Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, I hesitate to change the tone of some of the discussion that has taken place, but I will do so in the nicest possible way. First, I apologise to my noble friend for having missed the first few seconds of her remarks in introducing her very welcome group of amendments. They are welcome as regards what they say; my concern is about one or two things that they leave out and where they have gone beyond what makes sense or beyond a consensus that is emerging around those issues. I will speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 19 and 20. Amendments Nos. 13 and 19 make it a requirement that the local authority members of police authorities and the GLA members of the Metropolitan Police authorities should be selected so as to deliver a proportion of members broadly in line with the political balance in the areas concerned. That is important because it makes it an obligation on councils in nominating members to police authorities. Currently, local government law requires that an individual local authority making nominations to an external body should do so in line with political balance, but it is not at all clear that there is such a requirement where this is being done jointly by a number of local authorities, particularly where there are authorities with different levels of responsibility in that mix. That is extremely important in the context of the operation of police authorities. Clearly, a great deal of effort has been put in over the years to achieve a balanced membership of police authorities, so that up until now elected members have been in a majority of one over independent and magistrate members. That provides a democratic legitimacy to what is being done but with room for a range of other experience and backgrounds to be represented as well. The principle that councillor members should reflect the political balance of the area that the police authority covers is important because it emphasises that democratic link, but it also ensure that the full range of political views in an area is represented. I put it to your Lordships that if there were an area where most of the local councils were led by one political party rather than another, a committee of those authorities would automatically send to the police authority representation solely of that political party. There might be a circumstance in which a political party led by one seat in each of the councils, but the nature of bringing them together in a joint committee and inviting them to nominate could, without this amendment, lead to a single party dominating the situation. The removal of the provision for a majority of one—we talk simply about a majority, for reasons that we all understand—could lead to the domination of a police authority by one political party. I suppose that, like the political Members of your Lordships’ House, if it was our political party in that dominant position we might think that that would be absolutely fine and dandy, but I rather suspect that the reality would be much more complicated. It seems to me that ensuring such a balance is a way of ensuring that decisions about policing are achieved by cross-party consensus in the areas concerned. It has been the reality that police authorities around the country have operated in a consensual fashion on most of the issues with which they have had to contend. That does not mean that there have not been political arguments or arguments about matters affecting policing, but those arguments have tended not to be along party political lines, except on very specific matters. We are in danger of creating a situation where police authorities as a whole would be attacked on political grounds by people from other political parties who had been unfairly excluded from the process or had had reduced representation because there would not be the requirement for political balance. If we want, as I am sure all your Lordships do, a fair and impartial service that is seen to be fair and impartial and one that is not influenced by the political concerns of one political party or another, it is important that that principle is written into primary legislation. I would have thought that my amendments would enable that to happen and would ensure that the political membership of police authorities was balanced across the area concerned. Those are my reasons for tabling Amendments Nos. 13 and 19. Amendment No. 20 looks at the unique position of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I declare a current interest in that I remain a member of that authority. Indeed, I am grateful to my noble friend for reinforcing the position under which I hold a mandate to sit on that authority by ensuring that that mandate is contained within the Bill and that I am the Home Office nominee to the police authority in London. In London, following consultations conducted by the government office over the past year, it has been decided that the chair of the police authority should be appointed by the Mayor of London. A broad consensus has emerged and the formulation contained in the Bill on that matter is probably the best statement that one can have: that the Mayor can chose to appoint himself, or herself, to the police authority, in which case he should chair the authority. That is a sensible arrangement should the Mayor, whoever that might be, want to be seen to be taking the lead role on policing. But if the Mayor chose not to appoint himself to that office, he would choose from among the members of the police authority. The inclusion of that provision is welcome and there has been some discussion about that. But nowhere previously has there been any discussion about the Mayor of London appointing the vice-chairs of the police authority—and I am not sure where that suggestion has come from. It does not seem to have emanated from the Mayor’s office or from New Scotland Yard; and I can assure noble Lords, given my discussions in the past week, that it has not emanated from the Metropolitan Police Authority. It may be that some over-worked civil servant, desperate to prepare the amendments in time for consideration by your Lordships’ House, has simply read across from one bit of legislation to another. After all, these things do not happen in such a slapdash and inconsequential way, but there seems to be some strange read-across regarding this. We want to avoid a situation in which the other members of the police authority feel alienated from the Mayor of London. There may be an acceptance that the Mayor should chair the police authority, or should appoint the chair, but it would seem a step too far to state that the main officers of the police authority should be mayoral appointments, even if they are members of the police authority. Perhaps my noble friend might take this away. There are several days before we need to consider this Bill at Third Reading and there will be ample opportunity to put this matter right. I am not sure that such a proposal was the original intention and it was certainly not discussed during the earlier phases of consultation.