Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, by giving us the benefit of his experience, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has highlighted what I think will be the crux of some of the discussions that we have to have on this Bill and highlights why this is the most difficult area of some of the issues that we have to look at. Perhaps I can add my experience as chair of a police authority for four years and then, since 2004, as a member of a police authority. I hope that is helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, made a very interesting point when he talked about the relationship that he had with his chairman of the police authority. He talked about reminding him of his responsibilities in pay and rations, buildings and setting the overall strategic direction. One bit of this Bill that we have to address—and there are amendments on this matter that we might reach today or tomorrow—is where it takes away the responsibility from the commission, the commissioner or the authority for pay and rations and for buildings. We might as a result create a situation in which the commissioner, whom the White Paper certainly envisaged would be full time in his role, would have nothing else to do but intervene in matters that we would otherwise regard as being the responsibility of the chief constable. The balance of responsibility between the commissioner or the commission, or whatever we want to call it—whatever we end up with—and the chief officer of police will be exceptionally important. I believe that police accountability is important and I take the view that whoever discharges that responsibility, whether it is an individual commissioner or a commission, there must be some levers that can be applied. That is why I think we will want to return to the question of exactly what is transferred to the chief officer of police. My experience says that it is not always terribly helpful to define what is or is not operational, because it will depend on the personal chemistry between the chief officer of police and the person who fulfils this role—the commissioner or the commission. There was a transition period before the new Metropolitan Police Authority came into being in 2000; it was not quite as long as the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested last week, but it was certainly a matter of months. A few weeks after that came the Notting Hill carnival, which is the largest street festival in Europe, involves policing costs of £3 million to £5 million, and is a major issue for relations between the police and the community. At that stage, the police authority, of which I was the new chair, had an interim secretariat that, despite the fact that many of them had been seconded from the Home Office, was less experienced in these matters, and which advised me that as the chair it was completely improper for me to say anything about the policing of the carnival. My first response was to say, ““Well, it’s interesting that you say that, but I've already done three radio interviews this morning on precisely that topic””. However, I took the view that because of, first, the sum of money involved and, secondly, the pivotal issues about relations between the police and the community, there were of course matters which the police authority chair—or, in future, the commission or the commissioner —would expect to comment on and have some say over. That is right and proper. It should not be the responsibility of the commissioner, the commission or a police authority chair to say, ““At this stage, you should put your NATO helmets on””, or, ““At this stage, you should block this street rather than that street””, because that would be intervening in the operational responsibility of the police. However, to take no role at any stage on one of the biggest policing operations would be wrong. Looking at what has happened more recently in London, where I sit as a member of the police authority, I have watched the new administration since the election of the mayor who came in. A number of things happened for which that new administration could properly claim credit. For example, a much more rigorous, aggressive anti-knife policy, Operation Blunt 2, was introduced after the elected politicians who came in after an election said, ““We believe that knife crime is a matter of such public concern in London that you, as the police service, should be ratcheting up what you do””. Again, that seems to me to be a legitimate concern and not intervening in operational matters. More recently there has been the attack dogs issue and whether the police service in London should take it much more seriously. Again, that is sometimes presented as a personal preoccupation of the current police authority chair, Kit Malthouse, when it has actually concerned the police authority for some time. When I walk through the park near where I live, early in the morning, and see young lads hanging their dogs off trees by the jaws to strengthen their jaws and make them more effective as attack dogs, I think it is of concern to Londoners. In both instances—knives and attack dogs—the Metropolitan Police probably recognised what should have a higher priority, but elected politicians came in and said, ““Actually, this is what concerns us””. The danger in trying to avoid inappropriate intervention in operational matters—such as saying, ““Investigate this case rather than that case””, ““Arrest this person rather than that person””, or, ““Close that street rather than this street””—is in undermining the principle of accountability that the Government want to achieve. The protocol has turned out to be a slightly better document than many might have expected, but it was extremely difficult to write. I pay enormous tribute to those who spent many happy hours trying to get that document right, but there is a real danger with it. The more a chief constable or we in this House or the other place say, ““We've got to protect against this””, and write it into that document, the more enforceable we make it and the more difficult we will make the sensible arrangements of accountability that we are trying to put in place. The Minister raised the intervention last week on the Madeleine McCann case and properly explained the process that was being engaged in, which was not an instruction. Despite some of the press briefing that might have gone on beforehand, there was simply a conversation. As I understand it, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police simply said, ““Yes, of course, that is something that we should and could do””. I will not get into any questions of whether that is the right or wrong thing to do. I do not know whether any of your Lordships remember Flanders and Swann. One thing that they did—it might have been Michael Flanders on his own—was to talk about the origin of the song ““Greensleeves””. Michael Flanders describes how they were trying to find the first-act closer of some mid-16th century revel. A tune arrived and Flanders, or whoever it was, says aloud: ““Who on earth has written this stuff?””. A voice from the back of the auditorium says, ““We did””. He asks, ““I can't see who that is—who are you?””, then hears, ““We are Henry the Eighth, we are””. At which point, says Michael Flanders, they realised that it was precisely the song that they had wanted. I wonder whether the discussions last week—it may have been as much the Prime Minister as the Home Secretary taking this view—were very much, ““We are Henry the Eighth, we are, and of course this is exactly what we wanted to do in the first place””. We have to preserve the iterative process by which elected politicians, who should be in touch with their local communities, say to the police, ““These are the priorities of the community””. We have to make sure that it exists in whatever arrangements we have, whether it is a directly elected commissioner, a commission or anything else. I am worried that if we define this too precisely, we will end up in worse trouble. I have heard chief constables say, ““Of course, this will end up in the courts. We'll have this protocol and as soon as our commissioner steps over the line we’ll be in court and sort the thing out. The courts will always favour the police so we'll be all right””. I have heard that line expressed. However, if in the private dialogues between the commissioner or the commission and the chief police officer the protocol is mentioned more than twice, it will have demonstrated that the relationship between that chief police officer and that commissioner or commission has broken down irredeemably. Have it there as an expression of fine words but do not try and define it precisely, because that will only lead to trouble.