Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, I first apologise to my noble friend and the House for my unavoidable late arrival, which meant that I missed some of what my noble friend had to say, although I had the benefit of discussing the Bill with him on an earlier occasion. For the record, I also state that I am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, vice-president of the Association of Police Authorities and chair of the All-Party Group on Policing. This is a valuable and worthwhile Bill, although I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that it may have a few bamboo tendencies within it. There are many important clauses within the Bill, especially those that modernise the law on prostitution and sexual offences. However, in my remarks this afternoon, I want to focus narrowly on the way in which the Bill increases effectiveness and public accountability of policing. In particular, I give a hearty welcome to Clause 1, which places a new duty on police authorities to have regard to the views of the public in exercising their functions. That adds enormously to the role that police authorities follow. They already have a duty to obtain the views of the public. The Bill helpfully states that police authorities should not only obtain the views of the public but should have regard to them. I trust that most of my colleagues in police authorities, who fulfil their duty admirably in obtaining those views, are also having regard to them when they exercise their functions. None the less, that is important, because it makes it explicit that the purpose of consulting and listening to people’s views is to take note of them and to modify plans accordingly. When I was involved in health service matters, it was expected that consultation began only once a decision had been made. The important point about the clause is that it makes it clear that when we seek the views of the public, we do so with a genuinely open mind, listen to what emerges and take it into account. Given that I suspect that police authorities will embrace that and do it automatically, I am not quite sure why Clause 1(2), giving Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary the explicit power to inspect the performance of police authorities in respect of that duty, is necessary. Police authorities will be doing that as part of their natural work. Given that that has been specifically selected for Her Majesty's inspectorate to consider, along with all the other things that it is supposed to consider in respect of police authorities, can my noble friend explain why there is no mention of the Audit Commission in the process, given that there is now an expectation of joint inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate and the Audit Commission of the work of police authorities? None the less, this is a helpful and useful clause and one that builds on the work of police authorities. To give one example of why that role of external engagement and listening can be so important, earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to Section 44 of the Terrorism Act. As a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I led a major exercise three years ago in listening to the views of Londoners about the implications of counterterrorism measures taken by the police service. There was a major engagement with lots of focus groups, inviting young people—young Muslims in particular—to meet a panel of police authority members. There were very lively sessions, not all of them easy. Several issues emerged from that, for example, about the use of the Section 44 power under the Terrorism Act. As a result of that consultation and the work that was done, significant changes are being put in place in the way that that power is being used in the Metropolitan Police district. That is a consequence of police authorities going out, listening to people, having regard to the views expressed and articulating the point by working with the police service in pursuing its strategy—in an area which is recognised to be difficult, about which there are strong feelings and about which there are felt to be strong operational necessities in the use of Section 44. Clause 5 sets out a new legal basis for collaboration across police force areas. Again, that is welcome. In the absence of legislation before us to merge those police force areas which are less viable than others, to recognise the fact that some police force areas are too small, there needs to be a sound basis for collaboration. In the discussions that I have been involved in about the organisation of services relating to counterterrorism and the need for national co-ordination, I have been aware of how complicated discussions between police forces can be, especially given the particular responsibilities of chief constables in the management of police forces and officers in their area, although it may be an operation directed from elsewhere. It is very important that those collaborative arrangements are clear. Having said that—I appreciate that there has been enormous effort to try to get this right—I am not clear that the current drafting necessarily deals with all the points. It seems to separate police authorities on the one hand and chief officers of police on the other. It seems to create a distinction between collaboration between police forces and collaboration between police authorities. I wonder whether that is helpful. To pick up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was making earlier, as we know, the Police Act 1996, which anyone interested in policing has by their side constantly, is amended by Parliament at least once a year. It was as recently as 2006 that the Section 8 of the Police and Justice Act inserted a new section into the Police Act 1996, Section 6ZA—the fact that it is Section 6ZA is an indication of the sheer number of changes made adjacent to Section 6—which confers the power on the Secretary of State to make an order requiring police authorities,. ""to secure that arrangements are made for that force to co-operate with other police forces whenever necessary or expedient"." It is difficult to track down, because all the changes to the Act have not yet been consolidated into one single version of the Police Act 1996—at least, not one that is readily accessible using the parliamentary internet—but that section may not yet have been implemented, even though it has been languishing on the statute book for the best part of three years. I wonder whether building on that basis, rather than on the set of clauses in the Bill, might be a better way forward. In particular, I am slightly concerned that what we have before us in the Bill may conflict with that section, should it be implemented in future. The precise way in which the provision works to avoid duplication and conflict between the role of police authorities and chief officers of police is important. There should be clarity as to who is responsible for driving through the arrangements for collaboration. I shall briefly touch on two other aspects of the Bill. The first relates to Clauses 6 to 8 on the cross-authorisations in the regulation of investigatory powers. I commend these provisions to your Lordships. A police officer in force A, who is engaged in a joint operation involving a number of police officers, has to obtain an authorisation under the strict terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act from an officer in the same force rather than from the officer who has responsibility for that joint operation in the first instance. The way the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act operates at the moment, as I understand it, can be quite bureaucratic and delaying because an officer who may not be involved in the operation concerned is required to give authorisation without knowledge of the facts of the matter. It seems to me that this streamlining arrangement will facilitate the use of certain techniques by collaborative units, for example, the East Midlands Special Operations Unit or the counterterrorism units to which I referred. Finally, I shall say a word about Clauses 77 and 78 on aviation security. These are long overdue. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is perhaps coloured by the collaborative relationship that exists between the railways and the British Transport Police, and thinks that in this legislation we are trying to create something that is too onerous on the airports. My understanding of most British airports is that they are major multiple retail outlets in which people are obliged to spend long periods of time before they can get on their plane. They are major revenue-driving operations for the companies that own them. That one or two of the companies are having financial difficulties and some of them have been sold overseas is another matter. If you want to operate an airport, it is surely a requirement upon you that you ensure that there is adequate security. At the moment, unless an airport is designated, it is possible for an airport operator to resist paying for any of the policing that goes with providing a safe and secure airport. I do not believe that that can be right. What concerns me about these clauses is not that they are there at all, but that they may be making it too easy for some airport operators to string out the process before they start paying for the costs of the policing to make those airports secure. There are considerable doubts about the proposals regarding the arbitration procedures. It looks to me as though they could result in significant delays to agreeing the plans in respect of particular airports. When my noble friend responds, I should like to hear a suggestion that a time limit might be imposed on the arbitration process, perhaps limiting it to a matter of a few weeks, so that we do not get a situation in which airport operators avoid paying for the costs of securing the people whom they corral in their airport so that they can spend a lot more money in the shops and outlets there. I think this is a worth while Bill. It contains many valuable elements, and I am happy to support it.