Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, if I may deal with that last point first, it is certainly not meaningless. I will come later in my remarks to why I think it is an important addition to the Bill. In resisting these amendments before the House tonight, I note that many are addressed through proposed government amendments to which I will speak later. I shall begin with Amendments 92, 93 and 95, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in relation to precepts. Amendment 92 would compel the PCC to bill the public separately from the precept of the local council. I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment because I think the effect would be positive. In essence, it would provide clarity to the public about exactly where their money is going and how much they are paying for policing services. However, this is also a matter of proportionality. The debate about hypothecating the local authority’s bill is quite an old debate. I recall having discussions about it on many occasions in the other place. Everybody thought it would be a good thing because there would be more clarity, but nobody has taken it forward, including the former Government, I have to say. To issue separate bills would increase costs, not just in the production of the bill itself but, if it were separately sent, there would be questions about collection and payment on time which would add cost to collecting the money for the precept. PCCs will be high-profile figures, and part of the point of these reforms is that nobody should be in any doubt as to who is responsible for the policing precept, strategy and budget. The council tax bill will, as now, clearly set out where the money is going. With that in mind, and looking at the balance of the proportionality of what the noble Lord has put before the House tonight, I feel that the current arrangements will be sufficient. For that reason, I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment. Amendments 93 and 95 would require the police and crime commissioner to notify the local authorities in the police area of the proposed precept, and the commissioner would be required to consult with the police and crime panel and the local authorities. The panel already has the power to review the precept, and will be able to reflect the views of the local authorities in doing this. We have already had this discussion with regard to an earlier amendment. Although not exclusively made up of local authority members, the panel will represent every local authority in the police authority area and therefore will be able to reflect the view of the local authorities. For that reason, I see no need for further prescription on this issue. In addressing the precept, I also refer to Amendment 96A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Beecham and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I understand your Lordships’ view that the views of local authorities should be heard on this issue. However, the police and crime panel membership, with its strong link to local authorities, will be able to make sure that those views are represented in considering the precept. Indeed, this access to local knowledge is one of their strengths. We have not touched on this very much but the representation of local authorities will bring that specific local knowledge to the table. Therefore, I do not feel that this provision is necessary. The next series of amendments seeks to give the panel a greater role in relation to the budget and the police and crime plan. I reiterate that the Government are fully committed to the model of directly elected police and crime commissioners and it is they who will have the public mandate to develop the police and crime plan and the associated budget. It is imperative that the lines of accountability that run through this reform are clear and that the public know whom they can hold to account for the performance of their police force. I turn now to Amendments 94, 96 to 100, 146 and 147. First, I will address those amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, which seek to give the panel a direct role in the setting of the budget and heads of expenditure. We have already set out provision for the panel to review, produce a report and recommendations on the precept level set by the commissioner, and in extreme cases, to veto it. This already gives the panel considerable power in relation to the budget that the Government consider proportionate to its role. Amendment 109, tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, concerns the power of a police and crime panel to veto the police and crime plan of a police and crime commissioner outside London. I am clear that setting the strategy for the force must be an unfettered decision of the PCC. This is precisely where its electoral mandate will come into play, and where the public will most visibly see their views and opinions reflected. There is provision in the Bill for the panel to provide recommendations on the plan, which is in line with its scrutiny role. However, the final decision on the plan must rest with the commissioner. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has tabled Amendments 112, 113 and 114. In relation to Amendments 112 and 113, I note that the police and crime panels already have powers appropriate to the scrutiny role that they will perform. Therefore, I do not see what further value these amendments would bring. In addressing Amendment 114, I am pleased to note that my noble friend’s amendment is in the same vein as the government amendment to which I shall speak now. Through Amendment 107 I propose to put in legislation an underpinning duty for the police and crime panel to exercise the powers conferred on it by the Bill with a view to supporting the police and crime commissioner in carrying out his or her functions. Notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about the drafting, it was something that was, I felt, a little overlooked. That was probably my fault in not bringing forward this aspect of the role of the police and crime panel during earlier stages of the Bill. Therefore I thank noble Lords for the welcome debate and challenge offered by the House in this area. It has encouraged us to look again at this reform and identify how we can ensure its successful implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, spoke at some length on day four of the Committee about her proposed amendments to this clause. Primarily, those amendments were predicated on the basis of there being in place a police and crime commission rather than a police and crime commissioner. This is obviously something that the Government do not believe is the correct model—it will not come as any surprise to her to hear that—but I certainly feel there is some common ground here between myself and the noble Baroness. Key to her argument was that the police and crime panel should not just be there, in her words, to do battle with the commissioner. I completely agree. The Government’s intention from the very inception of this policy has been that the panel would be a positive and supportive body, not one of frustration. The panel’s role of scrutiny should broadly be a helpful one, with the aim of improving decision-making. We have looked again at this, as promised, and it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that I cannot accept the concept of a police and crime commission and that I will not move on the subject of giving the panel executive powers. I can see that she is not really devastated—that was what she expected me to say. That is not what the model is about, for reasons we have already debated. The police and crime panel will play a crucial role in this reform. It is there to scrutinise the commissioner’s decisions and actions. It is not the intention that it should do battle with the commissioner. Both parties ultimately want the same outcome: to keep their communities safe from harm. Further, the police and crime panel will hold a great deal of local knowledge and expertise through its membership. If I may say so to the noble Baroness and to other noble Lords, a lot has been said about police authority membership. Although we feel it is time to move on and to reform this structure, I want to acknowledge that their local knowledge and dedication has been of help and I hope that, in a similar way, members of the panel will bring local knowledge and constructive suggestions and debate to the panel in a way that will be supportive and helpful to the police and crime commissioner. It will be of benefit to the police and crime commissioner to acknowledge this and to create a more collaborative working relationship.