Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 229, but it needs to be placed in the broader context of this group. The amendment relates to our view that a deputy should be a member of the panel and, in the context of that specific amendment, not a member of the commissioner’s staff. If one looks carefully at Amendment 60 in this group, one will see that it gives a commissioner the power to appoint a person as the deputy for that police area and also for that deputy, "““to exercise any function of the police and crime commissioner””." There is a very great difference between our view that the person appointed as the deputy should be from the panel and Amendment 60, which gives absolute power to the police and crime commissioner to appoint a deputy to exercise any function of the commissioner. In Amendment 6 a number of restrictions then apply, most of them welcome. Proposed new paragraph 7A(4) is surprising. It tells us: "““Section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (appointment of staff on merit) does not apply to the deputy police and crime commissioner””." That is an unfortunate way of putting it because it relates to a statutory provision. However, should we not have deputies who are appointed on merit, as opposed to people who are not appointed on merit? Nevertheless, there is then a proposal in proposed new paragraphs 7B, 7C and onwards for the scrutiny of senior appointments, one of which is the deputy, the others the chief executive and chief finance officer, and there is a process for a hearing in public of the person whom the commissioner wishes to appoint as deputy. However, proposed new paragraph 7E says: "““The police and crime commissioner may accept or reject the panel’s recommendation””," and sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph states: "““The police and crime commissioner must notify the panel of the decision whether to accept or reject the recommendation””." In other words, a proposal is made to the panel and the panel will go through a process. It will comment and report in public, but the commissioner can turn down its view. Therefore, broadly speaking, we are now where we were before with absolute power being given to the commissioner. I have great reservations about that. Proposed new subsection (2A) in Amendment 63 on page 15 of the Marshalled List says that the deputy police commissioner, having been appointed by the commissioner, "““may arrange for any other person to exercise any function of the police and crime commissioner which is, in accordance with subsection (A1)(b), exercisable by the deputy police and crime commissioner””." There are restrictions in the amendment largely on the functions that are prescribed. A number of key functions are restricted; nevertheless, a number of functions still exist for the deputy. I come back to Amendment 229 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, which says that the deputy should be a member of the panel. That has the virtue of the deputy being a person who is elected. At least, I assume that they will be an elected member, as opposed to an independent co-opted member. Although they will not be a member directly from the panel, they will at least be a member elected to the local authority. I have a real concern about what is being proposed here. There may be a deputy whom the police commissioner can appoint. There may be significant objections by the panel to that appointment, but they can be overridden by the commissioner. The deputy, perhaps then in place, can do certain things but may never have been elected. I think that the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee is much better in that it makes it clear that the deputy should be a member of the panel. This is all about checks and balances. I should like to read to your Lordships the coalition agreement on an elected police commissioner: "““We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives””." My view is that the first half of that has been dominating the debate around this Bill but the second half, which refers to strict checks and balances, is not currently being delivered as part of the Bill. There are a number of examples of that and one is as follows. There is now to be a power in the Bill, as amended, for a commissioner to appoint a deputy, potentially paying no regard to the views of the panel that will have scrutinised the appointment. That deputy will have a whole set of powers and may not be a member of the panel. It seems that further work is necessary here before we get to Third Reading. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take on board some of the comments that have just been made by me and by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. These are very real issues and, unless we address them, something somewhere will, in the course of time, go seriously wrong in one of our police areas.