Clause 62

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:30 pm on 8 February 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Nick Herbert Nick Herbert Minister of State (Ministry of Justice and Home Office) , The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice 12:30, 8 February 2011

I beg to move amendment 559, in clause 62, page 38, leave out lines 36 to 39.

I just note in passing that, in spite of the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about the voting system, the Labour party agreed to the voting system for police and crime commissioners without pressing the matter to a vote.

The amendment will alter the powers of an acting police and crime commissioner in the event that the elected commissioner is suspended, removed or otherwise incapacitated. The original drafting of this clause allowed for all functions to be taken up by an acting commissioner, with the exception of those duties that are most pertinent to the democratic accountability of the role, namely, the issuing and varying of the police and crime plan; the appointment, suspension and removal of the chief constable; and setting the local policing precept.

The amendment will permit the acting commissioner to perform the latter two tasks. Therefore, the only function that will not be performed by the acting commissioner will be the variation or issuing of the police and crime plan. The Government are clear that that is the correct balance. Although the police and crime plan will be the embodiment of the commissioner’s manifesto pledges, and so should not be altered by anyone other than the elected commissioner, chief officer appointments and dismissals and precept setting are essential functions that may have to be discharged in the elected commissioner’s absence. Of course, in London at the moment, it is possible for senior people—in this case, the chief officer—to be absent for a significant period, but that could also apply in relation to an elected person.

The amendment is a practical one that will ensure that the essential business of policing governance can be discharged in an elected commissioner’s absence. For that reason, I beg that the amendment be passed.

Photo of Vernon Coaker Vernon Coaker Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) 12:45, 8 February 2011

The Minister did not properly explain—other than to say why it was originally in the Bill—why varying the police and crime plan would not be an appropriate function for an acting commissioner. The Minister changed his mind, so that an acting commissioner cannot issue or vary a police and crime plan, but can sack a chief constable. I find that strange. Admittedly, the acting commissioner can be there only for a maximum period of six months—if I have got that wrong, the Minister will correct me—but even in a six-month period, there may be a good reason to vary a police and crime plan.

Given the Minister’s earlier desire to ensure that a police and crime plan could be varied at any time—to have flexibility, localism and not get people trapped in bureaucracy—I wonder why an acting commissioner cannot vary the plan but, fresh into the job, can sack a chief constable or ask them to resign or, indeed, set a precept. It seems odd that an acting commissioner can do the things that in most people’s eyes are more serious, yet they cannot do the things that might be regarded as less serious. I want a more in-depth explanation from the Minister. The acting commissioner, if he suspends the chief constable, will presumably be subject to the normal processes and procedures as an ordinary police and crime commissioner.

I find it strange that an acting commissioner can not only sack a chief constable but appoint a new one. Can someone who is in post for a couple of months appoint  a new chief constable? If someone is acting for only a couple of months, it might be better for them not to appoint or sack a new chief constable, but perhaps wait for a new police and crime commissioner. Is there flexibility so that the powers would be exercisable only if the post was moving towards six months, but not exercisable if there were a small amount of time? Some clarification would be helpful.

Photo of Nick Herbert Nick Herbert Minister of State (Ministry of Justice and Home Office) , The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intention in probing this issue. It was our original view that the acting commissioner would not be able to do these things, so the exceptions were made for the appointment, suspension and removal of the chief constable and for the setting of the precept. Following representations and when we reflected further on the matter, however, we appreciated that these functions are absolutely vital to the operation of the force. They must be discharged if the business of governance is not to grind to a halt. A police force needs to have a chief officer. The hon. Gentleman is correct that the maximum period is six months. That is a long period for these things not to be able to happen.

As a longer-term document, the police and crime plan is fundamental to the mandate of the elected commissioner. These other functions have to be exercised. Saying that they could not be exercised would result in a paralysis in the governance of the force. That would not be desirable, so it is important that the acting commissioner is able, if necessary, to fulfil them.

I have no doubt that if, for instance, the commissioner was incapacitated or unwell and it was towards the end of the recuperation period and they were about to return, an acting commissioner would not make a vital decision over an appointment unless it was absolutely necessary, knowing that the suspended person may come back. There may be other decisions that have to be made because of the timetable—precept setting is a very good example. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that goes to a timetable and decisions have to be made by certain periods. That decision may not be avoidable, so that is why those powers are important.

Photo of Vernon Coaker Vernon Coaker Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I understand the Minister’s point on the necessity for the force to be able to carry on and that a block cannot be put on everything, because important decisions will have to be made. To be fair, issuing the precept may be one example. The Minister discussed the PCC being incapacitated and the acting commissioner not being expected to take decisions if the PCC was expected back within a couple of months. Is that just an expression of hope? If an acting commissioner is there for only a couple of months, they could sack a chief constable and employ a new one. I am conscious that it is for six months and the necessity of the force being able to carry on, but I worry that, if it is only a month or two interregnum, the Minister may want a little more control over what is happening, rather than just saying, “Well, you wouldn’t expect a decision of that magnitude to be made in those circumstances.”

Photo of Nick Herbert Nick Herbert Minister of State (Ministry of Justice and Home Office) , The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice

I am not sure that we can prescribe that. It is important that we have clarity on whether or not the acting commissioner can exercise powers, but beyond that, I do not see how we can prescribe in legislation what period those powers may be operated  in. That would be very complicated. To give a further example, the incapacitation of the elected commissioner could happen part way through an appointment process. The PCP may have approved the appointment, but it needs the PCC to make the appointment. Under what we previously proposed, that would not have been possible. It is a good example of where an acting commissioner should be able to appoint the chief constable, because it is clearly the wish of his predecessor and the panel had agreed it. Otherwise, six months might lapse before that could take place. We need practical arrangements. We need not be concerned about the operation of this, because we have the scrutiny of the PCP at all times.

Photo of Vernon Coaker Vernon Coaker Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I accept what the Minister is saying and the need for practical arrangements. His example was reasonable. We would not want the process of appointing a chief constable to stop halfway through simply because someone was ill for a time. I accept that. Notwithstanding the points made by the Minister, there is the potential for a problem. I will not vote against the clause, but he, his officials and others might wish to keep an eye on the situation, to ensure that it works out as he expects.

Amendment 559 agreed to.

Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 63 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.