Metropolitan Police Commissioner slams the Home Office, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Ministers, Shadow Ministers and just about everyone else

The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM is in the Chair.  Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is answering questions on his report and he has taken the opportunity to say:

“Phrases like ‘front-line policing’ are designed to mislead.”

He is clearly refreshed by his period away and ready to take on the Home Office, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Ministers, Shadow Ministers and plenty of others – all of whom have used the phrase in recent months.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner highlights civil liberties dilemma in public order policing

The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM is in the chair.

In his oral report to the Authority, the Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, talked about some of the recent big public eventsin London and the dilemmas for public order policing.  The Metropolitan Police have a duty to maintain public order and have been criticised for potential infringements of the civil liberties of those exercising their right to protest (and those caught up in the protests) by the tactics used including kettling/containment of groups for several hours.  He pointed out that with “perfect intelligence” the need for such tactics would be reduced (as potential breaches of public order and potential perpetrators could be identified in advance and appropriate action taken), but the obtaining of that degree of intelligence would also involve a significant encroachment of civil liberties.

He raises some important issues and ones which need public debate.  At present, whatever they do the police are criticised on the one hand as being heavy-handed in the way in which they handle demonstrations or for having too many police officers deployed for what turn out to be perfectly orderly events, or on the other hand that they have lost control of the streets and allowed demonstrators to run amok to disrupt businesses and damage property.  No doubt, a greater investment in obtaining intelligence would also lead to criticism even though it might be a much more cost-effective use of resources.

A cheerful Sir Paul Stephenson returns to a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority after a gap of five months

The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM is in the Chair.  The Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, was in attendance after his absence for five months following complex (and painful) surgery on his leg.  He was sporting a fetching and elegant walking stick, which will no doubt soon to be authorised by the Home Office as approved police equipment.

He is known not to enjoy his public appearances at City Hall and his sense that somebody is out to get him will not have been helped by his chair collapsing underneath him as soon as he leant back, prompting a growl from his Deputy, Tim Godwin, “Don’t break anything else”.

Despite that, he continued smiling (some of his predecessors would have no doubt instigated a forensic examination of the chair to identify whether anyone had removed a screw) and launched into his report.  It will be interesting to see whether he is smiling as much in two hours time ….

Vigil for missing children outside City Hall as Metropolitan Police Authority meets

The Metropolitan Police Authority meets tomorrow at City Hall for the first time since the Prime Minister instructed/encouraged/invited/asked the Commissioner to consider a review of the Madeleine McCann case.  And outside there will be a vigil to remember all missing children attended by relatives and campaigners.  Several MPA members (including Jenny Jones AM and Jennette Arnold AM) have already announced they will be joining them.

I am sure that those campaigners and relatives will be asking whether the cases in which they are concerned can be reviewed by the Metropolitan Police in the same way that the Madeleine McCann case is to be.  And this is hardly surprising.

The Commissioner will no doubt tonight be polishing up his answers as to why he made the operational decision (without being pressurised by a politician, of course) that the McCann case should be reviewed and whether the same factors will apply to the other cases.

He will also no doubt remind the Authority that the Home Office has offered to pay for the costs of the investigation.  This is, I am sure, a welcome contribution to the Met’s budget, but will this cover only the additional costs of the investigation or will it cover the costs of the salaries of the detectives engaged in the review and, if so, where will the replacement detectives be found to cover the work that those detectives would otherwise have done?

And was this offer of financial assistance a factor in the operational decision that the Commissioner made to have this review?  And, if it was a factor, does the offer to pay guarantee anyone else a Metropolitan Police case review?  Might be a nice little earner.

I am sure the Commissioner has also given thought to what will happen after the review has been concluded.  Will the review be shared with the McCann’s?  And, if not, what is the purpose of the review?  I am confident that all will be made clear tomorrow.

What have the Home Office got to hide?

On 21st March I tried to table the following question in the House of Lords:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government to list all meetings held by Home Office Ministers with (a) the Mayor of London and/or the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and with (b) the Commissioner and/or Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police since May 2010.”

This got converted by the Table Office to:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what meetings have been held by Home Office Ministers with (a) the Mayor of London or the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and with (b) the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police since May 2010.”

This should have been answered by 4th April.

On Monday of this week (16th May – ie six weeks after it should have been answered) it appeared on the list of Questions for Written Answer as the Lords’ question (to any Government department) that was most overdue.

Later the same day, the following non-answer was provided:

“Since May 2010 Home Office ministers have met regularly with (a) the Mayor of London or the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and with (b) the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, to discuss poliicing matters and policing in London.”

So it took eight weeks to provide a non-answer.  Maybe a Freedom of Information Act request would have (a) been quicker and (b) elicited more information.

I will try again with:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government (further to written answer HL7906) to state on what dates meetings were held by Home Office Ministers with (a) the Mayor of London and/or the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and with (b) the Commissioner and/or Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police since May 2010.”

Just asking …… who is responsible for sacking LibDem ministers?

No doubt the constitutional experts know the answer to this …

Obviously, this is all hypothetical.  But just suppose a LibDem minister was accused – plausibly – of trying to pervert the course of justice, who would make the decision that they could no longer continue as a member of the Government?  Would it be the Prime Minister or would he have to ask the Deputy Prime Minister’s permission?

As I say, I’m just asking  ……..

Read an interesting review in The Guardian ….

I was going to comment on an extremely perceptive review by David Marquand of Vernon Bogdanor’s “The Coalition and the Constitution” which appears on page 8 of the Guardian’s Review section.  But after ten minutes of unsuccessfully trying to find it on so that I could link to it, the urge has passed…….

Sorry about that.

The Prime Minister’s instruction to the Metropolitan Police to review the Madeleine McCann case is in breach of the draft protocol that is supposed to protect the operational independence of the police

David Cameron has instructed the Metropolitan Police to review the case of Madeleine McCann.  This is in response to an open letter in The Sun and is entirely predictable in terms of the “pulling power” of News International on Government policy.

However, his intervention drives a coach and horses through the draft protocol issued by the Home Office designed to preserve the operational independence of the Police which says:

“The operational independence of the police service, and the decisions made by its operational leadership remain reserved to the Office of Chief Constable and that Office alone.”

Whilst no-one doubts the desirability of doing what can sensibly be done to find out what has happened to Madeleine McCann, I can imagine that the senior leadership of the Metropolitan Police are not exactly happy about this.  It again embroils their officers in a high profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters.

…and by popular request, my speech on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

By popular request (well one person asked for it …), here is my speech from yesterday afternoon’s debate on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill:

“My Lords, I first declare an interest as a member and former chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and also as a vice-president of the Association of Police Authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has given good service to the House today by moving her amendment, if for no other reason than that it will enable us to have a free-ranging debate in Committee. I hope that it will be a useful introduction to the Minister in her new role; it will enable us to rehearse the arguments for her benefit as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is worried that we might pass the amendment, which would be discourteous. However, it would provide an opportunity for-in the current jargon of the coalition-a pause. Apparently pauses are a good thing because they allow the coalition partners to consider whether they are departing on precisely the right track. This would be useful in the context of the Bill. The central objective that the Government have put before us of improving the democratic accountability of the police service is right. I hope that no one in the House would disagree with the principle. The question is whether the mechanism that has been put forward will achieve that objective, or whether it will have unintended consequences. The work of this Committee over the next few weeks or months may be to look in some detail at how this will work in practice, and whether there could be unintended consequences.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, I have no problem with the principle of direct election. I work on the basis that elections are a rather good way of determining who should have ultimate responsibility for things. However, what distinguishes this proposal is that we are talking about the direct election of an individual who will be given tremendous responsibilities, but without a suitable governance structure to prevent a situation in which the individual might make capricious judgments or seek to trespass on the operational independence that chief constables hold so dear. The Bill would give an individual tremendous authority, but without the governance structures, checks and balances that would be necessary given the importance of the role.

When I chaired the police authority in London, I would have welcomed the additional authority that would have been given to me had I been directly
elected to fulfil the role. I was a directly elected member of the London Assembly, but that was slightly different from being directly elected to be in charge of the police service for London. I would have welcomed that additional authority. No doubt it would have been helpful to my relationship with the commissioner of police for the metropolis, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who has just left us. It would have been particularly important for my relationship with other elected colleagues such as other members of the London Assembly, local council leaders and so forth. I would have been able to say, “This gives me the authority on behalf of the people of London to say what is necessary”, but I would have been operating in the context of checks and balances on what I could and could not do. I would have had other authority members and the scrutiny processes that were in place with the London Assembly. Therefore, it would not have been untrammelled power. I would have had that responsibility and extra authority, but there would have been these mechanisms around.

What is so striking about this Bill is that those mechanisms are virtually absent. We will be told that the policing and crime panels offer that substitute governance structure, but they are essentially scrutiny bodies after the event. They are not part of the decision-taking structure and are not there, except in extremis, to say that a decision has been taken inappropriately. The spirit of partnership with other colleagues is so crucial in this area.

5 pm

There is nothing wrong with the principle of direct election, and if that is something that the Government feel is absolutely central to what they are trying to achieve here, that is fine, but around this single individual, if that is what we are to have, there must be a proper governance structure. The danger is that because a number of us, perhaps in all parts of the House, have concerns about the single individual, we will set around that individual not mechanisms of good governance, but limits to their authority and to their ability to make the police service accountable to the local community. The danger is that those extra mechanisms may reduce the quality of accountability and the extent to which the police are accountable to their local communities. If you simply say, “We will give the policing and crime panel more of an opportunity to have a go at the policing and crime commissioner”, that is all well and good, but let us be quite clear that they will then be very political environments. You will have an elected politician, and I share the view that this will almost certainly be someone from a political party. It may exceptionally not be, but it will usually be, and if it is not, it will make the matter worse because they will then be dealing with a policing and crime panel that will be virtually entirely made up of elected politicians from the various political parties. This will then be a party-political forum in which the aim will be to criticise the decisions of the policing and crime commissioner. It will all be good fun, but it will do nothing about the accountability of the police service.

In the Second Reading debate, I referred to the last meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority that I attended. It was an example of the visible answerability
of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in that there was a series of major items with which the public were seriously engaged. It required the acting commissioner to make a public apology to those present and, through the media, to London as a whole for failures in respect of two investigations. In one instance, the family of the person who had been murdered was present to hear that apology. That is something you throw away at your peril. There was also a large group there that was concerned about the death of Smiley Culture. The sight of the police being seen to be answerable to people representing the public is very important in incidents of that sort. The danger, the unintended consequence, of the Government’s attempt to improve the democratic accountability of the police may be that you lose that visible answerability and that opportunity for different sections of the community to come together. We have not heard an answer about how that is to be replicated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, suggested at Second Reading that the occasions when the chief officer of police meets the elected policing and crime commissioner could perhaps be held in public, but I do not see how that can work. It is a discussion à deux. There would be TV crews and newspaper reporters would be taking notes. This is not the way accountability operates. We are talking about how you recreate that visible answerability and provide a mechanism whereby an individual elected to this important role is protected from acting capriciously or unnecessarily. I am not suggesting that, in the way of former Roman emperors, they should have somebody going around whispering in their ear that they were mortal, but if there are to be people elected by perhaps 1 million people in some of the larger police areas who have that direct responsibility and no governance structure around them, there has to be some mechanism which reminds them of their wider responsibility and helps them to avoid making capricious decisions or decisions which favour one part of a community rather than another. That is why that structure is needed around what is proposed.

The Government are not wrong to pursue the principle of direct election, nor are they wrong to pursue the principle of improving democratic accountability, but it is important that they get the mechanism right. I am happy to support the amendment because it provides an opportunity to pause and look in more detail at how these mechanisms might be made to work effectively. The Government are in danger of weakening the principle of accountability and of making visible answerability disappear. Under the circumstances, the principle of British policing based on consent, where people can see that the police service is operating in their interests and those of the whole community, is in danger of being thrown away. That is why the amendment and the discussions that we will be having in Committee are so important.”