Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom That the draft Order laid before the
House on 7 February be approved. Special attention drawn to the
instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 15th
Report, 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny
Committee. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office
(Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con) My Lords, if approved by both Houses,
this order will transfer police and crime
commissioner—PCC—functions...Request free trial
Moved by
That the draft Order laid before the House on 7 February be
approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary
Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 15th Report, 17th Report from the
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, if approved by both Houses, this order will transfer
police and crime commissioner—PCC—functions from the West
Midlands PCC to the Mayor of the West Midlands. The first mayor
to exercise PCC functions in the West Midlands would do so
following the next mayoral election, which is scheduled for
Thursday 2 May 2024. This maintains the direct democratic
accountability for policing and crime in the West Midlands, as
the mayor will be elected by the people of the West Midlands on
the basis that they are to exercise the functions of the PCC for
that area.
The incumbent PCC for the West Midlands will continue to exercise
the functions until the end of his elected term of office. The
person elected as mayor, from the point of taking office on
Tuesday 7 May following the mayoral election, will act as the
single, directly elected individual responsible for holding the
chief constable and police force to account. The mayor will be
accountable to the people of the West Midlands for this
responsibility. Their functions would include issuing a police
and crime plan; setting the police budget, including the PCC
council tax precept requirements; appointing and, if necessary,
suspending or dismissing the chief constable; addressing
complaints about policing services; providing and commissioning
services for victims and vulnerable people; and working in
partnership to ensure that the local criminal justice system is
efficient and effective.
Part 1 of the Government’s review into the role of PCCs cemented
government’s view that bringing public safety functions together
under the leadership of a combined authority mayor has the
potential to offer wider levers and a more joined-up approach to
preventing crime. The Government’s levelling up White Paper,
published on 2 February 2022, sets out our aspiration to have
combined authority mayors take on the PCC role where feasible. By
working in partnership across a range of agencies at local and
national level, mayors can ensure that there is a more holistic,
unified approach to public safety.
As is required by Section 113 of the Local Democracy, Economic
Development and Construction Act 2009, the Home Secretary
launched a public consultation on the proposed West Midlands
police and crime commissioner functions transfer on 20 December
2023, which ran for six weeks to 31 January. Over 7,000 responses
were received to this consultation, and the Home Secretary
considered the views gathered when deciding whether to lay this
order enabling the transfer of PCC functions to the Mayor of the
West Midlands.
It is the Government’s view that incorporating PCC functions into
the role of the Mayor of the West Midlands, who is elected to
deliver across a range of other functions, will bolster their
mandate to bring greater joined-up access across the
responsibilities they are accountable for and will help to
facilitate a whole-system approach to crime reduction.
(Lab)
While the Minister is on the consultation, could he conclude it
by telling us the number of consultees and the responses that
they gave, and can he give us some numerical attachment to that
so that we get some idea of how the consultation went?
(Con)
I can and will do so shortly.
Incorporating the PCC functions into the role of the Mayor of the
West Midlands preserves the democratic accountability that
underpins the PCC model and at the same time reduces the risk of
competing democratic mandates within the West Midlands Combined
Authority area, providing greater clarity for the electorate on
who is responsible for public service functions in their
area.
The exercise of PCC functions by the Mayor of the West Midlands
is a significant step to realising our ambition for more combined
authority mayors to take on PCC functions, as is already the case
in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. It will mean that
people in the West Midlands will be served by a mayor who will
have a range of functions and levers comparable to those of the
mayors of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and London, and they
will be able to hold their mayor to account for this enhanced
range of responsibilities.
The Government have also laid a similar order which, if approved
by both Houses, would see PCC functions exercised by the Mayor of
South Yorkshire, following the rescheduled mayoral election in
May.
I turn briefly to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, . The noble Lord states that the
transfer of functions is taking place without the consent of the
other relevant local authorities. When PCC functions are
transferred to be exercised by an existing combined authority
mayor, Section 107F of the Local Democracy, Economic Development
and Construction Act 2009 requires the consent of that mayor to
enable the making of the order. The Mayor of the West Midlands
provided his formal consent to the Home Secretary on 7 February.
The consent of any other local leader is not required by statute.
This reflects the fact that it is the mayor themselves and not
the combined authority or the leaders of the constituent
authorities who will exercise the PCC functions, as it is a
central tenet of the PCC model that only the individual elected
to exercise the PCC functions may do so, whether that individual
is a PCC or a mayor.
The noble Lord also states that the functions are being
transferred without the consent of the people of the West
Midlands through a vote, but the incumbent Mayor of the West
Midlands was elected to office by the people of the West Midlands
in May 2021. Arguably, this means that the mayor has a clear
democratic mandate in the region, and, as indicated, he has
consented to this order. Should the House pass this order, it
will then be directly in the control of the people of the West
Midlands to elect the individual they wish to see exercise the
functions of the PCC at the May election. The Government are
doing nothing to take that ability away from the electorate with
this order; we are simply transferring the exercise of policing
governance functions from one directly elected role to
another.
Finally, the noble Lord has highlighted the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee’s report on this order, and specifically its
finding that an initial decision was made by the Home Secretary
to transfer the functions before a public consultation had been
conducted. It is true that the Home Secretary communicated an
initial decision to the mayor and the PCC for the West Midlands
on 6 December. The Permanent Secretary’s response to the
committee’s letter has addressed this concern, but for the
benefit of the noble Lord and the House, I will also address
it.
At the time of the Home Secretary’s decision, the requirement of
Section 113 of the 2009 Act to conduct a public consultation was
not known to him. It had not been the Government’s intention for
the levelling-up Act to place a new statutory test and a
consultation requirement on the power to transfer PCC functions
to combined authority mayors. However, as soon as the Home
Secretary was made aware of this requirement, he launched the
six-week public consultation on the proposed transfer and agreed
to retake his decision only after he had given due regard to the
responses to the public consultation and he was satisfied that
the statutory requirements of Section 113 had been met. The
decision to make this order was taken on 6 February and
supersedes the decision that was communicated on 6 December.
If noble Lords will bear with me a second, I will try to find the
relevant statistics, as asked for by the noble Lord, . I know I have them in my
winding-up notes—I will find them in a second.
It is unfortunate that the initial decision was made without
knowledge of the statutory requirements, but the appropriate
steps were taken to ensure that the decision to make this order
was not made until the requirements had been met. I am satisfied
that the Home Secretary acted well within the legislation as soon
as he became aware of this initial oversight. I call on Members
of your Lordships’ House to reject the amendment tabled by the
noble Lord. I hope that what I have said provides some
reassurance and clarity.
I thank the House for its indulgence; I have found the numbers,
with thanks to the noble Lord, . The public consultation
ran from 20 December 2023 to 31 January 2024. The Government’s
response to the consultation was published when this order was
laid before Parliament. The total number of responses received
was 7,103—a good deal more than those received by other
consultations relating to devolution proposals. Of those
responses, 46% agreed with the proposal, 50% disagreed and 4%
said that they did not know. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Moved by
At end to insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order
entails the transfer of power being completed without the consent
of other relevant local authorities; and notes that the Secondary
Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the public
consultation required by law was not commenced before an initial
decision was made.”
(Lab)
My Lords, in short, my amendment is based on two separate but
interlocked criticisms of the Government and their conduct.
First, I argue that the Government, in their desire to see the
current Mayor of the West Midlands add the role of police and
crime commissioner to his already extensive portfolio, have
deliberately subverted the principle that they themselves put
into earlier legislation: that there should be real democratic
support before such a fundamental change. In other words, proper
consent for such a course was considered essential before such a
transfer of power could take place. That has not happened here,
as a deliberate part of the Government’s strategy.
Secondly—and here the Home Office is the main culprit—the timing
of and background to this statutory instrument have been rightly
criticised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In an
extremely critical report, the committee points out what can only
be described as incompetence by the department. The headline of a
release put out by the committee to accompany its 15th report put
it like this: “Elections potentially undermined by poor process,
says Lords Committee”. The release said that:
“The Committee expressed concern that both Orders have been laid
before Parliament close to the intended date of the next election
(2 May 2024), less than the minimum six months in advance that is
regarded as good practice”.
These two points combined will, I hope, persuade the House to say
that this behaviour all round should be deprecated.
I will give a little more detail. In exactly 50 days, on 2 May,
there will definitely be an election for the Mayor of the West
Midlands. The present incumbent is a Conservative. On the same
day, and with the same electorate, covering exactly the same area
of Britain, there may be an election for the stand-alone role of
the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands. The
present police and crime commissioner, elected some years ago, is
Labour.
I put it like that because, yesterday, the Administrative Court
heard a judicial review brought by the police and crime
commissioner for the West Midlands against the Home Office. At
the end of the day, the judge reserved judgment until 18 or 20
March. I am not going to say any more about that court case,
which has nothing to do with us—we are Parliament, and it is the
judge who will make up his mind—but that is why the matter is not
resolved legally yet, and I am here to argue that what has
happened in the past means that we should regret this statutory
instrument.
The mayoral election will be on 2 May but the election period, as
far as electoral administrators are concerned, runs not from 2
May but from 21 March—literally eight days’ time. I am advised
that electoral administrators in the West Midlands just do not
know where they stand, and one can imagine their frustration.
It is obviously beyond argument that all this arises from a deal
cooked up some time ago between the Government and the mayor. The
mayor wants to be the police and crime commissioner and the
Government want it too. Up until the Levelling-up and
Regeneration Act, he could have had that role if the local
authorities that make up the combined authority, and the other
local authorities in the West Midlands region, had given their
consent. That is what happened in Greater Manchester and West
Yorkshire, and that is what is going to happen in South
Yorkshire. In these areas the combined authorities were in
favour, as in fact were the Police and Crime
Commissioners but that was not so in the West Midlands. The
combined local authorities, on every occasion that they have been
asked, have been opposed. So the mayor gets the Government to
change the law, in a very short clause in a very large Bill—now
Section 62 of the levelling-up Act.
8.00pm
Forget the general, region-wide consent that was part of the
devolution deal when the West Midlands came under the auspices of
a mayor; part of that deal was that there should be broad
democratic support. Now all that is required is the consent of
the mayor—yes, really, the only person who has to consent is the
person who wants the job. That is not consent in any real sense;
it is the precise opposite—it is Newspeak language. It is not
that broad democratic support that the Government once believed
in—it is very nice work if you can get it. Many politicians, of
the sort that we soundly and gravely criticise in this House, day
in and day out, from other countries, would stand up and applaud
this achievement; it is what happens in countries where democracy
counts for little: it should not be happening here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard— I am very glad to see
him in his place—said on 23 October, when I do not think he was
fair on himself:
“I know very little about the politics and governance practices
of the West Midlands, but when I lived in America I was
privileged to watch at close hand the governance practices of the
Deep South and of Mayor Willie Brown’s San Francisco and Mayor
Daley’s Chicago. As I listened in both the previous debate and
this afternoon to the noble Lord, , explaining what looks to me like
a rather unusual practice developing in the West Midlands, I was
strongly reminded of the practices of state governments in the
Deep South of the United States. I do not think that is a road we
should go down”.—[Official Report, 23/10/23; cols. 416-17.]
Why has it taken so long to bring this statutory instrument
before Parliament? After all, as the Government Minister said
during ping-pong on 23 October:
“Commencement at Royal Assent enables the Government to adhere as
closely as they can to the Gould principle of electoral
management, whereby any changes to elections should aim to be
made with at least six months’ notice”.—[Official Report,
23/10/23; col. 418.]
This section of the new Act came into being immediately on Royal
Assent, and the Home Secretary agreed to the mayor’s proposals
and publicly said that the statutory instrument would be provided
very soon. However, that statutory instrument never emerged: why?
Simply because the Government failed to read its own Act of
Parliament, which received Royal Assent less than six weeks after
it had been passed. They had not noticed that there was a section
that made it clear there needed to be a consultation before
Section 62 could be implemented. Thus, the Home Secretary’s
decision was invalid and had to be scrapped.
That was an extraordinary mistake, particularly for a statutory
instrument that was already tight up against the date of the
election. Only this morning, our scrutiny committee in this House
published an additional short report, following an exchange of
letters with Home Office officials and Ministers, and it repeated
its description of what had taken place as “extraordinary”.
Consultation was rustled up at short notice to last between 20
December and 31 of January—just think of those dates. It started
almost as our Christmas holiday began and went right through the
New Year break, so it was not surprising—here I disagree with the
Minister—that the response was hardly heavy. To add insult to
injury, as has been found out this evening, the result was
against this change, although of course I do not make too much of
that point.
Predictably, the Home Secretary gave permission again for the
transfer of power. This statutory instrument followed, and the
Government are up against this very tight timetable that is
entirely of their own making. Those who have read the scrutiny
committee’s report will know there were other issues that
concerned it, but the most concerning is that the Act of
Parliament was not properly read by the Government, and thus this
situation arises.
I agree and argue that the House should regret this statutory
instrument on two grounds. I believe the throwing out of
democratic norms in order to give your mate a job that he wants
is the most grievous ground for the regret amendment. We should
regret this statutory instrument both for the liberties it is
taking with our democratic arrangements and for the mismanagement
that means no one in the West Midlands knows, just 50 days before
the election, how many elections there will be and who the
candidates are. The House should surely say, “This is just not
good enough”. I beg to move.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for his devastating critique of
this draft order. I have spoken many times in this Chamber on the
need for combined authorities to have the consent of the public
for what they do and for the decisions that they make. This
includes appropriate and effective consultation and proper
management of scrutiny, audit and risk of those combined
authorities. As the noble Lord, , said, this draft order entails
the transfer of power being completed without the consent of the
other relevant local authorities and notes that the Secondary
Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the public
consultation required by law was not commenced before an initial
decision was made.
As the noble Lord, , drew our attention to, in the
17th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it
is very clear that the Government have not understood the
implications of their own legislation in the levelling-up Act.
Secondly, it is very surprising that, when the consultation was
done, the changes were opposed by a majority of residents
expressing a view in public consultations and by other prominent
figures in the West Midlands. This is simply unacceptable
behaviour and, if the noble Lord decides to press his amendment
to a vote, this side will support him.
(CB)
My Lords, I come entirely fresh to this issue, but I would like
to ask the Minister: what on earth is the point of a consultation
if the majority says one way and the Government take no
notice?
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness has put an important
question to the Minister, and I thank my noble friend for fighting on with this case
with such determination for over a year.
I want to make three points. First, the original legislation
required that the consent of the local authorities within the
combined authority was given for such a move to be made. Mr
Street made a number of efforts to persuade the local authorities
in the West Midlands to give their consent, but they did not do
so. The Government then came along and said, “Oh, we’ll just
change the law then”, and determined that if Mr Street wants to
do it then they would let him do it.
Of course, the Government have form. At the same time, they also
connived with Mr Street to try adding Warwickshire into the
boundaries of the West Midlands Combined Authority for the
election coming up on 2 May. Mr Street, knowing that he is
staring defeat in the face, was desperate to increase the
electorate from the shire county. Fortunately, and
understandably, opposition within Warwickshire meant that this
had to be withdrawn.
But Mr Street is determined to get something out of the wreckage
of those proposals. If the Government have their way, he will be
the police and crime commissioner. No evidence whatsoever has
been given, apart from the holistic approach that the Minister
talked about, to support why the police and crime commissioner
role should be abolished in the West Midlands—no metrics, no
data, no evidence base.
The irony is that the Minister talked about us having greater
accountability. That is absolute nonsense. We all know what
happens. When a mayor becomes a police and crime commissioner,
they appoint a deputy to oversee the policing. The deputy deals
with 99% of the policing issues and is accountable only to one
person —the mayor—not to the people of the West Midlands. This is
what is happening here.
I pay great tribute to the scrutiny committee, chaired by the
noble Lord, , for its assiduous work
in this area. The committee has given the Government and the
Minister’s department one of the most excoriating criticisms that
I have seen for how this has been handled. The Government did not
even know the implications of their own legislation that they
passed only a short time ago, yet the excuse from the Home Office
Permanent Secretary—talk about a collective corporate government
response—was to blame the local government department. It is
extraordinary behaviour, including executive arrogance and
executive incompetence. I hope that noble Lords will thoroughly
support the amendment moved by my noble friend .
(LD)
My Lords, the arguments about local democracy being completely
ignored have been very professionally made by previous speakers.
I follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in
her assessment. What is the point of consultation if the
Government ignore it?
The Government’s argument, in their response to the local
consultation, was that
“mayors who exercise PCC functions have wider levers”
to join up delivery in tackling crime and securing public safety.
If that were the case, West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester
would have lower levels of crime than the West Midlands and those
areas without combined mayors and PCCs, but if you look at the
figures, it is exactly the opposite. Last year, the average crime
rate per 1,000 population in England and Wales was 93.6 crimes
per 1,000 population; Greater Manchester’s was 129.7 per 1,000
population, and West Yorkshire’s was even higher at 138.8; the
West Midlands was below both of them. Therefore, the Government’s
response, that having these roles combined makes places safer
with less crime, is shot by the Government’s own statistics. What
metrics are the Government using to say that these combined roles
create less crime and make people safer?
(GP)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, , despite not liking regret
amendments, which are a legislative equivalent of saying
“tut-tut”. What is the point? I also do not like the police and
crime commissioner system. It is not as well overseen as the
previous system of local police committees and was yet another
government mistake. However, I will vote for the regret
amendment.
The Green Party was opposed to Police and Crime
Commissioners because we feel that police forces should be
supervised and accountable to elected local government. It is
more immediate and more responsive with councillors.
However, it could be said of most Police and Crime
Commissioners at the moment that, although it is an elected
position, as far as politics is concerned, they are
semi-skimmed—they are rather thin milk. They are
independent—often former police officers, even a priest—and they
have used their expertise to serve their communities.
Transferring those powers to an elected mayor, especially over
such a large, combined pair of authorities will turn these
functions into the hands of one single full-fat politician. That
is simply too much power in one pair of hands. The move towards
directly elected mayors and these mega-authorities is already
combining too many powers into one executive who is subject to
very little scrutiny. That is one of the really big problems with
this.
8.15pm
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, there will be a diluted
focus on the police and what they get up to because we will
almost certainly have a deputy mayor who has no public mandate at
all and might not have the relevant skills. The policy is
rubbish, the process is even worse and the timing is—I nearly
swore —pretty rubbish as well. The Government are rushing through
legislation.
This should force your Lordships’ House to think about our role.
What other things might this Government force through? If your
Lordships’ House and, in particular, the Official Opposition,
decide not to stop any legislation from the Government, at what
point could we say that while we might be unelected we are the
only people left who can actually defend democracy?
(Lab)
My Lords, as a resident of Birmingham, a few weeks ago a
publication called the Birmingham Champion came through my front
door. My noble friend referred to the Mayor of the West
Midlands as a Conservative. He and I know that he is a
Conservative because we take an interest in these matters. The
Birmingham Champion is all about the mayor. The one word that is
missing from it is “Conservative”, except for one mention—I must
be frank about this. With my best spectacles on and under a
bright light, I find that the printer’s imprint says, “On behalf
of the West Midlands Conservative Association”, but there is no
other mention of the Conservative Party. There are no less than
seven pictures of the mayor and six stories where he claims the
credit for saving the European championship, a training
revolution with 100,000 new jobs, bus passenger numbers rising
and routes protected. I used to be chairman of the bus company. I
had not realised that the mayor had so much power.
(Con)
I hate to have to do this, but I ask the noble Lord to pay
attention to what is in the Companion about the use of props when
giving speeches. It is not advised. With respect, can he please
give his speech—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
Order. I am quoting what is in the Companion.
(Lab)
I need no lectures from the party opposite about propriety. I
have been in this Chamber for a lot longer than the noble Lord.
Can he sit down and hear me?
(Con)
With respect, order. I am not giving a lecture from the
Conservative Party Benches but about what is in this book—which
is not written by the Conservative Party. Please, bear with me.
In chapter 4 of the Companion, which is not written by any
political party, paragraph 4.19 says:
“Members should not bring into the Chamber … books and
newspapers”.
I do not mind the noble Lord making his points but, with respect,
please do not do this.
(Lab)
The noble Lord has wasted quite a few minutes telling me that. It
is not a newspaper; it is a publication on behalf of the
Conservative Party, but I will cite it from memory: seven
different pictures of the mayor and six stories for which he
claims credit —over which the mayor has little power, but that
has not stopped him. Now he wants to take on the police and crime
commissioner’s role. I ask noble Lords how he can fit that role
in given all his other duties.
I remind the party opposite, particularly the Minister, that the
Labour police and crime commissioner was elected in a democratic
election in 2021. The proposals from the Government to merge the
two jobs are typical of their attitude towards democracy. When it
comes to national elections, the Government insist, with no
evidence to back it up, that identification must be provided.
When it comes to elections in this city, they change the system.
They cannot win in a PR system, so they insist on first past the
post. This, in the West Midlands, is just another example of
their cavalier behaviour regarding democracy.
I repeat that I do not believe that the mayor and the crime
commissioner are roles that should be combined. The mayor insists
that the West Midlands Police being in special measures is
somehow the fault of the police and crime commissioner. Both
sides of this House know full well that the police and crime
commissioner has no operational control over the police force.
That the police force is in special measures is in no way related
to the capabilities of the police and crime commissioner
anyway.
What worries me about this power grab on behalf of the
Conservative Party is where we will go as far as the West
Midlands is concerned if the jobs are combined and the police and
crime commissioner finds that he does not have the time or space
to do the mayoral role as well. Obviously, given that the
Government have already overthrown—or intend to overthrow—the
result of an election, the answer is not very far.
I have a vision of the future so far as the West Midlands is
concerned. I do not know whether the West Midlands Police band is
still in existence, but given the propensity for publicity of the
outgoing mayor, I can imagine that band, if it exists, marching
down Broad Street in Birmingham, led by the mayor and police and
crime commissioner in his best uniform banging a big drum to a
patriotic tune—“Lillibullero” perhaps—and blowing his own trumpet
in the way that only he can.
This is a power grab; it ought to be resisted, and I will be
supporting my noble friend’s amendment. I am grateful for the
reference to the Companion from the noble Lord opposite. When he
has been here a few more years, he might know better.
(CB)
My Lords, I was alerted to this strange case by the noble Lord,
, when he raised it in our debates
in October. I still know very little about it that I have not
learned from his speeches, and from the excellent report by the
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee under the noble Lord,
. It is a very strange
story and I worry that I am beginning to think I am getting
cynical in my old age.
The Home Office tells us that the purpose of the exercise is to
create a joined-up approach. I do not think this is about joining
up; it is about stitching up. It seems to me that the purpose of
the exercise is to connive at the hostile takeover that the mayor
wants to conduct. I am not sure that we should be conniving.
There is another issue as well, which is the role of the Home
Office. Thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s
pursuit of the matter, we have a marvellous “Sir Humphrey” letter
from the Permanent Secretary in the Home Office—this is an area
in which I do have expertise. It is a wonderful letter that
reveals that in the Home Office—how should they know?—they were
completely unaware of the requirement for a consultation. They
were totally in the dark, because those rotters down the road at
the levelling up department failed to tell them—shocking. Did
they not read the speech given by the noble Lord, , on 23 October? We voted on the
matter, and he spoke particularly on this case—this was the case
he drew to our attention. Do they not read Hansard in the Home
Office?
I think this consultation was a sham. I think that the Home
Secretary did not care what it revealed, because as soon as he
got the answer and the answer was, on the whole, “No, we’d rather
not—forget it”, he immediately proceeded to approve the hostile
take- over. He just picked up his decision from December and,
within days of receiving the outcome of the consultation, he
said, “Well, I don’t really care what you think; we’re going to
go ahead and do this”. He was conniving at a stitch-up; I do not
think that we should connive at a stitch-up, so I shall support
the noble Lord’s amendment.
(Lab)
My Lords, most of my points have been made, but I will make just
one or two. First, when a PCC election happened in 2021, the PCC
said clearly in his manifesto that there should be a
free-standing PCC and that the PCC should not be taken over by
the mayor. He supported that position, but his opponent said that
he disagreed and that the role should be taken over by the mayor.
He made it quite clear during the last election that this is what
he supported.
My second point—most of it has been made—is that, during the
public consultation last January, the present PCC asked the mayor
for a public debate on this issue, but the mayor chickened out.
He would not come out and debate with the present PCC on it.
Thirdly, this decision by the Home Secretary is contrary to the
good principle of the Electoral Commission that before any
changes to the election system there should be at least six
months’ notice—that is not there. Those are my points, and I will
support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, .
(Con)
My Lords, I came slightly late to the debate—for which I
apologise—and, because of that, I shall be extremely brief. I
have listened to all that has been said. I have looked very
carefully at the excellent report by our all-party Select
Committee with the noble Lord, , in the chair, and I
find it quite impossible to suppress feelings of deep disquiet
and concern about the way the Home Office has conducted itself in
this matter.
(LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, , has again brought the attention
of this House to this difficult issue.
I want to emphasise just three points. First, in this country, we
have a noble approach to policing, which is policing by consent.
It seems to me that policing by consent should also include
policing by consent of our elected local representatives. In this
case, that is clearly not there. All the constituent authorities
agreed to oppose this merger—this amalgamation—of the two
roles.
My second point is about local accountability. We know that the
police service in the West Midlands spends a great deal of local
public money, and there ought to be local accountability. I live
in West Yorkshire, so I know how this will operate. The elected
Mayor of West Yorkshire has also taken over the role of the
police and crime commissioner and has appointed an unelected
person to fulfil the role of what was formerly an elected police
and crime commissioner, at a considerable salary.
The only way that local people can call to account the policing
of their area is through the police and crime panel, which, as
the Minister read out, has some quite limited powers to do so,
including looking at the policing plan, which is drawn together
by the police and crime commissioner or the mayor and the chief
constable, and checking whether they are fulfilling it. That is
inadequate, when those people are seeking to reduce crime and
safeguard the lives of local people. Policing by consent has
failed in this instance and accountability is totally
inadequate.
8.30pm
My third point is about process. I am not a great one for process
and I admire people who follow it closely. This report from the
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is the most excoriating
report that I can remember reading. At every stage of this
process, the committee has condemned what happened in the
politest way that it can, but we can read between the lines. We
know it is saying that it is inadequate that due process has
failed. If we are to have a Government on whom we can rely to
follow the rules, they have failed. If they have failed and have
been found out, which they have, they need to put their hands up,
say they are sorry and that they failed, and withdraw this
decision to amalgamate the PCC with the elected Mayor of the West
Midlands.
All of us on these Benches will support the noble Lord, , if he wishes to test the opinion
of the House on this matter, but I urge the Government to listen
carefully to what has been said on every side of the House about
how this decision has been made and resolve to go back to the
Home Office to say, “This will not do; we will have to think
again”.
(Lab)
My Lords, we on this side of the House consistently support
directly elected mayors. We also support them having police and
crime powers when boundaries make this appropriate. However, it
is not a remarkable point to make that we also believe that,
first, the Government should act within the rules set out for
them and by them; secondly, that local leaders should be brought
along with any proposed changes; and, thirdly, that due and
democratic processes should be respected and that consultations
should be entered into in good faith, with the intention of
listening and reporting back to Parliament in a transparent
manner.
It is right that the Government explain not only the initial
oversight in terms of the statutory duty but the manner in which
the consultation took place. I request that the Government
outline how they plan to make this right with local leaders in
the region to make it clear to everyone where they now stand, and
what will happen to regain the confidence of the people of the
West Midlands. Will the Minister commit to further consultation?
More widely, and with more regulations to come, I ask the
Minister to outline how he will ensure that this approach will
not be repeated.
Proper devolution demands that the Government work with local
communities and bring on widespread support to produce outcomes
that are right for their areas. It also demands that government
acts effectively across departments when issues cross Whitehall
boundaries. How will the Government ensure that this is done in
future?
Of course, we will support my noble friend. He gave a devastating
speech when he introduced his amendment. I look forward to the
Minister’s response.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will
do my best to address as many of the points that have been raised
as possible.
It is worth recognising the support from the Government and the
Opposition in the other place for the policy of enabling more
directly elected mayors to exercise PCC functions, as the noble
Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just noted. As I outlined in my opening
remarks, the exercise of PCC functions by the Mayor of the West
Midlands will be a significant step forward to realising the
Government’s ambitions, as set out in the levelling up White
Paper, for more combined authority mayors to take on PCC
functions, as is already the case in Greater Manchester and West
Yorkshire, and will be the case in York and North Yorkshire from
this May. We have also introduced a draft order to achieve this
outcome in South Yorkshire.
It is the Government’s view that bringing public safety functions
under the leadership of a combined authority mayor, where it is
possible to do so, has the potential to offer wider levers and a
more joined-up approach to preventing crime. It places the PCC
model and functions at the heart of a wider set of
responsibilities for improving public services, exercised by an
individual who will be directly answerable to the community that
will elect them. It not only preserves the democratic
accountability that underpins the PCC model but with an expanded
role for the mayor comes a higher public profile, increased
visibility and a greater ability to bring about local change.
The fundamental aim of the order is to incorporate the PCC model
within the role of the mayor, maintaining the core principles of
governance and accountability. The Government want to seize the
opportunity to bring together in one elected role the
responsibility for public safety and local regeneration for the
people of the West Midlands.
In areas where there is a PCC and a mayor, both elected
separately by the same constituency, it can confuse democratic
mandates and create barriers to joined-up delivery across a range
of public services for those communities. The statistics the
noble Lord, , cited do not take into
account local circumstances and, therefore, comparisons have
limited utility. None of this means that the West Midlands could
not still be safer and have less crime under the new proposed
system. Incorporating the PCC functions in the office of mayor
creates an opportunity to clarify and enhance the mandate of that
elected individual to make a greater impact across a range of
public services.
As I set out in my introductory speech, the Home Office ran a
public consultation on the proposal to transfer the PCC
functions. The purpose of the consultation was to provide the
Home Secretary with information to help his decision on whether
to proceed with the legislation before us now. While the numbers
for and against the transfer were taken into account by the Home
Secretary, the most helpful aspect of the consultation, for the
purposes of making the decision, was the information provided in
the responses. The Home Secretary’s decision was informed, but
not bound by, the responses to the consultation. In making his
decision, the Home Secretary also had regard to information
concerning the statutory tests and duties relevant to his
decision. Ultimately, the Home Secretary is satisfied that the
making of this order meets the statutory tests required of him. I
say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that
this was not a referendum. He took note of all the information
and made his decision; the information is not binding.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, specifically Section
62, has come up. That amended the consent requirements for the
transfer of PCC functions to existing combined authority mayors
and, instead of the previously required consent of the mayor, the
constituent authorities and the combined authority, only the
consent of the existing mayor is required to make an order
enabling the transfer of the functions. This was decided by
Parliament.
The Government have been clear that the PCC functions may
transfer to a mayor only at the point of a mayoral election; this
ensures that mayors are elected on the basis that they will be
exercising PCC functions, maintaining the democratic principles
of the PCC model. If this legislation is approved by both Houses,
both the incumbent mayor and the PCC would complete their
existing terms of office, and on 2 May the West Midlands
electorate will select a mayor on the basis of them exercising
PCC functions, providing them with a democratic mandate. The
noble Lord, , asserted that Mr
Street will be the PCC, and I sincerely hope the noble Lord is
right, but he will have to make his case to the electorate and
they will determine “who is mates with who”, to quote—I forget
who.
It may already be known to this House—I think the noble Lord,
, referred to it—that the judicial
review launched by the West Midlands Police and Crime
Commissioner on the public consultation and subsequent decision
to transfer the PCC functions to the mayor was heard by the
courts yesterday. Judgment will be reserved until next week, so I
cannot prejudice those ongoing proceedings, but the Government
strongly defended the claim made by the PCC. We are confident
that the public consultation was robust and the Home Secretary’s
decision to enable the transfer was lawful.
Regarding the extent to which this transfer upholds democracy,
the Government have always been clear that PCC functions can
transfer to a mayor only at the point of the mayoral elections,
as I have just said. The way this order enables the transfer is
no different; the first mayor to exercise the functions will not
do so until the May 2024 elections have taken place and they have
taken office—I believe on 7 May. The West Midlands electorate
still has the ability to decide who they wish to see exercise
these PCC functions. The Mayor of the West Midlands will be
elected in May on the basis of exercising those.
A number of noble Lords raised concerns that a mayor may—I use
the word “may” carefully—appoint a deputy mayor to support them
in the exercise of the PCC functions. It was argued that this
might be a dilution of the mandate and accountability of the
role. At this point, I note that the current PCC has appointed
two assistant PCCs. Mayors who exercise PCC functions can appoint
a deputy mayor for policing and crime, but this is something that
PCCs may also do, as I have just said. The ability to appoint a
deputy does not shield mayors from scrutiny at the ballot box;
the mayor will be held to account for the performance of a deputy
they may appoint to support them. Also, not all PCC functions can
be delegated to the deputy PCC; by statute, certain key strategic
functions, such as the issuing of the police and crime plan, the
appointment and suspension of a chief constable, and calculation
of a budget requirement, may exercised only by the mayor
themself.
All noble Lords noted the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny
Committee report on this order, and the concerns raised in that
report. I know the committee has written to the Policing Minister
and the Permanent Secretary to express its concerns. I understand
that both the Minister and Permanent Secretary have responded to
those letters. The committee raised concerns about what it
considered to be the “selective reporting” within the Explanatory
Memorandum that accompanies this order, and I know that the
Policing Minister has responded to address these concerns
directly. But I would like to make it clear that the Explanatory
Memorandum did not deliberately withhold information in any sort
of attempt to selectively report the responses to the
consultation and the views of stakeholders. As is best practice,
the documents clearly outline the views raised as part of the
consultation process, both in support of the transfer and those
that raised concerns. The document also signposts readers to the
Government’s response to the consultation, which has been
published on GOV.UK. It goes into further detail on the concerns
raised by respondents to the consultation and the Government’s
response to those concerns.
As regards to the timing of the order, raised by the noble Lords,
and , I would like to address those
points, particularly in relation to the Gould principle of
electoral management, as referred to by the noble Lord, . Where possible, government
aims to ensure that any legislative changes to elections are
introduced at least six months in advance of those elections, to
give all those involved appropriate notice. In the case of the
West Midlands, government was not able to lay the order six
months in advance of the May 2024 elections. Every step has been
taken to lay as early as possible, and I know officials have been
closely engaged with partners in the West Midlands Combined
Authority and the office of the PCC throughout the process, to
keep them informed as much as possible. I hope noble Lords will
support the order, so we can get one step closer to providing
clarity to the local area, and enable it to deliver orderly
elections in May. As the noble Lord, , noted, as long as that is done
by 21 March, all is in order.
A question has been raised about why the Home Secretary took the
original decision to proceed with the transfer before the
statutory requirements were met. As soon as the Home Secretary
became aware of the statutory requirements of the 2023 Act, he
launched a public consultation and made it clear that he would
retake his decision after he had had due regard to the responses
and after he had considered whether the making of the order would
meet the statutory tests. The order was therefore not laid before
Parliament until the Home Secretary was satisfied that the
statutory requirements of the 2023 Act had been met. I hope I
have dealt with the key points that have been raised. Again, I
thank all those who participated. I beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this
lively and interesting debate. I am very conscious of the time. I
particularly thank the Minister, who had a difficult case to put
and did it with politeness and good humour. I also thank Members
of the House who have been present, as well as those who have
spoken. I will not reply to the comments as I think the case has
been made. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Columns 2117 - 2118is located here
[Division 2
Division on Lord Bach’s amendment
Content
137
Not Content
54
Amendment agreed.
Held on 13 March 2024 at 8.45pm
Motion, as amended, agreed.
|
