Mr.
Coaker: Good morning, Sir Nicholas, and everyone on the
Committee. I will make a couple of general remarks before speaking on
the clause. I will bear your comments in mind, Sir
Nicholas. The
merger debate is relevant to the clause because although mergers have
gone off the agenda, the problem that they were trying to solve has
not. That is the important point in this debate, and some good points
have already been made. Whatever the rights and wrongs of mergers, a
problem was identified by HMIC, and the Government came up with a
solution that could not command the support that it needed to go
through. Since then, police forces, Government Members and Opposition
politicians have been wrestling with the question of what is the right
solution. I
do not wish to be party political but, contrary to the comments that
this is a damp squib of a Bill, the quality of our Committee debates
has demonstrated that, far from not saying much about police reform,
the Bill will make quite significant reforms that build on those
currently taking place. Those of us who understand police reform can
see that. We had excellent debates on police accountability and the
senior appointments panel, and we are having another on police
collaboration. The
hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is right that collaboration is
fundamental to the future of policing in this country. We simply have
to get this right. The problem with the mergers debate was that, rather
than trying to deal with the problem, the issue became taking police
away from communities. The collaboration proposals
demand that we get away from the idea that there is a choice between
local, regional and national. People on the street know that what
happens in local areas is influenced by how police forces in a region
deal with regional crime, and by how national crime is dealt with.
Drugs appear on a street in my community, or in any Member’s
community, because of regional organisation or national gangs. Tackling
that through effective law enforcement at all levels is one way to
improve community safety. Perhaps it is not a false choice, but it is a
choice that cannot be made. Policing at every level is
crucial—from the neighbourhood to the local to the regional to
the national
level. We
were left saying, “The merger debate went away, so what do we
try to put in its place?” Through the measures that have been
taken, we have tried to encourage and push for collaboration. It is
perfectly reasonable to say that significant improvements and changes
have been made across the country regarding collaboration. We can all
pay tribute to the different steps that have been taken. The debate has
moved on and is now much more mature because it is not about, with
respect, defending or protecting individual police forces in Cheshire,
Nottinghamshire, Suffolk or Devon and Cornwall. It is about ensuring
that those forces work together to be as effective as possible in
delivering crime and harm reduction in their own communities. So, we
have good examples of current collaboration—the hon. Gentleman
gave a
couple. It
may help the Committee if I state a fact about finance, to show some of
the progress that has been made. These figures are only indicative, but
initial scoping work by HMIC on subsidiarity has found that police
spend on collaboration has more than doubled since 2005-06, from just
over an estimated 4 per cent. of overall police spend to some 10 per
cent. in 2008-09. Some of that has obviously come from Home Office
funding, but much has come from individual police forces. So steps are
already being taken by police forces to improve collaboration and to
tackle some of the problems that they
see. You
might be interested to know, Sir Nicholas, that in Cheshire an improved
response to serious and organised crime is being delivered through a
joint serious and organised crime unit with Lancashire and Merseyside.
That is being enhanced in 2009-10 with £1 million of matched
funding for the whole of the north-west region, to deliver a regional
capability for tacking serious and organised crime. The West Mercia
force—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is a member of the
Committee but she is not here—is working with the other forces
in the region to develop an infrastructure to maximise intelligence
opportunities for tackling serious and organised crime.
Every region
has a regional intelligence unit. In Wales they have the Tarian
project, which is making a significant difference, and in my region we
have the east midlands organised crime unit, which I have had the
pleasure of visiting. Things still need to be done, but that is an
excellent example of what can be done. As an aside, the co-location of
the counter-terrorism intelligence units is interesting. When I visited
the east midlands organised crime unit, I opened the counter-terrorism
intelligence unit there. The problem is that, while we can point to
good examples around the country—for instance, where serious
crime and firearms are being dealt with well—we
have to find a better way to ensure greater consistency of approach and
a greater sense in every area of the country that such crime is being
tackled. 10
am I
see the clause injecting some pace and momentum into the process. That
is what is needed, frankly. We all agree—there is no one in
Committee who says that we are opposed to greater collaboration or that
it is not a good thing to do. Go to individual police forces, and they
say the same thing. Go to individual police authorities, and they say
the same thing. Everyone agrees that it is something that we should do
and that it will make a difference. However, we have to give greater
clarity in the legislative framework—that is what the clause
provides in the legislation—but also to inject some momentum as
we go forward. I will answer a couple of the specific points and leave
mandation until
later. The
hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds talked about the issue of rewards and
incentives. I do not mean this as a “money does not
matter” remark, but we should not underestimate the impact of
the clause. That we have now clearly, legislatively, set down a
framework in which we expect police force and police authority
collaboration will make a significant difference to the terms of the
debate. That is one of the things that will help. That is what police
authorities and forces have said to us—they lack that certainty
of a legislative framework allowing them to collaborate. The
legislation will make a significant
difference. As
well as that, the efficiency savings that can be generated will
themselves be something. The savings will not be clawed back, but can
be reinvested into the police force and used in that area. We have
provided initial funding for sites, encouraging them to start on
particular projects, and we can—it is probable that we
shall—look at that, to see whether we can help with start-up
costs or have some pump-priming money to begin the process. That may be
one of the ways that we try to do that. One of the problems with
pump-priming money, however, is that it is not money for ever. The
money is to start things. One of the problems with pump-priming money
sometimes is that people see it as money that should become part of
their core budget. However, sometimes there is a way of saying that we
can and should provide it. Using that money is an important
possibility. Bearing
in mind the strictures, let us look carefully and quickly—I want
to come to mandation as a particular thing at the end—at the
ability of police forces to collaborate, so that they can come to an
agreement on the joint discharge of functions by members of police
forces, or on members of a police force being provided to another
force. To overcome some of the problems of direction and control, the
collaboration has to be laid down in an agreement. As hon. Members
know, only mutual aid, which works particularly well, is currently
sorted in that way. However, there are other ways to tackle
things. We
clearly delineate—this is important—between a police
force agreement, which deals with the operational functions of police
forces, and police authorities. We try to ensure the delineation
between police forces and authorities, which was the purpose of that
amendment
in our deliberations on Tuesday. That is an important distinction, which
we need to bear in mind. If we look at police force collaboration
agreements and what becomes possible, that clarifies it. With respect
to police authorities, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds clearly
laid out what can be done and the functions that could be taken
forward, such as premises, equipment, staff services and
facilities. It
must be right that we improve the procurement of certain equipment and
services, whether it be uniforms or police cars. I do not want to take
away from the discretionary powers, but police forces believe that they
should be able to do better in the purchasing of some equipment and
save money. We all know that, if we bulk buy, we save a significant
amount. We hope that the clause will put a sense of urgency and
momentum into what people regard as common
sense. The
clause lays out clearly how to reach agreement about pay and the
accountability arrangements. We have said little about that, but such
matters are an interesting follow-on from Tuesday’s debate on
accountability. In respect of greater collaboration arrangements, the
challenge is what accountability arrangements are put in place for the
joint workings when people are moving across borders. We argue that the
public should have a greater say in neighbourhood policing, what
happens in the local area and the regional delivery of some services
and police functions. How does a member of the public decide whether
the local police force is dealing effectively with tackling gun or drug
crime? I
have tried to get to the nub of the problem, and the hon. Gentleman
made an important point about mandation. I accept that the hon. Member
for Chesterfield will not agree, but mandation is a last resort. The
whole purpose of the clause is not to force police authorities down a
particular route. We are not saying that we have a preconceived idea
about how they should collaborate but that, in certain circumstances,
it is surely in the interests of the delivery of those services for
there to be greater
collaboration. The
hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked about evidence. That is the crux
of the matter because, at the moment, police authorities and chief
constables clearly need to be consulted. If the hon. Member for
Chesterfield were Home Secretary and was in a region where four chief
constables agreed on a matter and one did not, or three chief
constables agreed on something and two did not, would he allow that to
continue or say, as the Home Secretary, that he has responsibility to
take some action? That judgment has to be made. Mandation allows in
certain circumstances—as a last resort—that it is in the
interests of the public in that area and the delivery of the functions
of the police or the police authority for a collaboration agreement to
be made.
The hon.
Gentleman’s specific point was about the role of Her
Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I have asked Denis
O’Connor to advise us on the issue and to examine where
decisions are best made and what collaboration there could be, and to
give us advice on what we should be looking for. When we receive that
advice, we will have to see how it matches and incorporates itself into
the mandation powers in the Bill.
Mr.
Ruffley: In what time scale will Sir Denis give that
advice? Are we talking about weeks or
months?
Mr.
Coaker: My understanding is that we will receive that
advice next month—March. When I have looked at the report, I
shall talk to Sir Denis O’Connor about what is or is not
appropriate. I do not know what the report will say, but I am sure that
the deliberations will be helpful to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman
was going down the same route as me—if we are going to mandate,
we cannot do it on a whim, we need evidence and having that evidence
will be helpful.
What would
the hon. Member for Chesterfield do if Her Majesty’s
inspectorate said that in the interests of effective police delivery in
an area there should be greater collaboration? We all know the local
reasons that sometimes occur, and they are not always positive. We
would have no power under the hon. Gentleman’s proposals to do
anything when the inspectorate said that collaboration was needed to
deliver police functions effectively and efficiently. I do not believe
that that position is tenable. The powers are not to be used as a first
resort, but should certainly be available as a last
resort.
Paul
Holmes: I would still appreciate some elaboration on the
conflict. The Minister has said that there will be situations in which
the local people do not agree and the police authority says that it
does not want to collaborate, but they will be forced to because the
Secretary of State knows better. Equally, if seven police authorities
do want to collaborate, the Government have given themselves the power
to say no. Why do the Government not trust local police authorities,
which they want to be more powerful, more accountable and to have
greater responsibility for funding? It is yes on the one hand and no on
the
other.
Mr.
Coaker: All the way through this we have been talking
about voluntary collaborations and agreements. It is for local people,
local police authorities and local police forces to decide on the best
way forward, so, far from showing a lack of trust, it shows a great
deal of trust. All we are saying is that we should have a reserve
power, if, despite all the advice received, the local area refuses to
go down that route. It is a reserve power and would be used as a last
resort.
I have
highlighted the major points. The measures will inject real pace and
momentum. Since I have had responsibility for policing, I have been
saying that this is important. Neighbourhood policing and collaboration
agreements are crucial to delivering what we call the level 2 function.
It is not dry, dusty tinkering, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds
said, it is a fundamental attempt to bring about something that we have
been wrestling with since the mergers debates. As I said at the
beginning, mergers were off the agenda because we could not deliver
them, but the problem that they were trying to solve is still with us.
The measure is a radical and bold attempt to work with police forces,
communities and police authorities to deliver the collaborative
agreements and the change needed to deal with what we all recognise is
a real
problem. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 5,
as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 6
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
7Authorisations
for obtaining and disclosing communications
data 10.15
am
Mr.
Coaker: I beg to move amendment 3, in
clause 7, page 9, line 35, leave
out ‘(“the authorising
force”)’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 4 to
18.
Mr.
Coaker: The amendments replicate for Scotland what the
clause does for England and Wales, where the matters are reserved, and
it is within the powers of the UK Government to do
so.
Amendment
3 agreed to.
Amendments
made: 4, in
clause 7, page 10, line 9, at
end insert— ‘(3DA)
Subsection (3DB) applies
if— (a) a person is the
designated person by reference to an office, rank or position with a
Scottish police force; and (b)
the chief constable of that force has made an agreement under section
12(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 with the chief constable of one
or more other Scottish police
forces. (3DB) The designated
person may grant an authorisation for persons holding offices, ranks or
positions with a collaborative force to engage in any conduct to which
this Chapter applies. (3DC) For
the purposes of subsection (3DB) a Scottish police force is a
collaborative force
if— (a) its chief
constable is a party to the agreement mentioned in subsection (3DA)(b);
and (b) the persons holding
offices, ranks or positions with it are permitted by the terms of the
agreement to be granted authorisations by the designated
person. (3DD) A reference in
subsections (3DA) to (3DC) to a Scottish police force is to a police
force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police
(Scotland) Act
1967.’. Amendment
5, in
clause 7, page 10, line 10, leave
out ‘Subsection (3B) is’ and insert ‘Subsections
(3B) and (3DB)
are’. Amendment
6, in
clause 7, page 10, line 12, leave
out ‘subsection (3A)’ and insert ‘subsections (3A)
and
(3D)’. Amendment
7, in
clause 7, page 10, line 37, after
‘force.’
insert— ‘(3D) The provisions
of a notice under section 22(4) may also specify or otherwise identify
a person for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above
if— (a) the person
giving the notice holds an office, rank or position with a Scottish
police force (“Scottish notifying
force”); (b) the chief
constable of the Scottish notifying force has made an agreement under
section 12(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 with the chief
constable of one or more other Scottish police forces;
and (c) the person specified in
or otherwise identified in the notice holds an office, rank or position
with a collaborative
force. (3E) For the purposes of
subsection (3D) a Scottish police force is a collaborative force
if— (a) its chief
constable is a party to the agreement mentioned in subsection (3D)(b);
and
(b) the persons holding offices, ranks or positions
with it are permitted by the terms of the agreement to be specified or
otherwise identified in notices under section 22(4) given by a person
holding an office, rank or position with the Scottish notifying
force. (3F) A reference in
subsections (3D) and (3E) to a Scottish police force is to a police
force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police
(Scotland) Act 1967.’.—[Mr.
Coaker.] Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
| 
