Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, I have Amendments 223, 224 and 225 in this group. I support the amendments in the group that would extend the duties to observe the strategic policing requirement to commissioners, for the reasons of which the noble Baroness has reminded us and on which many noble Lords spoke powerfully on previous days. Perhaps I can summarise those reasons as being the temptation for the commissioner to play to the local gallery, which is one of the dangerous aspects of the politicisation of policing to which many of us referred. I share, too, the concern that the words ““have regard to”” are insufficient. The Constitution Committee put it tactfully, saying that, "““the Government must explain why””," the wording ““is sufficiently compelling””. Those of us whose natural inclination is to go local are concerned about this; it is quite significant. As we come to the end of Part 1 of the Bill, I shall mention the need for strict checks and balances again, even though these are of rather a different kind. My first amendment, which proposes that, "““any matter within the functions of the Serious Organised Crime Agency””—" I am aware of yesterday’s statement— "““shall be deemed to be … a threat””," within this provision, is intended to seek assurances from the Minister on the approach to the work that is currently within SOCA. I chose that wording because I did not want to single out one area of criminality above others. I have said this before in Committee. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred on the second day of Committee proceedings to child protection. I acknowledged then its importance. He acknowledged that child and adult trafficking, for instance, are—I hesitate to say of equal importance—within the same category. My noble friend Lady Walmsley will speak to a specific amendment on this in a moment. It might be worth mentioning a letter that I am sure other noble Lords will have received from the Howard League for Penal Reform as we approached Second Reading. It is certainly useful to realise that some of the points that we make over and again are not just ones that we have dreamt up but are of concern outside this House. The letter mentioned the concern that the proposed elected police and crime commissioners would find it, "““electorally enticing to run a campaign aimed at””—" the example it chooses— "““the easy arrest and detention of children, rather than devoting resources to crimes that appeal less to the local media or populace””." The Howard League for Penal Reform reminds your Lordships about the large number of sentences imposed on children, whom it describe as, "““‘low hanging fruit’ which partly accounts for their … high arrest rates””." In what it calls the, "““harsh world of electoral politics””," it is right to remind us of the different parts of the jigsaw. My Amendments 224 and 225 would change the second part of the definition of a national threat from one that, "““can be countered effectively or efficiently only by national policing capabilities””," to one that ““is most likely to”” be countered effectively or efficiently by national policing capabilities. The wording in the Bill, as drafted, of, "““countered … only by national policing capabilities””," seems too restrictive. One would not want to see an argument over whether that criterion was satisfied when common sense says that the likelihood is that a national policing capability is required with regard to the matter. They may look like two rather small and insignificant amendments, but I am concerned that this part of the definition is too narrow and too restrictive. I hope this is something that the Government might take away and think about again.