ward councillor, and I am looking forward to the regulations specifying how quickly the ward councillor must respond. What additional resources will be made available to ward councillors to process requests? The scrutiny committees will review such matters and make recommendations, which is not the most effective way to ensure that action is taken on the ground quickly, efficiently and effectively to deal with antisocial behaviour in local communities.