Clause 32
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
2:30 pm

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 206, in clause 32, page 22, line 22, leave out from ‘by’ to the end of line 23 and insert

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss: amendment 207, in clause 32, page 23, line 5, at end insert ‘and

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

The amendment would effectively re-establish a similar structure to the Metropolitan Police Authority for the police and crime panel in London—mirroring the MPA in terms of numbers and make-up.

I feel that I have been getting under the skin of the Minister at times by pointing out things about his understanding of arrangements in London. I feel a bit wounded, because it falls to me to point such things out, as I have been dealing with the London amendments. I apologise if I am about to upset him again.

The clause highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the arrangements in London and of what has worked. The Minister himself said, in previous discussions about the structures of accountability for police and crime commissioners, that what has been going on in London has worked and, therefore, that that structure is worth mirroring outside. However, what has worked in London has been a panel, the MPA, made up of a majority of assembly members—12 elected members—who then  have the authority to appoint 11 extra members from among the community in London. The strength of that arrangement is demonstrated by the current MPA, as of September 2010, being made up of nearly 10% ethnic minority members and 30% women.

The capacity within that arrangement is to ensure diversity of representation on the body and, as has been said before, a broad spectrum of experience that can be brought to bear on the scrutiny of the Mayor’s office. It is important that we continue with that arrangement because it is strong and it is recognised that it works—the Government have indicated that the arrangements in London have worked. That scrutiny role has fallen to the Metropolitan Police Authority, and it would clearly be a backward step to move away from that arrangement to having a single person dealing with the scrutiny role over the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who is then scrutinised by the panel.

There is a series of amendments to strengthen the scrutiny role of the panel, but amendment 206 deals with the size and scope of the panel. Scrutiny is important, so it is important that the people who exercise that function have a broad spectrum of experience and that the majority of members are democratically elected. Until 2008, it was up to the members of the Metropolitan Police Authority to appoint the chair. The Mayor appointed members from the assembly, who then set up the Metropolitan Police Authority by co-opting people, who then elected their chair. Since 2008, that responsibility has rested with the Mayor, but none the less, the person who chairs that body has to come from the membership of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

The Bill proposes that the assembly set up a sub-committee. If I have read the Bill correctly—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—can set up an assembly sub-committee to perform the function of the police and crime panel in London, without necessarily having an elected assembly member on that committee. Clearly, when someone is elected to the assembly, they should accept that holding the Metropolitan Police Service to account is an important part of their function, not something that they can just delegate to a body whose majority is not made up of elected members. I would appreciate some clarification of those proposals.

The reason, as the Minister has indicated in discussions of arrangements outside London, is that the London assembly, as a democratically elected body, is accountable for its decisions. It therefore falls to that body to decide whether it wants to have all democratically elected members, none, or a mixture of elected and unelected members on any sub-committee that it sets up to serve as the police and crime panel in London. That will water down the arrangements in London, and it is a backward step. If the current arrangements are working, and have served Londoners well, we should exercise a great deal of caution before we toss them aside.

Will the Minister say whether it is the Government’s intention that the assembly should be free to have the power to set up the sub-committee as it wishes, even if it has a majority of unelected members? Is there a requirement in the Bill—I cannot find any such requirement—for a majority of elected members? How can we guarantee through the Bill that a representative body will carry out the function of the police and crime panel in London in a way that is similar to the current structure? Will people be co-opted and elected members appointed  so that there is a broad spectrum of representation on that important body, rather than leaving it to a majority on the assembly from the coalition? At a future election, people might not want to perform a rigorous scrutiny role of the Mayor’s Office. Great discussion went into the setting up of the Metropolitan Police Authority. It has worked, and the Minister should set out on the record the reasons for dispensing with the current arrangements.

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

In large part, the hon. Gentleman seeks to open up a debate with all of the points that he made before about why he wishes to retain the Metropolitan Police Authority. I shall not rehearse the arguments about why it is right for the authority to go nor about the fact that that proposal to have a police and crime panel drawn from the London assembly is widely supported. It is a sensible approach that will reduce bureaucracy by removing an unnecessary tier of governance, and it will give greater clarity to the arrangements.

The amendments are much more prescriptive about how the panel should be drawn up by the assembly. I could go into detail about why some of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are technically defective, but I shall deal with the bigger point. It is right that the panel should be appointed by the assembly, that the assembly should decide the composition of the panel and how members should be co-opted. As for the hon. Gentleman’s theoretical suggestion that the London assembly could set up a police and crime panel to scrutinise the Mayor, with no members of the assembly, is that really a serious suggestion? Why on earth should the assembly seek to abdicate responsibility for that crucial function? It is not possible to conceive that it would ever wish to do that.

The police and crime panel would be subject to the assembly’s standing orders. As a committee, it would be bound by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which means that the Widdicombe principles will apply, including the prohibition of single-party control. It is true that membership of the London assembly comprises 14 white males, but it also includes eight females, one of whom is black, two Asian males and one mixed-race male. There is some diversity on the assembly now, but it is open to the assembly, should it wish to do so, to make appointments that may change that balance on the panel that it sets up.

I say in conclusion to the hon. Member for Eltham that no one is in any doubt about the significance of such issues in London, when it comes to ensuring that the Metropolitan police have the confidence of black and minority ethnic communities. The leadership of the Metropolitan police is in no doubt about that, and I am sure that the Mayor is in no doubt about it, given the relatively recent history of the Met. Retaining the confidence of BME communities is important. Ensuring that the Mayor can have access to advice from representative groups is important. It is open to the Mayor to appoint such advisers as he or she sees fit. In making sure that it is scrutinising such issues properly, it is open to the assembly to make appointments to the police and crime panel as it sees fit. Given the population profile of Greater London as a whole, I am in no doubt that such issues will be properly addressed in the governance arrangements.

I do not think that the approach needs to be as prescriptive as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am afraid that we just disagree about the merits of removing the MPA. I am sure that the arrangements that we have set up are sufficiently flexible to address the concerns that have been expressed.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I expected the Minister to say that I am just rehashing our arguments about the panel. I accept that perhaps I am—many parts of the Bill relate to one another and overlap—but the Government cannot have it both ways. Either they place a great deal of importance on democratic accountability or they do not. Currently, we have a body set up from the assembly with a majority of elected members, who then appoint people to create a much broader and more diverse representation of London’s community. It works, and it is strong. It may be criticised, but even the Government have recognised that what London has is strong, and they have suggested that they want to repeat it elsewhere.

I do not accept the Minister’s criticism. I did not suggest that the assembly set up a body made up entirely of unelected people; I asked whether the Bill would allow it. My reading seems to suggest that it is possible, and I think that that is a retrograde step. Either the Government place a great deal of importance on democratic accountability or they do not.

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

The Government are seeking to amend the arrangements in London by removing the MPA. The hon. Gentleman keeps trying to suggest that we support the MPA’s continuing role, when we do not. Does he accept that there is a difference between saying that it might be legally possible for the committee to be set up with no representatives at all and saying that that will happen? Does he think that it would ever actually happen?

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

Whether I do or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Bill steps back from the extent of democratic accountability that we have stipulated in London. The amendment is part of a set intended to build up the role of the police and crime panel in London. That is why its structure is so important. I will not take up any more of the Committee’s time, but I intend to put the amendment to a vote.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 204, in clause 32, page 22, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 205, in clause 32, page 23, line 19, leave out lines 19 to 21.

Amendment 210, in clause 33, page 23, line 22, at end insert—

Amendment 211, in clause 33, page 23, line 35, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment 212, in clause 33, page 23, line 35, after ‘decisions’, insert ‘and conduct’.

Amendment 213, in clause 33, page 23, line 37, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment 214, in clause 33, page 23, line 37, after ‘decisions’, insert ‘and conduct’.

Amendment 215, in clause 33, page 23, line 44, at end insert ‘; or

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

These amendments attempt to strengthen the role of the panel in holding the Met Commissioner and his staff to account for misconduct, and they require the panel to consult other relevant bodies. Amendments 210 to 215 similarly refer to holding to account the Mayor’s office for policing and crime and the Mayor’s staff. They also refer to carrying out reviews, investigating and having oversight of any misconduct in functions of the Mayor’s office. They increase the scrutiny role and the scope of the panel to hold the Mayor’s office and the commissioner and his staff to account. As we have discussed in earlier exchanges, we feel it is important that the police and crime panel in London has a stronger scrutiny role in holding the Mayor’s office to account and in being able to hold the police to account. In order to discharge that, they have to be able to carry out various functions in reviewing, investigating and having oversight of those offices.

The Mayor’s office is extremely powerful, so there is a need for checks and balances to be put in place so that the Mayor can be investigated, should the panel deem it necessary. We have had examples in the past of the Mayor being criticised—not in connection with a policing matter—and the Minister mentioned the case of Ken Livingstone. Boris Johnson was investigated when it was suggested that he had interfered in the operational decisions of the police. Clearly, there is a need for strong scrutiny of the powers of the Mayor and the Metropolitan police. That scrutiny role should be independent with a broad base of democratic accountability. I am sure the  Minister will accept that a relationship between individuals can become too cosy, too self-congratulatory and, at times, perhaps not as sharp as it should be in holding EACH other to account.

The amendments are important, because they would give the police and crime panel in London powers to obtain information and to require documents to be given to it to carry out investigations. It would be able to ask for information that would give it greater understanding of the functions of the office of the Mayor and of the commissioner in order to carry out the scrutiny role. The amendments beef up the role of the panel, give it a greater scrutiny role, and sharper teeth in holding the Mayor’s office to account. They enable greater scrutiny of the Metropolitan police and how they go about local policing in London.

The Minister indicated the other day that it would be inevitable that police officers would attend the meetings of the panels if requested. We will come to the power to require that later. If the sessions are to be of any value, surely it follows that the panel in London should have the documents that enable it to make those sessions useful. Having the information before it is necessary if it is to carry out a scrutiny role. I should be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to those points.

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

The police and crime panel in London will have a general duty to keep under review the Mayor’s exercise of his functions through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. For that purpose, it will have the power to scrutinise and make reports for any actions and decisions of the Mayor, the deputy Mayor for policing and crime and any member of staff of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. That wording reflects what is used in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which sets out the general powers of the assembly.

The Bill gives the London police and crime panel powers that mirror those of similar panels elsewhere in the country. I do not see what can be gained by giving the London police and crime panel the ability to review the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime’s conduct when it already has the power to review the office’s actions, decisions and any other matters that it considers to be of importance to policing and crime reduction in London.

Likewise, I do not see what can be gained by specifying in legislation a power for the London police and crime panel to investigate any matter that it considers to be of importance to maintain the trust and confidence of the community, when it already has the power to investigate any matter that it considers to be of importance to policing and crime reduction in London.

In any case, the London assembly has broad powers more generally. It may call any politically restricted member of the staff, and any chair or former chair within three years of a functional body, to the committee. It can investigate any action or decision made by the Mayor or a member of staff, or any other matter related to the work of the GLA or of importance to Greater London.

The powers of the London police and crime panel and the London assembly more broadly are easily sufficient for it to be able properly to hold the Mayor and the  Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to account. I therefore do not think that the amendments are necessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Eltham to withdraw them.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote. The Minister has put his views on the record. Similar areas of responsibility are covered in the next group of amendments to the next clause, so we will be covering similar ground and I will make further comments then. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 202, in clause 32, page 23, line 5, at end insert ‘; and

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 203, in clause 32, page 23, line 12, leave out subsection (9).

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

Amendment 202 is about delegating the functions of the panel to a sub-committee or individual. It is a probing amendment to get a comment from the Minister on whether there is such a power in the Bill, and whether he thinks that functions that should be carried out properly by the scrutiny panel, as a sub-committee of the assembly, can or should be delegated to individuals. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between allowing the London police and crime panel to delegate day-to-day functions as it sees fit and reserving certain special scrutiny functions in relation to the appointment of the deputy Mayor for policing and crime to the police and crime panel. The Bill is drafted so that the London police and crime panel will have the same powers of delegation in this regard as other committees of the London assembly, as set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

I do not believe that the case has been made for why the London police and crime panel should be more tightly tethered than the other committees of the London assembly. Removing discretion in that matter runs counter to our commitment to devolving power, and I think it would represent an unnecessary and damaging interference into the London police and crime panel’s work.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister for putting his comments on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 208, in clause 33, page 23, line 24, leave out ‘review’ and insert ‘approve’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 209, in clause 33, page 23, line 28, at end insert—

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

Amendment 208 would remove the word “review” and strengthen the powers of the panel to approve the police and crime plan for London. Although the amendment is brief, it is extremely important. In drawing up the plan for London, there should be greater influence for the directly elected assembly in the scrutiny of the plan.

Amendment 209 says that it

“must include the panel’s police and crime objectives”

on crime in London. I do not want to go over the same arguments again and risk another rebuke from the Minister, but the strength of the amendment is that a broad range of people—including from those who are democratically elected to be on a PCP in London—would bring their skills, knowledge and experience to that role. They surely have an important role to play in drawing up a police and crime plan for London.

It would be an extremely valuable part of the scrutiny process if they exercised a greater influence over the police and crime plan. They would bring knowledge of their local areas to the process, which perhaps even the Mayor does not have. As an MP, I can give examples of the issues in my area, from talking to my local community. The Mayor’s office would not be aware of those, unless I had the opportunity to tell it about them.

The representative in my area, Len Duvall, would be able to bring his experiences of the local community to bear, as well as use his scrutiny role to influence the police and crime plan. These amendments are trying to strengthen the scrutiny role and the wider democratic mandate for elected members in London, because their experience and that degree of democratic accountability will make the democratic process of drawing up a police and crime plan for the capital city much more robust. I will again attract the wrath of the Minister, but that is what happens currently with the scrutiny role. It works extremely well, so why would we not want it in the Bill? I welcome the Minister’s comments.

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

There is no disagreement whatever. The panel should play an important role in contributing to the police and crime plan in London. In saying that the panel would have to approve the plan, his amendments go too far, because that would cut across the mandate of the Mayor to set the plan. That would be wrong, because it is the Mayor who has been democratically elected. The panel will play an important scrutiny role, and we want it to do so. It will provide that support and constructive challenge, but it is not responsible for setting the police and crime objectives. That is the remit of the Mayor, or the Mayor’s office.

The panel will be able to review the draft police and crime plan. It can submit a report or a series of recommendations, which the Mayor’s office must have regard to. That will mean that the panel can flag any concerns that it may have. By allowing the panel to set the police and crime objectives, the hon. Member for Eltham would move the Bill away from its most important principle—that there is a single individual who is accountable to the public for their policing. The hon. Gentleman goes too far, but I agree with him on the important scrutiny role that the panel will exercise. I hope on that basis that he will withdraw the amendment.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I am grateful for that. I will not press these amendments to a vote. Suffice to say, we believe that there should be more teeth to the panels, both  inside and outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has described them as “toothless tigers”. That is an accurate description, because they have the power to review, but not finally approve, the policing plan for London. That weakens the Bill and weakens the panel’s role.

As the Minister knows, there is a to-ing and fro-ing between the panel members and the Mayor’s office when these negotiations take place, even now, under the MPA arrangements. That results in both sides influencing the drawing up of the policing plan, which weakens the role of the elected members of the assembly. The step is retrograde but, with that said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 216, in clause 33, page 23, line 44, at end insert—

The amendment touches on something we mentioned when dealing with amendments 204 and 205. It is about strengthening the role of the panel in London, to carry out investigations into allegations of misconduct by the Mayor’s office. Unless I am mistaken—if I am, the Minister will correct me—the Bill seems to contain no provision allowing the panel to carry out such a function. Where are the checks and balances on the Mayor’s office, in terms of scrutiny of misconduct, the carrying out of proper investigation, the making of a report if necessary and the sending of that to the Secretary of State? There must be some form of democratic mechanism for holding the Mayor to account, in between elections, over any allegations of misconduct.

I mentioned earlier the investigation into the current Mayor for interfering in an operational matter, for commenting on that in the press and for commenting on private conversations about the operation with police officers. Clearly, at times the Mayor’s office will need to be held to account by the democratically elected body for London. Also, the arrangement as set out in our amendment would give the Metropolitan Police Commissioner the opportunity to give his or her side of the story to the panel.

That would be an important part of the scrutiny role, because the Mayor is an extremely powerful individual. Some bring a powerful personality to the role—we have  had two Mayors of London who have been extraordinarily high-profile individuals with an enormous amount of personal clout. At times, their hubris has got the better of them. I suggest that both of them in that role have at times transgressed, with the power they wield leading them into trouble.

The democratic body ought to be charged with the scrutiny role. The Bill is changing the arrangements—that is the intent of the Government—so that it will be the Mayor’s office that carries out the function of scrutiny and oversight of the Metropolitan Police Service. The Mayor will be accountable for that to the panel in London. Therefore, when such situations arise under the new arrangement, it must follow that the panel is entitled to investigate and, where necessary, to write a report, to invite comment on it and to send recommendations to the Secretary of State, if it feels strongly enough about the situation. Not to have such provision is to weaken the role and function of the panel.

If we consider the role of the Mayor, in the Bill he or she has the power to dismiss the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. That power similarly needs to be subjected to checks and balances by the scrutiny body that oversees the activities of the Mayor’s office. I strongly urge the Government to consider the amendment because it deals with a serious weakness in the proposals for the panel in London. It is an important area of scrutiny, and the Government are not dealing with it under the Bill.

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I recognise his intention to ensure a robust mechanism for responding to issues of misconduct or complaints in relation to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, but I believe that such a mechanism will be in place. That will not be the role of the police and crime panel in London, which will be to provide the support and challenge to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. It will not be its role to investigate complaints or misconduct, or any form of complaint. That will be different from the position outside London because the Mayor of London is already subject to disqualification arrangements created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the standards regime that applies to all local government under the Local Government Act 2000. The Localism Bill will simplify the standards regime that applies to local government. Police and crime commissioners outside London will have a much more restricted role than the Mayor of London, which is why they will not be subjected to the same regime and why we have given the panels the role of investigating minor complaints.

The police and crime panel has a role in consulting individuals, including the public in the exercise of its functions. That is already set out under legislation that applies to the London assembly of which the panel is a sub-committee. Therefore, the amendment is considered to be a reiteration of current legislation. The hon. Gentleman’s worries are not borne out by the reality of how such issues will be dealt with in London where there will be a robust regime, and I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I shall not press the amendment to a Division, although given the new structure and regime, we feel strongly that assembly members should be given  some part in the scrutiny of misconduct in London. In the pursuit of his or her duties as the person responsible for oversight of the Metropolitan Police Service, there may be a reason to question the conduct of the Mayor’s office, and it is only right that the assembly members should have a say in that. The Bill excludes them completely from that process, and we might want to return to such matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 217, in clause 33, page 24, line 14, at end insert ‘; and

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 218, in clause 33, page 24, line 14, at end insert—

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

Again, this is an extremely important function of the panel. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion between the Minister and me. We believe that the function of the panel, as the main scrutiny body of both the Mayor’s office and the Metropolitan Police Service, is vital. It is a much stronger and more robust system, as has been proved by the function of the MPA in London. The amendments would enable the panel in London to require the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to attend meetings. The Minister will say that it is unlikely that the commissioner would not attend the meetings, if invited, but let us suppose that the MPC were required to attend meetings about the recent kettling arrangements for London at which members of the panel wanted to question the commissioner about the use of kettling when dealing with protesters. That is a controversial issue.

Can the Minister envisage a stand-off between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his office? The commissioner might say, “It is not our function to attend your meetings and answer for operational matters; we answer to the Mayor, so speak to him. We will not come down to a media circus and answer the questions of the assembly.” Such a situation would not be acceptable. As the Bill is drafted, however, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would be well within his rights to respond like that.

I know that London assembly members do not feel that such a situation would be satisfactory. If there is to be a proper scrutiny role for them, it is essential that they have power. I suspect that such power would seldom be needed, but either we believe in strengthening democratic accountability or we do not. The Minister will say, “Yes, but we have put that power in the directly elected Mayor—or whoever he appoints as his deputy—who carries the democratic mandate.” In a place the size of London, however, that is not good enough. The assembly must have more clout and more say through its sub-committee, the policing panel, so that it can question the Metropolitan police.

The assembly is able to drill down on questions about policing at local levels, from experience from respective communities. If it wants the Metropolitan police to attend meetings, it should be able to require them to do so.

I know that the Minister will say, “Why wouldn’t officers attend?” Under the current Metropolitan police arrangements, however, there is no requirement for them to do so, but that is the scrutiny body. I can find nothing that states that Metropolitan police officers must attend Metropolitan Police Authority meetings—and I have asked the Library and members of the MPA to look into that. Under current scrutiny arrangements, it is inconceivable that they would not go along to such meetings, but the MPA will no longer be our scrutiny body. The body will be an assembly sub-committee that is set up to scrutinise the function of the Mayor. Therefore, if such a panel is to have any real impact on policing in London, it must have power to be able to require Metropolitan police officers to attend alongside the Mayor’s office, which the amendments propose. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

For the benefit of my hon. Friends, who are probably in a soporific state, the hon. Gentleman has shot himself in the foot with his closing remarks. He has said that it was inconceivable that the commissioner would not appear before the MPA, even though the MPA does not have a power to summon him. I could not have put it better myself.

I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman, who has made the same points before. He seeks to interfere with what we regard as the essential architecture of the Bill. It is for the Mayor and—if nominated—the deputy Mayor for policing and crime to hold the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to account. That is not the function of the Greater London authority, or the committee of the GLA that will be set up as the police and crime panel.

The panel’s function is to scrutinise the Mayor or the deputy Mayor for policing and crime. The hon. Gentleman either does not understand or does not accept that, but it is our strong view. Such as system will ensure clear accountability and ensure that there is no confusion about whether the Commissioner of the Met answers to the Mayor or to the assembly. That means that everybody is clear what their scrutiny job is. The amendments would cut across that. Requiring the commissioner of the Met to appear before the panel, and everything else that the hon. Gentleman said, would suggest that it is the panel’s job to scrutinise the Met. It is not. The panel’s job is to scrutinise the performance of the Mayor, just as it is the Greater London authority’s job. We must not confuse those two positions. The amendment does, which is why we should resist it.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

This is a fundamental difference between us. Either the Government respect assembly members’ role in scrutinising the Metropolitan Police Service or they do not. The amendment would give assembly members a mandate to hold the Metropolitan Police Service to account on behalf of the people of London.

The reason that I pointed out that the current arrangements do not require the Metropolitan police to attend the MPA is that the MPA is the scrutiny body and it is therefore inconceivable that the police would not attend. However, in some circumstances, assembly members will have legitimate concerns affecting people across London, such as kettling, the retention of safer  neighbourhoods police teams during police reconfiguration or the possible closure of the training centre at Hendon. Those are legitimate issues of concern to democratically elected assembly members, and they should have the power to require the Metropolitan police to attend in order to answer for them. I intend to press the amendment to a vote, as it is a fundamental difference between us that I want to test.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 219, in clause 33, page 24, line 15, leave out subsection (7).

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 220, in clause 33, page 24, line 18, at end insert ‘where disclosure would not be in the public interest.’.

Amendment 221, in clause 33, page 24, leave out line 24.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

These are probing amendments. The clause refers to the Secretary of State’s ability to prescribe what information cannot go before the panel. I understand that the Metropolitan police deal with national policing issues for which such measures might be necessary, but I seek clarification that the power cannot be abused. I know that I will incur the Minister’s wrath again, and I am sorry to keep doing so, but we currently have a Conservative Mayor and a Conservative Home Secretary. Is it possible that they could phone one another and say, “We’d rather this information didn’t go before the scrutiny panel”? I seek reassurance on that issue. Will the Minister put it on the record that hell would freeze over before politicians came to such a cosy arrangement?

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman’s intention is to ensure that the London assembly police and crime panel has all the information that it needs. We have put in place provisions to ensure that information cannot be improperly withheld. I am fully committed to openness and transparency, which are the principles that run through the new arrangements.

The first issue raised by the amendments is on the disclosure to the London assembly of advice and documentation given to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime by its staff. The London police and crime  panel has powers to call before it to give evidence the Mayor, the deputy Mayor for police and crime, anyone who has held those offices in the previous eight years, and any member of staff of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Those individuals may also be required by the panel to submit any relevant documents relating to their duties. The provision excludes any evidence or documentation that relates specifically to advice that such staff members have provided for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. It is important that professionals in the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime are able to give advice to the Mayor in the same way that officials give advice to Ministers, and for reasons that we all understand.

The London assembly police and crime panel will be able to scrutinise the actions and decisions of the deputy Mayor for policing and crime, including by calling for evidence from his staff. Proper regard and challenge will therefore be given, where necessary. The professional relationship and exchanges between the deputy Mayor and his staff are outside the remit of that panel. We have opted to ensure that the provisions for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Greater London Authority are consistent. To that end, a refusal to answer questions or to disclose documents to the London assembly police and crime panel will be a criminal offence, which makes it important to apply exceptions sensibly.

The second issue is about the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe categories of information that an individual can withhold. I am committed to the principles of openness and transparency, but there might be information that should be withheld when that is in the public interest, for example over protected information related to national security, which might be particularly relevant in the case of the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the Opposition accept that, and it is important to continue to have that provision.

We agree that the safety and security of the public should be of paramount importance in considering the functions of the clause. In a similar vein, we will also include provision for the chief officer of police to be able to prevent the disclosure of information, where it might be used against national security, jeopardise the safety of any person or have a detrimental effect on policing operations, or where that disclosure is prohibited by legislation. I hope that we have the right balance between ensuring transparency wherever we can and preserving security where necessary.

Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.