Schedule 2 - Amendments to the Police Act 1996
Police and Justice Bill
1:45 pm
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
Various models of local accountability need examining, one of which is that police authorities should be elected directly, a proposal that the Government have made. Another is that police chiefs should be accountable to existing mayors, although we have few of them. It is beyond my remit to suggest whether additional aspects of the criminal justice system could be brought under the remit of a mayor or other elected individual, but it could be argued that it would make sense to do so, because an elected individual would have a broader remit than simply governing policing. However, that is a much more fundamental change.
My argument is confined to the operation of the police. I seek to demonstrate the need to rebuild confidence in the police and the need to rebuild the link between local communities and police forces. That need will be considerably exacerbated if we have much larger forces. A form of democratic local accountability would act as a counterbalance to the increasing central control that exists under the Government. I stress that neither side proposes direct political control of the police, although I believe that the extension of central power under the Government’s current proposals will have that result.
Amendment No. 71 relates to the remuneration of police authority members. That reflects the concern of the APA, of which the Minister will be aware. The remuneration of members of the authority should not be a matter for prescription; it should be up to police authorities to decide it. The purpose of the amendment is to test that proposal.
Amendment No. 72 rejects the idea that it is right for the Secretary of State to publish regulations for the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman of a police authority and suggests instead that if guidance is necessary, it should be published by the APA. That goes to the central argument—the extent to which the Government should interfere in matters that should be for police authorities to decide.
Amendment No. 73 is similar to some tabled by the Liberal Democrats. They would change the basis on which the constitution of police authorities should be approved from the negative procedure, which may mean no vote in Parliament, to the affirmative procedure, which would require a vote in both Houses. It is bad enough to propose constituting police authorities by secondary legislation. It gives the Minister too much reserve power, and it would be worse if the proposals were not debated.
I think that there would be greater confidence among police authorities and the APA which represents them, if we were to amend the provisions so that the affirmative procedure could be used. We could then be confident that Parliament at least had the opportunity to debate and vote on changes to the shape of police authorities.