Policing and Crime Bill

Clause 11 : Police procedures and practices Debate on whether Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill. I am rising on behalf of Liberty to propose that Clause 11 and Clause 12 do not stand part of the Bill. I am happy to do so because it is important that Liberty sees its way into Hansard. Clauses 11 and 12 raise some serious concerns about the ability of the Secretary of State to interfere in operational policing matters with regard to specific forces. Currently, the Police Act 1996 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all police forces to adopt particular practices and procedures. These regulations can only be made if the Chief Inspector of Constabulary states that he or she is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to ensure co-operation between police forces and also to ensure that the proper procedure is carried out and that it is in the national interest. The proposed new Clause 11 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to that effect which only apply to one or more police forces. It would also allow regulations to be made if the chief inspector thinks it necessary to do so to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force, rather than just to ensure co-operation. Similarly, Clause 12 seeks to amend the current position, enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all police forces to use specified facilities and services if he or she thinks it is in the interest of efficiency or effectiveness to require just one or more specified police force to do so. Enabling the Home Secretary to direct the type of policies that apply to specific police forces to promote efficiency in that force raises the spectre of political interference in particular police forces. The current power does not allow the Secretary of State to pick and choose between police forces, and that provides some limit on the power of central government to control how a particular force operates. Liberty has consistently warned against political interference in policing. The police must remain able to investigate crime independently and to apply the laws made by Parliament free from political pressure. Liberty’s position is that police authorities should be responsible for setting the strategic direction of the police force and should hold the chief constable of the force to account without additional interference by central government. Liberty has frequently stated that police independence and the rule of law are best served by denying the Executive excessive control of operational policing matters. It also maintains that communities are best served when the police are able to act with an appropriate degree of independence. We have been going over this ground all afternoon. I make no apology whatever for going over it again and I am delighted that Liberty has provided this particular opportunity.