Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2011.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before we begin, I have a couple of announcements. First, would all Members and members of the public ensure that their mobile phones and pagers are switched off or turned to silent mode? For the benefit of Members, as a general rule my co-Chair and I do not intend to call starred amendments that have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore, amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on the following Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday.

I appreciate that not everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it may be helpful if I briefly explain how we will proceed. First, the Committee will be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to 30 minutes. We will proceed to motions to report written evidence and to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions, which I hope will be taken formally. Assuming that the second of those motions is agreed, the Committee will move into private session.

Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back in and our oral evidence session will begin. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence this morning.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move, as an amendment to the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee:

Line 28, leave out the final entry in the Table in paragraph (2) and insert—

‘Thursday

20 January

Until no later

Than 2.30 pm

The Metropolitan Police Service; Liberty

Thursday

20 January

Until no later

than 3.15 pm

Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions’.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

May I formally thank the Ministers for the programme motion? Obviously, there will be a lot of debate, and we will see whether there is enough time but, at the outset, we have agreed the list of witnesses and the timings. Although we have strong debates, people know that that does not, generally speaking, spill over into unnecessary messing around. I wanted to put that on the record. We also have no problem with the amendment, which is perfectly reasonable.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Copies of memorandums received by the Committee will be made available in the Committee Room.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We will now take oral evidence from the Association of Police Authorities, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation of England and Wales. Thank you for coming. For the record, will you kindly introduce yourselves to the Committee?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you very much for coming this morning. Before I call the first hon. Member to ask a question, I wish to remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. I shall try not to interrupt in mid-sentence, but will do so if that becomes necessary. I call Mr Vernon Coaker.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Thank you, Mr Benton. Good morning, everyone. It is nice to see you here. Obviously, the introduction of police and crime commissioners will be a radical change to the existing structure of policing and police accountability in this country. Clearly, the aim of us all is to reduce crime, prevent crime and reduce reoffending. Fighting crime and reducing reoffending are obviously everyone’s top priorities. What would be of interest to the Committee and, I am sure, the general public is how that particular change will enable the police more adequately to improve their ability to prevent crime and reduce reoffending. Will the witnesses tell us what improvement they think the reform will bring to the agenda of tackling crime and reducing reoffending? Do they have any reservations about that? Will each of the witnesses comment?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

On that point, do you think that introducing a pilot scheme before the full roll-out would be beneficial, so that we can learn the lessons of failure and success?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

For your people on the ground—the officers whom you represent—if there were successes, that would be great. Failures, however, would impinge on officers’ effectiveness to deliver on the ground. From the perspective of your members, would it be better to have a pilot?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

May we hear the views of the other witnesses?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Pilots?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but there is a mobile that keeps causing interference. Can we establish whose it is and would they kindly switch it on to silent mode?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Do you fear that the commissioners are being set up to fail in this Bill? Do you think they have enough powers? For instance, they have to agree a policing plan with the chief constable but ultimately the chief constable has a power of veto. So all the things that you say the commissioners will champion on behalf of their communities, they will have no powers to impose on the operations of the police.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

So, you are saying that the Bill is not adequate; that it is not clear about the role of the commissioner in championing what local communities want.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

But does that mean the plan is accountable through the commissioner to the local community? If, as the Bill says, the police only have to have regard to the plan and then can take operational decisions as and when they see fit, is that sufficient to achieve what you say you want to on behalf of victims and communities?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Sir Hugh, may I ask you whether, if a police commissioner is elected saying they want a police officer on every street corner, and the local police chief officer does not agree, how do we resolve that?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

Do you think there is a risk that some victims’ voices will be louder than others and that important issues will be overlooked amid the clamour when it comes to someone being elected? I am thinking of domestic violence, sexual violence and child protection, which I think will be overlooked in order to put police on the streets.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

What discussions have you had with victims and the victims’ groups on these specific proposals?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I will just go back briefly to this question of the pilots, which Mr McKeever and Ms Casey are perhaps understandably a bit fatigued with now. Given that this is such a major and radical reform, and to the best of my knowledge there is no systematic evidence that supports it—there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about people being dissatisfied with the operation of police authorities, but I am not aware of any systematic evidence that says that this is the way forward—and given your aversion to, or fatigue with, pilots, do you think there should be some systematic Home Office review and research into how this works so that we are clear that we are learning some lessons about this process, or do you think it should be another Government initiative that we take on good will and faith?

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

May I tread back into the murky waters of operational independence and who makes decisions with a specific example that we have been discussing in the Home Affairs Committee and that is a live issue within the Cambridgeshire police authority? Let us say that under the new model a police commissioner was elected, having said that they did not want officers in their force to use Tasers. If the chief constable wanted to use a Taser, whose decision would that be? I would be interested in a relatively brief response from all four of you, because this issue highlights the lack of clarity.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

What tangible benefit will an individual living in a force area actually see, or feel that they get, from this change, other than the right to vote once every four years for a police and crime commissioner?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

By voting once every four years.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Am I right in thinking that most people are interested in what is happening in their immediate environment? I represent a constituency that is covered by Humberside police, and people are not interested in Humberside; they are interested in what happens in their little area in Hull. For most people, actually having a police commissioner for the whole of Humberside, which, as you say, is a high-level matter, will not directly affect their day-to-day living, will it?

Mary Macleod (Conservative, Brentford and Isleworth)

May I ask the panel’s view on the police structure in London? In essence, we have there a tested model of a police and crime commissioner. There is an elected Mayor who is accountable for the reduction of crime, who works hand in hand with the Met and who has operational independence to reduce crime. Evidence shows that crime has reduced in London. Do you think it is working in London?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

May I probe this question around Kit Malthouse a little further? He gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs recently and was asked virtually the same question, on what his role means for the individual in London. He said that his role

“allows there to be a kind of funnel for public concern. For instance, when I was appointed to this job in May 2008, and given the job title Deputy Mayor for Policing, the postbag at City Hall on community safety went from…30 letters a week…to…300…The letters just came and came.”

Does the panel think that the Bill will simply extend the accountability and visibility that Londoners have to the rest of the country?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

On the issue of voting and democratic accountability, there are currently 3.5 million people missing from the electoral register. When the Electoral Commission did its research, it found that the people missing from the register are black and ethnic, and live in council houses, social housing, privately rented houses and houses of multiple occupation. They are young people, generally from poor and deprived neighbourhoods. Those people are not even on the register. No vote, no voice. So if we have a middle class area with a massive 80% or 90% turnout, and areas that are not even on the register, who will a democratically elected commissioner pay more heed to? In theory, you will say, “Everybody equally”, but in practice, who will a streetwise, savvy PCC pay more attention to? Will it be somebody in a middle class area who says the branches on his tree are too low, or will it be somebody in another area saying, “I’m being terrorised”? We have limited resources and a 20% cut in funding in north Wales. Who will that police commissioner listen to?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

They are the minority of people, but if you analyse statistics on crime levels, crime is being committed in those poor communities. So they might be a minority, but it’s a majority of crime—a double whammy.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Can we go back to the previous question, which referred to the arrangements in London? The evidence of the Greater London Authority says:

“The Bill gives the Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner significantly more powers and the local elected policing body significantly less than at present.”

The next paragraph says:

“It cannot be right that the Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner can refuse to deliver the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime Plan and Priorities, both national and those that matter to Londoners.”

If this diminishes the role of the elected body, is it not a backwards step? Should not we be at least improving on the role of the elected body and setting that up across the country, rather than moving backwards? Would anyone like to comment? Is this a backwards step?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

With all due respect, that was not my question. My question was: does this reduce the role of the democratically elected authority, and do you see that as a retrograde step?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Yes.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before we continue, we have a long series of questions to put to you and we have spent a long time on this subject, so I am going to call this section to a close shortly. I want to establish whether any hon. Member has not had the opportunity to put a question during this particular line of questioning; I intend to call only one or two more people before we move on. I call Bridget Phillipson.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

On Mr Malthouse’s comments, he said that there was a massive increase in the correspondence that he received, but he also said that he had a struggle to cope with the volume of that correspondence. That raises the issue of resourcing the commissioners. What do you say about that?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

It just was not clear from Mr Malthouse whether an increase in correspondence necessarily means that victims feel that there has been an improvement.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

As for whether an increase in correspondence is a good thing in and of itself, just having someone that the public feel they can write to with their problem or complaint is a good thing. It is better that they feel they can write 300 letters a week, rather than 20 or 30, even if solving those problems will, by definition, be difficult, intractable or all sorts.

I put it to the panel—and I am interested in your comments—that communication is a better public service anyway. Actually, notwithstanding the conduct of officers that Louise talked about, a result will be that if lots of letters come in about a problem, perhaps that will lead to the police looking at policing that road, street, or area in a different way, which could lead to solving some of the problems. Just having that communication makes the situation better than it was before.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

As a police officer, you will be used to dealing with the public and their satisfaction levels. Surely, as a member of the public, you are a bit more satisfied if you know who you can write to, as opposed to not even feeling you have anybody you can influence or contact?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

One quick final question from Steve McCabe.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I was just thinking about how my constituents would feel if they were listening—that an extra number of letters is a way of defining success. I think they would think that I had gone mad. I am not against people getting redress where they have a problem. In the context of taking evidence on this Bill, surely the measure has to be: what kind of complaints did you get, who did they come from and how were they dealt with? Surely, that has to be written into the policing plan and any scrutiny of it. Otherwise, all that is going to happen is that when councillors get someone complaining, they are going to say, “Ah, what you do is write to the police commissioner.” When MPs get somebody complaining, they are going to say, “Ah, I know where this goes now.” It is nonsense. That is not a way of creating better redress; that is a way of creating an extended communication chain.

Surely, as witnesses you should be telling us that something has to be written into the Bill—at the very least into the policing plan and the scrutiny of it—that tells us what happens to all these things, what they are and how they are dealt with. Otherwise, I feel I am living in a fantasy land. I do not think there is a hope that I could explain this to any of my constituents, who are genuinely fed up with the redress that they are getting at the moment.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Nor will they be addressed if we become fixated on somebody describing the number of letters as the definition of performance or success. Is that not the problem?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. We are going to move on. We have had an hour and a quarter on this particular tack. We move on to another theme.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

May I say, in conclusion on that last piece, that the issue of operational independence hangs in the air? Similarly, the criminal justice system keeps being mentioned. The police and crime commissioner has no responsibility for the criminal justice system.

I am interested in the debate between a force-wide commissioner and the accountability that a force-wide commissioner brings to a local community, and how that reconnects in the way that we would all wish, or improves the system of accountability. If you take somewhere the size of Devon and Cornwall or north Wales—or indeed my own situation in Nottinghamshire—and elect a police and crime commissioner for the whole force area, why would the people in one part, such as the Isles of Scilly, feel that the introduction of the police and crime commissioner improves accountability for them, if that commissioner is in Exeter?

How would the commissioner know the needs of that particular community? There might be one particular type of crime they want addressed in the Isles of Scilly, while in Exeter it might be another, in Plymouth another, in Portsmouth another. Whether it be knife crime, antisocial behaviour, burglary or whatever, I do not see how accountability or reconnection between the public and the police would mean anything on a force-wide level.

The question to each of the witnesses is: why would having one person representing an enormous area make somebody 70 or 100 miles away feel that accountability is improved? Would people not prefer improvement at a neighbourhood level? Would they not prefer that level of accountability, in terms of getting a better response, rather than having a remote commissioner, with one person taking on the responsibility of 17 or 18 people? Whatever we think of all the different checks, balances and operational independence, is not the model itself flawed, because it does not give people the accountability that they want?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

The idea that a member of the current police authority is accountable to a local area is news to me; I have never had experience of that. I would have thought that having each district council represented on the police and crime panel would help. It would be much more transparent. Every district will have someone, and you will know who that person is. Presumably it will be the leader or the cabinet member for public safety. Do you not think that that would help that link rather than hinder it? If there is a weakness in police authorities it is that the public would never dream of going to them if there was a problem in their area. If you want some evidence of that, the Gloucestershire constabulary website has a link to the police authority on its front page; it is a long way below freedom of information, data protection, useful links and SMS texting, but above police memorabilia. I guess there is some progress. I think you are citing an advantage that I have never seen.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I just want to understand what this police and crime commissioner would do, once elected. In view of the size of some of the force areas and to fully understand the issues that affect the people they represent, would you expect the commissioner to visit every ward in the force area on a quarterly basis and to visit every neighbourhood watch? I understand that local mechanisms are already in place, but it seems to me that this person will have so much vested in him or her to reflect the needs and concerns of the people he or she represents. Everybody will want to speak to him or her. How do you think this will work practically for this one individual covering such an enormous number of wards and constituencies?

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

It has been suggested, and the example of Cornwall has been used, that one person might be stretched in fulfilling the role of police and crime commissioner. Is it not the case that we already have individuals, such as the chief executive of Cornwall council, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police or the chief fire officer of Cornwall fire and rescue service—or those in any other county—who have operational responsibility as well as strategic-direction responsibility? The police and crime commissioner will also have staff. Does the panel not agree that there is every reason to believe that, appropriately staffed and resourced, the police and crime commissioner will be able to handle that, in the same way as those other officials and chief constables can no doubt handle their operational responsibility, especially looking at this as the difference between operational and strategic? Does the panel agree that there is not that need— whereas a chief constable may wish to visit every police station in his area, the strategic responsibility of the commissioner is different? Would each member of the panel like to address that?

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

Do not get that wrong.

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

Does not the position of the Mayor of London gainsay that argument, as he has even wider responsibilities? Has it not been said that the Mayor’s position is in some respects more powerful than that of some Prime Ministers—not in this country, of course, but in other countries?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

We need some clarity on the composition and number of the panels. My force area is Northumbria, which is a huge and very diverse geographic area, being rural and urban—varied. If someone was elected in Berwick, on the Scottish border, they would serve the area right down to the border with Durham. If we are talking about representatives from district councils, such councils do not exist in Sunderland, which is a city of 280,000 people. Would we have only one representative, while an area with a smaller force but several district councils has more people on the panel, so that we would have reduced representation? I do not know how that would work, and I am not sure whether it would increase accountability.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I want to move the debate on slightly and ask Sir Hugh, with his links to America and its experience of police commissioners, if he would like to give some insight into the way it works there.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

You say that it is based on the Peel model of policing. We are particularly looking not so much at that, but at the tripartite structure. I believe that Ministers are concerned that—this has been my experience—there has been a democratic deficiency, particularly on the behalf of police authorities, because local people do not know who is in charge. I refer to Louise Casey’s report “Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime” in which 67% of the public said that they did not know who to go to with a complaint about the police if they were unhappy with policing in their area and 59% said that they found it very difficult to challenge local police on the way in which their areas were policed. Having been a councillor in the past, I have experienced that both in metropolitan London and in more rural areas such as Cumbria, although not in Devon and Cornwall.

I would like to ask Councillor Garnham about the statutory duties in the Bill to take into account the views of local people. How do those duties compare with the current statutory duties to which the police authorities are subject?

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

How do you consult?

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

Do you invite people to those meetings?

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

Under the Bill.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

We are slightly going off the question. The question was: what are the statutory duties in the Bill to take the views of the local community into account compared with the statutory duties currently placed on police authorities?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I think Paul McKeever said before that we should not be prescriptive about where the PCC should go, but if you do not have some guidelines there are a number of ways in which a PCC will decide where he is going to go. He may get invites from neighbourhood watch and residents’ associations; where you have got social capital and where you have civic society operating he will get loads of invites, quite often in middle-class areas. Where you have not got it, he will not get those invites. So if he is just responding to invites he will go to middle-class areas. If he is politically savvy, he may want to go to those geographical areas where his vote is. But I would suggest, and I think there need to be strong recommendations on this, that person should be going to the most crime-ridden areas in the first instance. Whatever system we develop on that, details of his or her public visits should be publicly available—where the PCC went, how long he spent there and what the outcomes were. Otherwise, that person, if he is a directly elected politician—if he is a police commissioner, he will not do it—is going to seek to please. He who votes the piper in picks the tune. They will definitely be chasing votes. What are the panel’s opinions on that?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

It is built into the new system.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

I was interested in Louise’s comment that the public mostly want to be informed about what happens, because that would seem to tie into Kit Malthouse’s point, which I raised earlier, that 300 letters a week is better than 30 letters a week, because at least they have some way to go on being informed. The debate then started to move on into the interesting territory of the type of personalities who will stand for this position and be on the panel. Sir Hugh, you mentioned that you would be interested to see the type of people who run for this post. I wondered whether Rob, in particular, and the panel had a view on whether people with police knowledge, such as existing police authority members, should be allowed to stand for the role of police and crime commissioner and, if so, why? What sort of people do you envisage coming forward for this?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

Which they are in the Bill at the moment.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

Is that something that you would be interested in, while we are on it, or would you rule that out?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

You have a pretty good idea of what the role is, so I will push you on it. Is it a worthwhile role or not?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

It worked for Bloomberg in New York.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

Just so that I am clear, why do you not think that that moratorium should be read across to members of police authorities? I could make the same arguments about interference and teeing it up for an election that you have just made about a chief constable being elected chair of a powerful police authority, as you have been describing this morning.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

Sir Hugh, I apologise for interrupting, but that was not the case in the first mayoral elections here in London, where a candidate stood as an independent. He was subsequently allowed back into the Labour party, but he stood as an independent and won.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before I call the next speaker, may I say at this point that we have a series of questions that we have made little headway on? That is not a criticism. The meat of the debate has centred on the main issues, but we are clearly nowhere near the end of our list of questions. Therefore, with the short time that remains, I ask members of the Committee to forget about the set agenda for the next half hour. I will call people as and when they indicate, and if you bear in the mind the questions that you would have originally asked, hopefully, we will get everyone in for an opportunity to ask. I hope that that is okay with the Committee; it seems the only logical way we can possibly do it.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

One of the ways that was suggested to get around the conundrum of one person being responsible for a huge area was to stress the importance of the police and crime panel and the people who will be on that. Bridget Phillipson already mentioned the issue of population difference between some of the constituent authorities. Sir Hugh has referred on a number of occasions to the lack of clarity around a whole range of different measures in the Bill, none more so than with respect to the police and crime panel. On reading the Bill, it is not clear to me whether the purpose of the police and crime panel is to actually oversee or scrutinise the work of the commissioner or to hold the commissioner to account. That is not clear. The only evidence we have is the fact that the police and crime panel has very little power. It has a couple of veto powers, but to use them it has to have a three-quarters majority, which seems quite excessive. Given that we are saying that, to reconcile the fact that one person in the neighbourhood deals with some of the issues that have arisen, the police and crime panel is an important body, what do each of you think the purpose of the panel should be? Should it be a simple rubber stamp? An oversight body? Should it hold the commissioner to account? What should its function be? I am not clear from the Bill exactly what its function should be. I personally think it has a very important role and should oversee what the commissioner is doing and hold him or her to account. What is your view on the role of the panel and do you think there is clarity in the Bill?

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I shall be grateful if the witnesses will tell me whether there is anything that is not specified under the Bill that they would like to see in it.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

So you are happy that everything is in the Bill.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I apologise, Mr Chairman, if I directed my question to the wrong person. Perhaps Sir Hugh would be kind enough to give his views.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

What does the panel think about the proposal that we are looking for a local individual who can be identified as a champion of the local community and victims of crime, given that some of these areas are so large that it will be difficult for one individual to achieve that at a local level? Would it not be more sensible to boost the role of the members of the local policing authorities as champions in their local areas? Effectively, those bodies would become collectives of local police commissioners for their local areas. That would achieve the same thing, albeit in a more localised version.

Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I want to focus on a fairly narrow issue, aimed probably more at police authorities and those of ACPO rank. It is the nuclear option, the hiring and firing, which at the moment extends to chief constable, assistant and deputy; but it is envisaged in the Bill as it stands that that would only relate to chief constables. Is that merely about your worry about giving chief constables too much power, or is it the view that perhaps it is an operational decision for a chief constable to live with those types of things?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I just want to return to the PCPs. If they are to be as effective as I think most of us want them to be in holding the commissioner to account and scrutinising and being effective, am I right in thinking that they would need their own support and resources? You would have the administration support for the commissioner; and obviously the chief constable has his administration and bureaucracy as well. So are we setting up another bureaucracy to support the panel, for them to be as effective as we want them to be? Is that the view, or are we just leaving those people to turn up to a meeting without any support?

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

On the question of where that balance lies, we have picked up a difference between Paul and Louise on where that balance would be. Do you think that the panel has the appropriate power to do that job? What is to stop the commissioner saying, “Thanks very much but I am elected and I will be subject to the electorate rather than what the panel may or may not have concerns about.”

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

Sir Hugh, you have spoken of the importance of citizen policing and the connection between the citizen and the police. Ms Casey, you have spoken of the importance of transparency and accountability and the fact that two thirds of the general public when surveyed are interested in having someone that they can directly make accountable. This Bill does that, does it not? It localises, does it not? It gives more power and is much more likely to engage local people and has masses more transparency and accountability than the current rather anonymous system. Ms Casey would you agree with that? Mr McKeever, do you think that will reduce the bureaucracy, because the centralising system that we have had heretofore has perhaps encouraged bureaucratic endeavours and this will have a lessening effect? Can I put that to you both, and perhaps the other two witnesses might like to contribute?

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

Not necessarily better, but transparent and more accountable.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. That brings us to the conclusion of this session. On behalf of the Committee, may I thank our witnesses for their full answers? It has been most useful. Thank you very much indeed.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Good afternoon. May I ask our three witnesses to introduce themselves briefly for the record? At this stage, I shall just say thank you very much for coming. We have many important questions to put to you, and I hope that you will be able to answer them succinctly so that we can cover as much ground as possible. Would you like to kick off, Professor Loader?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Vernon Coaker has the first question.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Thank you, Mr Chope. Good afternoon, everyone. May I start by asking the question that I asked this morning? Obviously, we have an important Bill before us. All of us are united in the desire to improve the ability of the police to tackle offending and also to reduce reoffending. As a start, could each of you say how you think the proposals in the Bill improve the prospect of reducing crime and reoffending, or say whether there are aspects of it that in your view may be a hindrance to that objective, which we all have?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

What you said about accountability and whether this is the right model is interesting. I would have a lot of sympathy with that, because I have always made the point about the force level against the neighbourhood or community level.

I want to move the debate on. It seems that there is a tension, because you have a police and crime commissioner responsible for policing and yet part of what we are talking about is reoffending, which is criminal justice. I am not sure what the role of the police and crime commissioner would be with respect to that. It is dangerous to go down the route of the commissioner’s being in any way responsible for any sort of influence on the criminal justice system. I know, however, in terms of confidence and what happens locally, that how the criminal justice system responds after the police have done their job has as big an impact. Do you have any comments on that?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Professor Loader, you referred to the model in London. What do you think the role of the Mayor or the appointed chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority has brought in terms of improving the accountability of policing in London?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The submission from the Greater London authority says that “the Bill gives the MPS”—the Metropolitan Police Service—“Commissioner significantly more powers and the local elected policing body significantly less than at present.” Would you see a Bill that does that as being a progressive or a regressive step?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The evidence we are getting is pretty consistent in saying that the Bill effectively gives police commissioners fewer powers than the democratically elected body in London currently has in its hands. If we are seeking to enhance the role of democratically elected representatives from communities, why would we step back from what we have already achieved in London?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

I want to tackle the issue of scale head on, because it came up this morning. Ian, you have mentioned it a couple of times already this afternoon.

You have a chief constable responsible for the same area as the proposed police and crime commissioner. You have a chief executive in the council and you have chief fire officers. They have both operational and strategic responsibility. You have a Mayor of London representing nine million Londoners. You have the President of the United States who in theory represents 300 million Americans. I do not quite understand the objection in terms of scale to having a figurehead that represents an area of that size.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

I am sure Ian has got his own answer, but just so that I understand you, Chris—it is not that you would disagree with the principle of your role as the figurehead of the police for the whole of the west midlands; it is the support network underneath.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

The police and crime commissioner would not be policing the west midlands in an operational way.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Democratic accountability is obviously a serious issue. While the notion of having it at a lower level might be attractive—to take the example Chris Sims gave of the west midlands—would the chief of the west midlands be happy if your operational commanders underneath you were answering to a democratically elected mayor or some other individual, and how would that cut across your own command in the force? In the end, given that we have 43 forces on the existing boundaries, does not somebody have to appoint the chief, set the budget and the priorities, and should not that person answer democratically?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I want to return to the example of the west midlands as an area with seven local authorities to deal with. If we accept that this is an experiment in local democracy and that its genuine intention is to try to address a perceived deficit in democracy, accountability and policing, how successful do you think it will be? If you end up with umpteen elected mayors dealing with one chief constable, one commissioner with, presumably, a whole host of councillors underneath, who may well have their own, much more localised, views about what should happen, what are the risks of democratic confusion? How, given the Bill that we have, would you seek to head off that risk?

Mary Macleod (Conservative, Brentford and Isleworth)

I want to push you a bit on whether too much power is placed in one person. Having one person as police and crime commissioner makes the accountability link strong. It is a significant role and mandate—for example, under the Mayor of London. I wanted your view on whether having one person makes that person more accountable. They are elected, so the public can always say, “No, you’re not doing the right things, you’re not doing enough, and we’re going to get rid of you.”

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Does the chief constable want to comment on that or not?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

At the outset, in the response to Vernon Coaker’s question, the words “experiment” and “potential” were used. I am anxious that when Governments make decisions, they should be based on the evidence available to inform that decision making. Previous Governments have been criticised for not doing that.

What do the panel think about piloting, in certain areas of the country, this model of having a commissioner alongside the moveable feast that we have in localism and what is happening in local authorities and other public services? What are your views on that?

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

That leads to my point. My question is about the power of the chief constable on this; I would like to explore their powers compared with the current position a bit more. Schedule 2 describes a chief constable as a “corporation sole”, which I do not believe they are at the moment—they do not have the power to hire staff. Paragraph 7 has an interesting sentence:

“A chief constable may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the functions of chief constable”,

which includes

“entering into contracts and other agreements (whether legally binding or not)”.

It strikes me that that is quite a step up in terms of the chief constable’s power at the moment. How do you see that changing?

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Do you think that the chief constable should be spending all their day sitting, signing contracts and doing all that?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I want to touch on the issue of the Electoral Commission. The Bill gives the Electoral Commission responsibility for raising awareness about elections for police and crime commissioners. We have a memorandum from the Electoral Commission setting out its functions in relation to this. The memorandum does not mention registration.

There are 3.5 million people unregistered to vote in the UK. The Electoral Commission has done research into what type of person is unregistered. They are black and ethnic minority people, young people, people who live in social housing and council housing, people who live in houses of multiple occupation and people in deprived areas—in other words, the very victims of crime who we are talking about and whose lives will be influenced by the legislation we are passing.

Those people are not even on the register to vote, so in considering the task of exciting them to vote, the Electoral Commission will have to go back one step further. At a time of central Government cutbacks—electoral registration funding is not hypothecated; it is up to local government to decide how much money it puts in there—there is a need to look at the issue of registration, otherwise you may get the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the registered versus the unregistered.

I also think that there is a desperate need for the Electoral Commission to give ward-by-ward figures to local town councils, county councils, Assembly Members and Members of Parliament on what the registration rates and levels of turnout are in their ward. At least if they are armed with those figures, they can say that they need to strengthen this voice in this ward because they are unregistered or they do not turn out to vote.

We need to excite those people. The Electoral Commission has failed to do that over the past five or six years, despite the fact that there are new powers under the Electoral Administration Act 2006. In addition, despite the fact that there has been tens of millions of pounds of extra funding, registration rates have not greatly improved. So give us your views please on registration, the Electoral Commission and ensuring that they are not neglected.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Just because the question is long does not mean that the answer has to be similarly lengthy.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

What about chief commissioners?

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Can I just clarify what you mean by that? It is an interesting comment about how you would adjust your operational activities in response to electoral commitments. Presumably, the point of a commissioner is that they make some electoral commitments about the sort of policing that they would like to see.

What do you think would be acceptable? Could they run on a platform of saying, “I would prioritise such and such types of crime” or “I will do such and such”, or are you not actually interested at all in what they say they will do?

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

So do you see them essentially as a political adviser to the chief constable?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

I should like to take that further forward. Picking any example causes a problem, but say that I was—heaven forbid—the west midlands police commissioner in two years’ time and I said, “Don’t want speed cameras. I don’t think that they work. We will do speed reduction through education and perhaps flashing signs in accident black spots.” Would not that be a case in which someone could say, “Yes, that is something that we could do”? Would that be crossing the line or do you think that that is roughly where a commissioner could be?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

Say I said that, and you thought that it was completely ridiculous and mad. Would that be a time when you were trying to agree with me or would you be trying to create a public debate? I am trying to understand what the interaction would be. Would you reject a police plan just because it had that in it?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I am very pleased to hear the chief constable say that he would not shift the resources around to accommodate somebody’s political plans or ambitions, but that seems to be the centre of the conflict. If someone is elected with a mandate to do this, that and the other and they come to you having designed or prepared a policing plan with those things at its centre, they obviously demand resources. If you say, “No way, my policing priorities are this, and I am not going to shift any resources to accommodate you”, you have hit an immediate problem.

If I had just recently been elected and was in that situation, I would really want to force you to change your position. I am wondering how you envisage you will deal with a situation when someone with a clear electoral mandate is saying, “Look, this is the whole purpose. The police Minister has brought in the Bill to make you more accountable. He has given me all this power. Here is the plan that the people want. You find the resources to get it implemented.” How on earth will you be able to say no?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I understand that, but it has been known. It is not what we are arguing.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

This is exciting a lot of interest. I’ve got Clive, then Vernon and then Mark.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

It is okay saying we are all committed, as we are, to the democratic principle, but it is not consistent then to say, “You can have a manifesto with knobs on, but the final person who will have a say over the plan is the unelected chief constable.” What is the point in participating in that election if you write a manifesto, and all the local press and local media pop down to the chief constable’s office and say, “Do you agree with any of this?” and he says, “No, it’s a load of rubbish”? What is the point? Do you have any comment on that?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Vernon, do you want to make your point on the same issue?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

This goes to the heart of it. We are discussing a Bill that is completely silent on that. The argument was first whether you should try to define “operational independence”, and what was said was, “No, that’s a bad thing.” The operational independence of the chief constable, Mr Sims, is fundamental to the democracy of our country, yet we have a Bill before us that is a leap of faith. It does not define operational independence at all because it is too difficult, or we are not sure that we can do that. The Select Committee on Home Affairs then looks at the issue and says, “Instead of operational independence, what we need is a memorandum of understanding, because it will give the protection that is paramount if the chief constable is to operate as he sees fit, and not do things because the police and crime commissioner says he should.”

If the Committee does not have a definition at some point soon, we need a draft that gives us an indication of what a memorandum of understanding would look like. Otherwise, the Committee and Parliament are being asked to make one of the most fundamental changes to how the police service in this country is governed without any idea of what a memorandum should be or what a definition should be. I therefore ask both witnesses whether they think the Bill should say something more particular about operational independence. Should we have something more in primary legislation about what a memorandum of understanding should include, so that we are much clearer about what the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable can or cannot do, and about that division? Otherwise, the sort of situation described by Mr Mills and Dr Huppert will happen all the time. What do the witnesses think the Bill should do to resolve that fundamental point, which goes to the very heart of what we are discussing?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Alongside the Bill? With the Bill?

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

I represent a north Wales seat, and you will probably recall that we had a fairly controversial chief constable by the name of Richard Brunstrom, who was a great favourite of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday in particular. He had very strong views. I hate to think of the sort of candidates that would come forward to stand for election if Richard were still there. If we had someone equally controversial, how would you see the balance working? I am quite concerned about the sort of people who might be motivated to stand for election. Richard had very strong views on cameras, drugs and a whole host of issues.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

But you can see a clash, can you not?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

We would have abolished it after the last one.

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

I want to ask a question on operational responsibility. First, on the point that democratising local policing would draw resources away from poor areas, I see that as a big red herring. The equivalent for an MP would be for me to not answer letters from constituents in poorer parts of my constituency, not hold surgeries in their parts of town, and not hold public meetings. If anything, one would want to do that even more to try to extend one’s mandate and majority. I hope that the PCCs would do the same.

Coming back to operational independence, I want to run a scenario past you that I have put to several other people, receiving wildly differing answers. I would be interested in your views. It strikes me that in 18 months’ time there will be 43 people elected in this country on a similar mandate: put more police on the streets. Day one, they are in their job, they sit down with Chris or the other 42 chief constables, and say, “Right. I believe it is part of my democratic mandate, on which I have been elected, to get more police out on the beat. I want them out of the cars and patrolling more. I do not want them patrolling in pairs; I want them patrolling individually.” Would you see that as a legitimate part of their democratic mandate, or are they encroaching on operational independence?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

Why not?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

And on patrolling in pairs?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

If there is a general strategic direction that I want to impress on you as chief constable, and my view is that policing in pairs is less accessible to the public—they do not like going up to them—and is doubling resources, and I think the best way of maximising street presence is through a policy of not patrolling in pairs any more, do you see me as having the right to ask you to put that in the plan? Or is that totally your operational decision?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

This goes to the crux of the matter. I wonder if I might probe a bit more. Was it not the case that Boris Johnson stood on a mandate—it was in his manifesto—to put uniformed officers on public transport? I think that there are two questions. First, was he formally able to do that, or was such a decision an operational matter for the commissioner of the Met? Secondly, did he not sit down with the commissioner of the Met and decide that that was a good idea, which meant, therefore, that the mandate did mean something, even if it formally crossed that barrier on operational independence? [Interruption.] No, the new commissioner.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Let the chief constable answer.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

No.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Do either of our brilliant academics have a view?

Aidan Burley (Conservative, Cannock Chase)

But there is an historical essence in there, which Rick alluded to, which was that 10 to 20 years ago, there was a policy-type decision to put police in cars, because it was thought that the chance of them walking down the street and catching a burglar in practice was about the same as winning the lottery. It was seen as a waste of police resources, so they decided on rapid response. The police retreated from the streets. Then the public said, “Actually, we think that there is a deterrent effect in them walking down the street that might prevent that burglary, so we want them back on the street.” That is where my point comes from. We have a lot of people standing on this mandate of, “We want to get the police back on the streets.” I am interested in Ian’s views on that.

The other example I would use is the Tony Blair knife crime summit. A senior politician called all the chief constables to No. 10 and said, “Politically, I want something done about knife crime.” Is that not a legitimate use of political pressure to interfere with operational independence? You might argue that we need to do something about knife crime, but as a politician, you want something done.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Coming back to that for a second, I possibly agree with you that none of this is new. I think that that must be right, but, listening to Commissioner Burley, there is a risk that his expectations are very different if he believes, and Rick Muir seems to agree with him, that he can say, “I have a mandate to say that you won’t patrol in pairs, because this would be a better use of resource.” You think that may be the case. What if he also thinks that you do not all need stab vests, or you do not all need a particular piece of equipment? Is it not just as reasonable for him to think that that is an efficient use of resource? Is that not slightly different from your usual problem, because we have created a whole new institution that expects to have far greater power to demand of the chief constable what even a Prime Minister could not demand in the past? Is that not where it is slightly different? There is a huge expectation of this Bill and of police commissioners and what they will be able to do. If the Government create them and chief constables nobble them at every turn, presumably the Government will think that the Bill has been a failure.

Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I agree with what Mr Loader has said about spending an awful lot time reinventing the wheel by coming up with a defined list of what counts as operational and what counts as strategic. We have already done that. I was in the police 20 years ago. I was driving a police patrol car, and we went through the exact scenario that we have just talked about. I was told I was going to be patrolling singly, and if I was out on the street I would be patrolling singly. It was all about raising awareness and making people think that there were more police out there than there really were. The difficulty was the operational problems that that brought up. Patrolling singly meant that there were many things that you could not do. You ended up in situations in which you needed back-up, so you drew in another car. With two cars tied up, suddenly you had real operational problems. There is, therefore, an operational element to such situations, which needs to be discussed. You cannot prescribe exactly how you will deal with that, so I completely agree with you.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Okay. We are likely to lose a quarter of an hour, because there will be a Division between now and 6 o’clock, and we do not have any injury time. Vernon, do you want to ask about the Home Secretary’s plans?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Yes. Thank you. That links to a point that the Chief Constable raised about local and strategic, and the Home Secretary.

People are right to say that the police and crime commissioner will, essentially, focus on local priorities in order to be elected. To be fair, the Government have recognised that. Somewhere along the line, chief officers in the police service have told Ministers that that is a real issue, hence we have clause 79, which introduces a strategic policing requirement. Does the panel agree that the requirement does not go far enough?

My understanding of the clause is that the chief constable must have regard to the strategic police requirement that is published by the Home Secretary. Would it not be more effective if it were not only the chief officer who had to have such regard, but also the police and crime commissioner? I know that the police and crime commissioner can advise on what should be in the strategic requirement, but that is not the same as being required to have regard to it once they have done so. The Home Secretary is saying that these are important strategic issues. What are your views on whether requiring the police and crime commissioner as well as the chief constable to have regard to that would help to overcome some of the difficulties? People are promising a police officer on every street, and all the sort of things that may get the crowds roaring, but then they are saying, “What are you doing about domestic violence, sexual violence, human trafficking, counter-terrorism, fraud, economic crime, and so on?” If I have read the clause correctly, would that be the sort of amendment that would find favour with you?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Nigel, did you want to ask about police and crime panels?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

I did. One of the issues that we’ve been around the houses with a bit is how you get in the local links and accountability when you have one person with a larger region. It looks like the police and crime panels are the fix for that in the Bill. It looks to me to be positive that you are bringing an individual from every district council into this, which is a bit of progress from the police authorities, which can be made up any old how, as far as I can tell. Do you think that has gone far enough and got the balance right, or could something different be done there to try and get the local influence in?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

Which individuals at local authorities do you tend to have a relationship with? Is the person the leader or the chief executive?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

To build on that, I would appreciate hearing the comments of any of the witnesses about the policing and crime panels. Notwithstanding what the chief constable said, it is very unclear to me whether the police and crime panels have been designed to scrutinise the work of the commissioner or hold the commissioner to account, or what the role of the police and crime panel is. I do not understand where the idea of two independent members rather than what the police and crime panel thinks is appropriate has come from. I do not understand what powers the police and crime panel has, other than the very limited powers in the Bill. It has a power on appointment—not to say anything about the sacking, the commissioner can just sack the chief constable without reference to anybody—and a power to veto the precept, and all of that on a three-quarters majority. It would seem, from the size of the majority and the limited powers that the police and crime panel has, that it is not regarded as something that is there to do very much.

We then get into whether we are going to recreate the police authority. Does the panel have any views on what the police and crime panel should be about? What powers should it have? What do you see the function as? Is it a scrutinising function, a holding-to-account function or a reviewing function?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Can we put that question in with Clive’s question?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

You want me to ask it now?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Yes.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

There are certain circumstances in which the Mayor’s office or a commissioner might have to withhold information from the local police and crime panel. Do you envisage any difficulties that those circumstances might create?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

For instance, they might be party to information on national security that they might have to withhold from the panel. Will there be any difficulty scrutinising the commissioner in circumstances where the panel cannot have the information?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

What about the earlier, more general question?

Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I have a very quick question, and if the answers are quick we might get them in before we have to disappear. I come from a Scottish background where the idea of independent, unelected members on police boards, as we have, is quite alien. In the new framework, where we are aiming for a much more democratic, accountable police commissioner and police and crime panels, is there still a place for independent members? If there is, should they be voting?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

There are several points. Should it be the role of the chief officer or the commissioner to determine neighbourhoods, for the purposes of engaging with local communities to determine what police priorities they should apply?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The Bill says that that is your responsibility.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

You will actually be encouraged to determine the neighbourhoods that would be identified for the purpose of engaging with local people.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Yes, the neighbourhoods. The actual boundaries.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Earlier, you were flummoxed by my quotation from the Greater London authority, about it being perplexed that this diminishes the amount of power delegated to the elected representatives. I would like just a simple answer: is that a good thing or a bad thing? If it is in the Bill, is it good or bad?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

We have an example of an elected representative in London. We have a democratically elected police authority, and the Bill reduces the number of powers that it has. That is in the submission to the Committee. Is it good or bad that the role of the elected representatives is diminished?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

You did, Ian.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

It is nice to come in after support for Lib Dem manifesto policy—

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Well, that’s gone.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

It is also nice to see the mischievous behaviour of the Committee at this stage.

Could I perhaps move on to the provisions around clause 140, and ask for some advice about those? Police officers have the right to use reasonable force—effectively state-sanctioned violence—and presumably have an extensive period of training in order to do so. Could you comment on how hard it is to judge reasonable force, how much training is required and how appropriate it is for non-police officers to do such things?

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Sorry, perhaps I did not put the question very well, for various reasons. I am not criticising officers in any way; I am trying to understand how hard it is for them to do that, and whether you have concerns about people who are not trained officers having the ability to use reasonable force.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Are there any more questions? One more—Nigel.

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

I have a couple of differing questions. First, Chris, have you ever found it tricky to walk the line between doing your job and getting into politics? There can be an argument about whether you should ever use fixed cautions for knife offenders, or for some other thing that is topical. Have you ever struggled to stay on the right side of that line? Have you ever felt that you might have made a mistake and crossed it?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

Do you think that this change to commissioners will help you toe that line to a certain extent, in that if there is a political problem the commissioner can deal with it, and if it is operational it falls into your domain? Or do you think that it will make no difference in that sort of situation?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

Let us pick funding, which is probably a grave situation. On that, it must be hard for you to find a line.

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

Not all of your colleagues have taken that view, have they? There have occasionally been some pretty strong requests for funding or warnings about what funding might do.

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

My second question is on the late night levy. Is that something that you would welcome? How would you see it working?

Nigel Mills (Conservative, Amber Valley)

I would have thought that being able to raise funds from pubs that were causing crime and disorder in the early hours of the morning would be—

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

To elaborate on the previous point, is there anything that you would like to see in the Bill—particularly in the police and crime plans—from an operational perspective?

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

May I ask your two colleagues on the panel whether there is anything that they would like to see from an accountability angle?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

May I briefly go back to Nigel’s question about treading this political line, which I suppose builds on what you have just said? If we were to see a number of chief constables either sacked or choosing to go early as a result of well-publicised difficulties with their commissioners, would that suggest that the political line had been shifted by this legislation? Would that be a reasonable conclusion?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Bridget Phillipson has had to leave, but she asked me to ask the following question. What are the advantages and disadvantages of introducing these new governance arrangements at the same time as police forces are being required to make significant financial savings? Is it easier or more difficult to implement those changes in a time of decreasing budgets?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Neither did the national parties.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

If things go wrong and cuts are made, and you have the new police commissioners, could central Government say, “It is not our fault. We have devolved the power. It is their fault”?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Even though central Government make the wider decisions on mass unemployment or cutting funding for policing by 20%, they will get the blame?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Mr Muir will have the last word.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Parkinson’s law has applied—you have perfectly filled all the time. I conclude by thanking our three witnesses for responding so positively to probing questions from colleagues. The Committee will meet again on Thursday at 9 o’clock, when we will hear from more witnesses.