New Clause 4
4:00 pm
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I speak as a representative of a constituency that is ranked next to bottom in a national rating of forces, so it will come as no surprise to the Minister that constituents in Bedfordshire feel very strongly about this issue. We do not like the fact that our police force came next to bottom, in terms of all its rankings, in the UK. The one thing that disappointed me more was that when the chief constable was held to account for the reasons why we had come next to bottom, there was nothing but total support from the police authority for both the chief constable and the force. There was no questioning of why we were in that position, just closed ranks and total support of the chief constable.
In clause 1, we have missed a golden opportunity to allow people, and particularly my constituents in Bedfordshire, to pass judgment on the person whom they see running their police force and delivering policing in their area. When people go to the ballot box, they know exactly which MP they are voting for. If the incumbent MP is a bad MP, people will go to the ballot box and vote them out. Exactly the same would happen if we had an elected chief constable as opposed to an authority.
I do not think that the residents of any of our constituencies would flock to vote for a police authority. I do see them flocking to vote for the person who, along with their MP and councillors, be it a unitary authority, county council, district council or whatever, will make a difference to how efforts to tackle crime are delivered on their streets. Surely if we had one person, a directly elected chief constable, which the Green Paper hinted at but which the Bill fails to provide, policing budgets would also be far more assiduously examined by the person responsible for delivering the services that the budget was to pay for. I am not sure that an authority would have the same attention to detail as there would be under an elected chief constable.
Will an authority be accountable in the same way? There will be no members of the public on it, so it will be a quango. They will all be elected by the senior appointments panel. Will the authority be accountable to the people and, if so, in what way? I ask that because I do not see anyone who wants to make an issue of policing on their streets using this route to do that. They will do it in exactly the same way as residents do it at the moment. They will come to their MP or go to their councillor. They will not think of going to their authority because it will not be giving regard to their views. The regard will be given to the elected person—the MP or the councillors. I fail to see how this clause takes note of anyone who lives in 16 Russell street in Bedfordshire. I cannot see how it takes account of that person being concerned about the fact that knife crime on their street has gone up over the past 12 months.
How will people’s views be taken account of in this clause? Will people have the opportunity to go and stand in front of the people who should have regard to their views? Will the general public have a chance? Will all my residents in Russell street be able to go and stand in front of this authority and say, “Take regard of our views because we want more visible policing on our streets. We do not want you bringing speed cameras to the end of our street when there are knife crimes taking place there.” Is that what the clause will do? I fail to see how it will. We have missed a golden opportunity here and I fail to see why the Government have not grasped it.
When I saw the Green Paper, I could envisage the voting booths. I could see a voting ballot with the councillors, with the MP and the directly elected chief constable. Everyone knows who my chief constable is and one of the reasons for that is that our police force performs so badly. People have no regard to his views at the moment and I cannot see how this clause will change that. At the moment, our chief constable is protected by the police authority and the general public can only go to councillors or the MP. Where does the clause change that? Where does it change the route by which the general public can go to change this particular disregard? Where does that apply?
One of the reasons that we have been given is that if any other method, or mechanism, were in place, it could politicise the police. The police are politicised; every one of us was lobbied about 42-day detention. Every one of was lobbied over various other issues by our local police. The police have their own representatives who lobby us, politicise the issues and come to speak to us. We want democracy, not politicisation. We want our police to be accountable. They are politicised anyway, so if the Minister’s response is that we do not want to politicise the police force, what does he think about the fact that the police came here to lobby us on 42 days? Is that not politicisation? My police came to lobby me over the fact that they were one of the worst police forces in the country and about what is happening in their police force. Are they not politicising the issue by involving me in it? They are already politicised; we want to make them less politicised, more independent, less accountable to us and more accountable to the individual that people may get the chance to vote for to represent their particular views in their area.
I am sad that this clause is going to stand. I hope that the views of the people will be known through the media and all Members of the House when the Bill comes to its final stages. It is a golden opportunity missed and I fail to understand why the Minister has done that.