POLICE AUTHORITIES (POWERS) (Hansard, 14 November 1979)

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Police Act 1964 and certain other enactments to establish and extend the powers and duties of police authorities in respect of the operations and organisation of police forces. The last major examination of the accountability of the police was by the Royal Commission on the Police which reported in 1962. The Royal Commission discussed at length the relationship between the police and the public. It noted that a chief constable is accountable to no one, and subject to no one's orders, for the way in which for example, he settles his general policies in regard to law enforcement and the concentration of resources on any particular type of crime or area… The question therefore arises whether the status of chief constable should continue in future to shield him from external control in the formulation and application of … police policies … Behind this too lies the broader question whether the community should have some voice through their elected representatives … in the maintenance of law and order. The Royal Commission's conclusion was clear. It stated: It appears to us … that the chief constable should therefore, be subject to more effective supervision than the present arrangements apear to recognise. The Royal Commission led to the Police Act 1964. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Henry Brooke, on Second Reading echoed the Royal Commission's views when he said: The Royal Commission thought … that chief constables are not at present adequately accountable. I agree. Earlier he said: One of the lessons of modern times is that a police system, instituted to defend freedom and maintain law and order, must itself be under effective control."—[Official Report, 26 November 1963, Vol. 685, c. 83–4.] Unfortunately, as the local authorities and some hon. Members said at the time, these good intentions were translated neither into the small print of the Police Act nor into the general philosophy of the Home Office on the accountability of the police. Since the 1964 Act the accountability of the police, far from being increased, has been weakened.

1362 There are other reasons for this lack of accountability than the inadequacy of the Act. First, the size of police forces has increased. In 1962 there were 123 police forces in England and Wales outside the Metropolitan area. Some of those forces covered populations as small as 60,000. Today there are only 41 police forces, each with an average population of 1 million and none with fewer than 400,000. Whatever the other arguments in favour of larger police forces—and I accept that there are some—their size alone tends to distance the police, particularly senior officers, from the public.

It is no coincidence that the loss of accountability and the feeling of greater distance between the senior officers and the public is most apparent in some of the large cities and towns. Manchester. Liverpool and Sheffield are examples. Before 1964 those cities and my constituency, Blackburn, had their own police forces. Each of them was controlled by a watch committee consisting entirely of elected members. Those committees had the power of promotion and dismissal over all the officers down to sergeant and constable. Today those cities are policed by much larger forces which are more remote. They are responsible to police authorities, only two-thirds of whose members are councillors. They have few effective powers.

A second reason for the loss of accountability and for the greater distance between the police and the public is that, as forces have become larger, a new breed of chief constable has developed. They are more assertive of their independence. The Association of Chief Police Officers has, according to The Guardian, adopted a deliberate policy to come out into the open more … attempting to influence public opinion and the courts via the media. Some of the chief constables have not confined themselves to policing policies but have beer, willing to engage in explicit political controversy. The best publicised example of this new breed, although by no means the only one, is the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. James Anderton. Not only has he sought to have the law changed on many questions, but on television recently, when discussing the sex discrimination laws, he pronounced that he 1363 might openly defy the law of the land. That is hardly the example which a chief constable should set.

There are other examples of the new assertiveness of police constables. It has led, and will lead, to increasingly strained relations between police authorities and their chiefs, as it did in South Yorkshire in 1977 and has today on Merseyside. The chief constable of Merseyside, Mr. Oxford, is reported to have told his police authority to keep out of his force's business. The authority has had to set up an inquiry into its powers.

The Police Act has not worked as intended. Today, 15 years after its enactment, it is time to translate the good intentions behind the Act into good practice.

My Bill seeks to make five improvements. First, it seeks to give police authorities the right to decide, subject to two important safeguards, general policing policies for their areas. I believe strongly that elected representatives have the right to a say on the general policing methods adopted in an area, whether they involve policemen on the beat or in panda cars or whether the new vogue of community policing is to be adopted.

I firmly believe, and share the view expressed by the Royal Commission, that chief constables must have independence in the deployment of police in particular cases and public order situations and over the prosecution of cases. There would be two important safeguards to chief constables—first, to delay a police authority decision for a period, and, secondly, to have the right to refer it to the Home Office for a decision where a chief constable thought that it had infringed upon his area of discretion. In that respect, that mechanism is similar to the present mechanism under section 12 of the Police Act 1964.

Secondly, the Bill would give authorities more power to obtain information from chief constables. Their present powers are woefully inadequate. That power would be subject to important safeguards in relation to personal, operational, and security information, and information that would be of use to criminals.

Thirdly, the police authority would have the power of appointment, promotion and dismissal extended downwards 1364 to chief superintendents and superintendents. Technically, the authorities already appoint chief officers. It would extend downwards because in today's large forces the superintendents and chief superintendents are in many respects fulfilling the roles formerly fulfilled by chief constables of the smaller forces.

Fourthly, the police authority's powers to supervise the complaints procedure would be strengthened and duties in respect of complaints against senior officers—which is a subject close to our hearts in Lancashire—would be more clearly specified.

Fifthly, there would be closer consultation and co-operation between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Police and the police authority over the reports that are conducted each year on the police forces.

To those who say that police matters should be kept out of politics, I would say this. The Bill preserves the independence of chief constables over certain cases, but matters of general policing policy have always been, and always will be, a subject of legitimate political concern. In so far as the interest of politicians in general policing policy has been heightened, some chief constables have only themselves to blame. To adapt the late President Truman's injunction to politicians, having got into the political kitchen, chief constables should not now complain about feeling the heat.

It must be accepted also that the politicisation of chief constables is in part inherent in the present system. In some respects chief constables have been forced into politics by their lack of accountability for their decisions. They have become the final arbiters of many crucial policy matters and have been forced to adopt an overtly political role to defend these decisions.

The success of the police depends ultimately not on the number of vehicles, firearms, riot shields or computer terminals available but upon the confidence of the public. I share the view of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. Mr. John Alderson, who earlier this year wrote in The Daily Telegraph: It is of crucial importance that this debate —that is, about the police in a free society— leads to sensible social action if rocketing democracy is not to leave behind an authoritarian police system designed for 19th century 1365 England… The police have to learn to consult the neighbourhood people about their concerns, their wishes and their co-operation". My Bill aims to provide a new framework in which that co-operation can be achieved.