Police reform and social responsibility Bill

It is fair to say that a number of the amendments that the Government have accepted improve the Bill. The Minister was right to point out some of them. I was particularly pleased to see Lords amendments 5 and 7, which place a duty on the police and crime commissioner with respect to the well-being and the safeguarding of children, a topic that we raised in Committee. Those are important amendments with which we would all agree, and I am glad the Government have accepted them. Many of the other amendments have improved the Bill, given that following the last Division the Bill is going through with provisions in place for the appointment of police and crime commissioners. As a result of the Lords amendments, there is now a requirement for elected mayors automatically to be members of the police and crime panel. I gently point out to the Minister that it will be interesting to see the clash of mandates that may occur when the mayor is elected on one crime mandate and the police and crime commissioner on another. I shall not detain the House. As I said, I accept that many of the amendments mentioned by the Minister improve the Bill. I do not want to intrude on the private grief of Devon and Cornwall. I can only imagine the private meetings and surreptitious phone calls, amendments tabled and withdrawn, reassurances given about meetings, and so on. Amendment 98 and the amendments in lieu that I tabled would give police and crime panels the power to veto the dismissal of a chief constable. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister does not want at least some sort of power to be made available to either the Home Secretary through HMIC, or the police and crime panels, whereby the dismissal of a chief constable can be vetoed. To be fair to the Minister, the Government have rightly changed the majority required to veto an appointment from three quarters to two thirds, showing that they have listened in that respect, but why do they regard the dismissal of a chief constable to be different from the appointment? A police and crime panel can veto an appointment or a precept with a two-thirds majority. The Minister questions why we would want to fetter or in any way circumvent the power of a democratically elected individual when it comes to dismissal, yet they have done that with appointment and precept. The logic seems to be that if that is wrong for dismissal, we would not have it for appointment or precepts either. I say to the Minister that I honestly believe that this is a significant and serious flaw. Indeed, I think that it is a dangerous flaw. The Government have included the protocol, which must be agreed by affirmative resolution of both Houses, in the Bill, but we can imagine a locally elected politician with sole responsibility for the police in their area believing that they should be able to do certain things or require the chief constable to do certain things. The chief constable could say, ““No you can't, because that breaks the protocol””. The Minister ought to tell us what would happen in those circumstances. Where there is such a conflict, what will happen if the chief constable says, ““I'm not doing that because it's contrary to the protocol””? Even if there is a legal means by which the chief constable could try to resist such pressure, each and every hon. Member present can imagine the emotional pressure and the strain on normal human relationships that would result from knowing that, unless they conformed to what the police and crime commissioner was asking, they could be sacked. Who stops the police and crime commissioner from doing that? The Minister says that it is okay because the Government have amended the Bill so that the chief constable can now go to the police and crime panel and make representations. What use is that? The police and crime panel, having heard those representations and listened to the chief constable say, ““I am being treated unfairly and required to do things that are inconsistent with my view of how I should conduct policing in this area””, may actually agree, but ultimately it can do nothing. The police and crime panel can say to the chief constable, ““We absolutely agree with you. The police and crime commissioner is acting unreasonably and has it wrong.”” What can it do? The answer is nothing. It can veto an appointment, as I have said, but it cannot veto a dismissal. What sort of framework is that for the Government to set up? Our amendment would not even require a simple majority, because it accepts the Government's logic and view that there must be more than just a simple majority. So, we accept two thirds, and a significant number of police and crime panel members would have to regard the dismissal as unfair in order to veto it, but there is no power in the Bill at all. That goes back to what I keep saying to the Minister: if he wants to demonstrate that the police and crime panel is more than what I think it is, he has to give it some teeth. In this area, however, the Government have quite clearly failed. He said, ““We don't want to give the police and crime panel that power,”” and, in the remarks that he just made to the House, ““We don't want the police and crime commissioner to have to go to the police and crime panel, where it could act as judge and jury.”” Well, by that logic the panel will act as judge and jury on appointments and on precepts, but on the most fundamental question of all it will not be able to do so. There are few hon. Members present, unfortunately, but I hope that others hear some of the debate, because I do not believe that most Members think it sensible to give that amount of power to a police and crime commissioner, however unlikely it is that such a situation may occur. One hon. Member said that it is extremely unlikely to occur, but unlikely does not mean impossible, and it is incumbent on the House to include in the Bill something that would give us the safeguard that is required. Everybody I speak to is worried about the issue. Senior police officers are worried about it, and, although I know that the Minister does not give particular credence to these organisations, I must tell him that the Local Government Association, the Association of Police Authorities, Liberty and individual Members I speak to are worried about it, too. If he does not want to give the panel the power of veto, he might like to know that in another part of the amendment we say, ““Okay, why not have a reserve power for HMIC to refer a dismissal to the Home Secretary for her or his consideration?”” Looking at it, the Home Secretary would be able to say, ““I believe that in this particular instance the PCC has got it wrong.”” If the police and crime panel is not the right vehicle for undertaking such a measure, why not HMIC? I hope that the Government are right and the situation will never occur—that a police and crime commissioner will never sack a chief constable for reasons that generally cannot be supported. But, the danger is of a Government seeking to ensure the proper policing governance of this country which cannot happen. I am frankly astonished that the Government have not sought to include in the Bill at least some sort of safeguard to prevent the misuse of that power. It really is unbelievable. I cannot believe it, most people I speak to cannot believe it, and I do not believe that if most Members thought about it they would understand the logic of allowing appointments to be vetoed and precepts to be vetoed, but not dismissals. It goes right to the heart of the Bill, and, as I have said to the Minister before, it is dangerous. Such is the importance of the matter, I must say that, from a procedural point of view, I should like amendment 98 and the associated amendments in lieu to be put to the vote at the appropriate time.