Police and Justice Bill

I speak to all the amendments standing in my name, in particular Amendments Nos. 23, 31 and 40. I am quite new to this stage of proceedings, so I hope that Members will bear with me if I do not get the technicalities correct. I start by asking whether, with the permission of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, I can elect not to move Amendment No. 35. I see that the noble Baroness is agreeable. Like the previous speaker, I am alarmed by clauses which move key constitutional measures from primary to secondary legislation so that they become subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State. I am particularly concerned about proposals to deal in this way with the membership of police authorities. In general terms, however, key principles, powers and functions which guarantee the continuation of the tripartite relationship should remain in primary legislation. That is one of my key points in speaking to these amendments. Amendment No. 23 is intended to spell out, in primary legislation, how a police authority should be constituted. Some key principles here are based on the successful operation of police authorities in the past 11 years. I tabled this amendment in the sure knowledge that police authorities have been effective, one of the reasons for which is that they have been more focused bodies. The reason for limiting membership from 13 to 23 is that I genuinely believe that the larger a police authority becomes, the more difficult it is to have the strategic focus which has stood police authorities in such great stead. They have operated more and more like non-executive boards of directors, holding chief constables to account. That model is appropriate for police authorities, and something I want primary legislation to underline. I draw your Lordships’ attention to subsection (2)(a), which is fundamental to the success achieved by police authorities in the past 10 or 11 years. It has meant that they have to be constituted along the lines of proportionality to the political make-up of their areas and sub-regions. That has meant that police authorities have operated on consensual lines, operating politically but not party-politically. That was one of the great changes intended when new legislation was passed in the early 1990s. It has turned out to be correct: party politics have played no part in police authority operations. In passing—it is nothing to do with my amendment—we must stand against anything that would politicise policing, and I have some worries about direct elections in that respect. Subsection (2)(a) has been one of the major subsections underlining how police authorities have matured and become effective as organisations. It ought to be in primary legislation. On subsection (2)(b), police authorities have operated on the basis that they need to be as diverse as possible. It has been noticeable that the more diverse the authority and the more communities they have represented, the more successful they have been. It is absolutely essential that that should be spelt out in the Bill. I think that what I am trying to achieve in Amendment No. 23 is fairly clear. Amendment No. 31 follows my theme that we all want to uphold the tripartite relationship. But it is no use just saying that: we must act in accordance with our words. One of the major factors underpinning local accountability is a police authority being able to appoint its own chair and vice-chair. I cannot believe that that should have anything to do with Secretary of State level. It must be dealt with at local level; it gives ownership to local people and Amendment No. 31 therefore spells out that a police authority should elect its chair and vice-chair. Even if the Minister were to stand up and say, ““That is not the intention; the intention is to have flexibility””, it may be the intention in five or 10 years’ time. We cannot say what the intentions of future governments might be. Home Secretaries should be in no way involved in the election of the chair and vice-chair of a local police authority. Echoing the previous speaker, appropriate competency-based appointment and selection arrangements should be in place before members are appointed to authorities. That is how to deal with competence. My amendment should be read as endorsing that principle. There is a parallel provision to Amendment No. 31, reflecting arrangements in the Metropolitan Police Authority. I will not speak to that at any length, because I obviously have no experience of that authority, but it is to duplicate the provisions for authorities operating outside London.