Chief Constables (Hansard, 22 April 2002)

§ 2. Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell)
If he will make a statement on the operational independence of chief constables. [47061]

§ The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)
The police are under a duty to enforce the law, but chief officers have wide discretion in how they apply their resources to achieve that. No Minister or police authority may instruct a chief officer of police on whether or how they should act in relation to a particular case or individual. The House knows that the measures being sought by the Government to tackle persistent poor performance do not alter that principle.

§ Chris Grayling
The Minister is aware that among those who have raised concerns about the reform 6 proposals are chief constables themselves, who believe that they intrude significantly on their operational independence. He is also aware that bringing the senior people—in this case, the chief constables—on board quickly is essential in developing any process of change. Why has he failed to get them behind his process of change?

§ Mr. Denham
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, last week, the Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed the amendments that the Government introduced in another place. Sadly, that message was not heeded by all parties there, but we listened and responded, and our response has been welcomed.

§ Ross Cranston (Dudley, North)
Is not our constitutional provision that there should be no political interference or interference with the operational performance of the police sacrosanct, and have not the Government made that absolutely clear? Will not the power be used very exceptionally—sonce in a blue moon? Does my right hon. Friend understand the criticism? The chief executive officers of our major industries and the heads of public services are out of the door if they do not perform. What is the difference with the police? I cannot understand the argument for it; can my right hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Denham
My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Of course it is right to listen to the debate about operational independence—indeed, that is why, for the first time ever, the principle that I set out earlier has been stated in the Police Reform Bill—but another issue must be taken into account. What do a Government say to a community, a town or an inner-city area that for a long time has not received the quality policing and, therefore, the protection from crime, criminals and the fear of crime that it deserves? In such circumstances, surely Ministers who stand at the Dispatch Box must be able to say, "If necessary, we will act." That is precisely what the Bill sets out to achieve. Everybody should understand that the Opposition parties that oppose the proposal are saying to such people, "We will not lift a finger to help you, no matter what problems you face."

§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)
The Minister referred to the Government amendments introduced in another place, but was it not disingenuous to fail to recognise that the only reason for their introduction was pressure from Conservative Members in another place? Do not the Government recognise that what remains a concern for chief constables and for many in another place and on these Benches—clause 5 of the Police Reform Bill—will lead only to increased centralisation and still gives the Home Secretary power to interfere in what chief constables want to do? Having made welcome changes in response to pressure from us, will he go further and accept what we are saying about clause 5?

§ Mr. Denham
As I understand it, the Conservative party has said that it does not want clause 5 in the Bill, and it has no intention of ever doing anything about the problems of policing a particular community, no matter how deep-seated they may be.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to use the centralisation tag. The Government are working with the police to deliver what they want. They said that they wanted more 7 police officers, and we have provided the resources that have delivered record numbers of police officers—there will be 130,000 next year. The police said that we should cut down on the things that hamper them in their fight against crime, so we have introduced video identity parades to replace the old-style parades that took weeks to organise and enabled people to evade being brought to justice. They told us that we should speed up the courts, so we have halved the time that it takes for a young offender to go from arrest to sentence. They told us, in London in particular, that they want community support officers to free other officers to fight street crime. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, far from backing the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Minister is not here to answer for the Opposition parties.

§ Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)
I represent a community of exactly the sort to which the Minister referred. It has been historically let down by its chief constable and its police officers have work loads much greater than those of other police officers in the same police authority. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that communities such as Slough which—on any statistical analysis—expect their police officers to work twice as hard as other police officers in the same police authority, get a better standard of policing?

§ Mr. Denham
I believe that the whole package of police reform measures will enable the problems of particular communities and towns to be tackled not just through the powers that we seek in clause 5, but through greater flexibility in the way in which the police are rewarded, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just referred. All policing jobs are difficult and demanding, but some are even more so. That should be recognised in the employment and rewards of police officers. The whole package will make it much easier for the police service and chief constables to address those problems.