Greater London Authority Bill

I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on getting into bed with the Mayor of London on this issue. Of all the amendments tabled by Conservative Peers, this is the first and possibly the only one that has received the endorsement of the Mayor. For all those reasons, it is probably wrong. The amendment demonstrates a lack of understanding of some of the principles that underpin policing more generally, not just in London. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, highlighted how myths about the confused accountability of the Metropolitan Police have been allowed to grow; indeed, it has been quite happy, on occasion, to promote such myths. The reality is much simpler than suggested. There could be simplifications in the existing arrangement, but I question whether an abolition of the police authority is the best route to delivering an effective and efficient police service for London that best meets the needs of Londoners. The amendment suggests that all executive functions in respect of the Greater London Authority’s role as a police authority shall be carried out by the Mayor of London. In practice, the Mayor of London would personally appoint all commanders, deputy assistant commissioners and assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police; he would be responsible for its senior police staff and, apart from responsibilities with regard to the budget, would also take personal responsibility for all its property transactions. I suspect that that is inconsistent with the general thrust of the views expressed by Members of this Committee about the Mayor taking action on his own, but that would be the effect of the amendment. Amendment No. 72 would give powers of scrutiny to the London Assembly. There is, I accept, some duplication in that the Assembly seems occasionally to carry out functions that have been carried out exhaustively by the police authority. Some simplification might make sense. I have seen senior officers of the Metropolitan Police appearing and answering questions on a topic and then being asked exactly the same questions about exactly the same topic by exactly the same Members of the London Assembly at its budget committee. That seems a wasteful use of everybody’s time. I wonder what is going through the brain processes of London Assembly Members; when the same question is asked and answered on two separate occasions, in two different places, do they remember whether they have received the answers in the first place? The question that has to be answered is whether these arrangements will deliver more effectively an efficient police service that meets the needs of Londoners. One consequence of having an authority dedicated to looking at the work of the Metropolitan Police has been a degree of focus that, I submit, would not be possible if it were done on an executive basis by the Mayor and by a scrutiny committee of the London Assembly. I could burden the Committee with a series of examples from my four years as chair of the police authority but I shall not. The detailed work of individual police authority members, some of whom have been London Assembly Members but many of whom were not, has had a significant impact on how policing in London has operated. I fail to see how these arrangements would improve it. There is also the interesting question of how the amendment would work in respect of the recent changes, involving crime and disorder reduction partnerships in London, following the Police and Justice Act 2006. If executive functions reposed with the Mayor of London, he would be required to be a member of all 32 crime and disorder reduction partnerships in London. Although the Mayor of London must have the capacity to walk on water, I rather suspect that that requirement would be very trying. In practice, police authority input to local crime and disorder reduction partnerships would not happen, which would damage the effectiveness of local policing. The amendment suggests that the Assembly police committee be bolstered by the addition of four magistrates. That is an interesting concept, as the Police and Justice Act has just removed the separate category, rightly or wrongly, of magistrates sitting on police authorities. Although I believe that magistrates have made an enormous contribution to the work of the police authority in London, I am not sure why it is proposed that there be four magistrates and not other independents, as would be the case elsewhere. On Amendments Nos. 74 and 75, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that his proposed approach would be better than the current system of patronage. Again, I suspect that that means the noble Lord has misread the legislation and misunderstood the process followed. The appointment of the present Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis involved an exhaustive process that could hardly be described as simple patronage. Initially it involved a panel, including the chair of the police authority, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office and some fully paid-up member of the great and the good to act as an independent assessor, simply to screen the applications received. There was then an extensive panel interview—no doubt following all sorts of bizarre psychometric tests, but I am not sure—by members of the police authority, with Home Office representatives present, which made recommendations to the Home Secretary. The Mayor of London was also consulted at that stage. Then the Home Secretary, having considered the recommendations made and representations received, made a recommendation to the Queen. I will not repeat the even more tortuous arrangements for the appointment of the deputy commissioner, but you could hardly say that there was a system of patronage. The amendment would limit the various possible stages. In its proposals for the deputy commissioner of police, it seems to have made no reference to the London Assembly, even though I had understood the amendment’s purpose as being to involve the London Assembly more in the workings of policing. These amendments are seriously flawed technically and, more particularly, would have very bad consequences for effective and efficient policing in London.