Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]: My Lords, rather like the noble
Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am not sure that our two amendments have
any connection whatever. None the less, it is a pleasure to be able
to make this short intervention on the Bill and to probe just a
little more than I did at Second Reading the role of Police and
Crime Commissioners I do support the strengthening of the TPIM
provisions. That the Government would have to do so was entirely
foreseeable in 2011, when the...Request free trial
(Lab) [V]: My Lords, rather like the noble
Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am not sure that our two amendments have
any connection whatever. None the less, it is a pleasure to be able
to make this short intervention on the Bill and to probe just a
little more than I did at Second Reading the role of Police and Crime Commissioners
I do support the strengthening of the TPIM provisions. That the
Government would have to do so was entirely foreseeable in 2011,
when the coalition Government insisted on the abolition of control
orders, despite the warnings that I and other noble Lords gave at
the time.
My amendment was drafted after discussions with the West Midlands
police and crime commissioner, . Clearly, the
provisions are potentially extremely resource-intensive and need to
be used proportionately and only when absolutely necessary. I would
like to make two specific comments.
As the thresholds for a TPIM are lowered and the range of measures
extended, it is important that greater scrutiny and oversight are
implemented to give reassurance to individuals and communities that
the legislation is being used fairly. These are of course issues of
grave national security concern. The oversight offered by a police
and crime commissioner could help to give the Home Secretary
reassurance that full consideration had been given ahead of any
decision regarding a TPIM. Local oversight could also enhance the
ability of the Home Secretary to make an informed decision when
considering a TPIM application, variation or extension. It would
enable PCCs to submit any additional information
or make recommendations to the Home Secretary in respect of the
community impact and the impact on local police force
resources—which, as has already been discussed, can be intensive
for a TPIM.
It is not entirely clear how Police and Crime Commissioners are
currently made aware of TPIMs within their local area. Certainly,
the chief constable should advise the police and crime commissioner
when a TPIM is being considered, but there are no clear guidelines
on how this should take place. My amendment would formalise this
process. We know that the number of TPIMs in place nationally is
small, and therefore it should not be envisaged that this
additional step in the process would present a burden for Police and Crime Commissioners or
forces. As part of this process, the information would of course
have to be shared within the most appropriate, secure
environment...
(Lab) [V]:...Amendment 31 suggests a
practical and sensible way forward—one that balances the interests
of all involved, I would argue. It suggests a role for
Police and Crime Commissioners
that seems entirely appropriate and consistent with the
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. When the
coalition Government proposed the setting up of what I will call
PCCs, they deliberately gave them considerable
responsibilities and powers. Not only were they described as the
“local policing body”; the Policing Protocol Order 2011 insisted
that Police and Crime Commissioners
had a role in the “totality of policing”. Sometimes, it seems
as though the then Government’s intentions, as contained in the Act
passed by Parliament, have not always been fulfilled by succeeding
Governments, who, although keen to support the legislation, seem to
draw back from some of its consequences. I very much hope that the
way in which the Minister deals with this amendment will show that
I am wrong...
...The argument for this amendment is straightforward. Would
it not be preferable for extended powers at least to be balanced by
a practical step that, while not putting anybody at risk, can
satisfy the need to ensure that another voice is heard—that of the
elected police and crime commissioner, who is there to represent
all those who live in the force area? We were reminded at Second
Reading by the right reverend Prelate the that support in the community is our strongest force
against extremism. Police and Crime Commissioners
are there to represent their communities. They already do so
in pretty sensitive areas, such as stop and search. Why should they
not play a role in this area too?
As my noble friend Lord Hunt said in moving Amendment 31, no
one is suggesting that the police will not play the major role.
Police and crime commissioners’ role would be
limited but significant. The police and crime commissioner’s
six-monthly report on a TPIM would set out an assessment of the
impact of enforcing the TPIM on efficiency and effectiveness. It
would also look at public confidence in the TPIM and its efficacy
in securing the prevention and detection of crime.
My noble friend was right to point out that Police and Crime Commissioners
can add significant value in this process. It is exactly the
sort of role that Parliament and the Government intended
Police and Crime Commissioners to
play when the 2011 Act was before us. It is a role that they play
in other sensitive areas. Why should they not play a role here when
community reassurance is so crucial to the success, or otherwise,
of this policy?
(LD)
[V]:...On Amendment 31, I commend the noble Lords, and , for their relentless attempts to get Police and Crime Commissioners
more involved in operational policing decisions, including
operations that may have national security implications. I accept
that stop and search may be considered controversial, but it does
not involve issues of national security of this nature, and I am
not convinced that their amendment is necessary or desirable in
this case...
(Con): My Lords, I thank
all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As some have
remarked, Amendment 31 might have as easily sat in the previous
group as this one. I turn first to that amendment, in the names of
the noble Lords,
|
