At the risk of becoming a self-parodying member of the House of Lords (or at least of demonstrating an awareness of popular culture as acute as that of the High Court Judge in the mid-1960s who is supposed to have asked bemusedly in Court “What is a Beatle?”), I have to confess that someone who knows has just told me the names of three of the people recently granted ‘super-injunctions’ and I had never heard of two of them.

The House of Lords Second Reading debate on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is scheduled for Wednesday 26th April (with the first day of the Committee stage due on 11th May).  So far, thirty-five members of the House have indicated that they wish to speak.

The list includes all of the former Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police (Lords Imbert, Condon, Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, and Blair of Boughton – the only time they have all spoken in the same debate).  Other former police officers include Lord Dear (a former Chief Constable and a former Assistant Commissioner of the Met), Baroness Jenny Hilton (a former Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner) and Lord Brian Mackenzie (a former President of the Police Superintendents’ Association).  Then there are two current Police Authority members (myself and Baroness Doocey) and at least three former members (Baroness Ruth Henig, Baroness Harris of Richmond (no relation) and Lord Bradshaw).  And a former Home Secretary, a former Chief Inspector of Prisons and so on and on.

It will make for an interesting debate and probably a difficult afternoon and evening for the Minister responding , Baroness Neveille-Jones.

The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM DCiC*, Chair of the MPA and putative Deputy MOPC**, is in the Chair.

Most of the first hour of the meeting has been spent on two individual cases – one more than twenty years old (the murder of Daniel Morgan) and the second much more recent (the death of Smiley Culture during a police raid) – with a strong presence in the City Hall Gallery from members of the respective families and their supporters.

The emotions of both families were understandably raw.  The Morgan family heard a clear apology from the Metropolitan Police for past failures and an agreement from the Authority to call for a judicial inquiry into the case, following the collapse of the recent prosecution.  The other case is being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but elicited a commitment from the MPA Chair to meet the family and express condolences and to press the IPCC for a speedy and thorough investigation.

What was significant, of course, was that the Police were being visibly called to account in a public forum.  (Apart from these two cases the meeting also spent considerable time on the length of time it took for Delroy Grant to be brought to justice for a a string of horrific rapes and assaults on vulnerable elderly people and the policing of the massive demonstration last Saturday.)

This visible answerability will disappear with the Government’s proposals to abolish Police Authorities and it is not clear that the new arrangements will provide any real substitute.

The Metropolitan Police will be accountable to the MOPC, but this accountability will essentially be conducted in private.  The MOPC will be scrutinised by a committee of the London Assembly, but this will be a political forum and there will be no obligation on the Police to attend those sessions and answer questions.

It is the Government’s contention that accountability will be sharper and more effective as a result of the new structure.

However, like justice, accountability must not only be done but be seen to be done.

If there is no visible answerability, there is a real risk that anger and frustration will fester and police-community relations will suffer.

*    Dog-Catcher-in-Chief

**  Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime

Peter Bingle is the Chairman of Bell Pottinger Public Affairs and is widely regarded as someone both close to and with a wide understanding of what makes the Conservative Party tick.

That is why his blogpost, “A musing about the politics of policing in modern Britain…”, is so interesting.  He makes the point that the Conservative Party of today is taking a rather different approach to policing from its predecessors:

“These are difficult days indeed for the police service. There is no longer a Michael Howard as Home Secretary. Howard believed that being a policeman was special. He respected the Office of Constable and successfully fought off attempts (initiated by his predecessor Ken Clarke!) to fundamentally alter the structure, pay and conditions of the police service. Ironically one of special advisers at the time of the Sheehy Inquiry was a certain David Cameron.

There was a time when the police service was special for the Tory Party. Law and Order was their issue. It was one of the things that differentiated the Tory Party from its political opponents. Tory Home Secretaries such as Willie Whitelaw, Douglas Hurd, Leon Brittan and even David Waddington understood the importance of the police in civil society. It took that old bruiser Ken Clarke to decide to take them on. He saw the Police Federation as an over powerful trade union which needed to be tamed and the police service as inefficient, expensive and non-productive. The saviour of both the Federation and the service was Michael Howard.  ….

We are now at a moment in time when the coalition is able to reduce the number of police officers and alter pay and conditions with apparent ease. Nobody appears to be speaking for up for the police service.

Policemen are being treated in the same way as cleaners in schools and hospitals. They are part of a public sector which is too large. It must therefore be cut. The police are no longer seen as special. When did you last hear a politician talking about the Office of Constable? Does it not follow that if the police are the same as everybody else in the public sector that they too should have the right to strike? I don’t think they should but it is possible to make a pretty cogent argument in support.

The politics of this are interesting. In the years ahead as the spending cuts start to bite there is the possibility (I put it no higher than that) of civil disorder in certain parts of the country. The police will be called upon to protect the peace and maintain the rule of law. It is therefore essential that the police service is well funded with high levels of morale. Otherwise the consequences could be disastrous.

There was a time when Tory ministers used to boast about increasing the number of police officers. That is no longer the case. Nowadays Tory ministers talk about how it is perfectly possible to reduce the number of police officers whilst protecting the front line. There was a time when The Sun and other newspapers used to talk about protecting the thin blue line. They do so no more.”

An intriguing warning, but it is also noticeable that the police service has yet to wake up fully to the fact that, as one Home Office civil servant put it to me a few months ago:

“ACPO don’t seem to realise that for the first time for over thirty years they have a Government that does not only not respect them but in many ways holds them in contempt.”

And it reminds me of what I once heard David Davis MP say:

“If I was Home Secretary, there is not a single Chief Constable I would want to keep.”

The Islington Gazette has the headline of the week:

“Holloway teen jailed after police discover crack in his bum”

Hat tip: Snipe

In House of Lords Question Time earlier today Baroness Neville-Jones, the Minister of State for Security, was asked what discussions the Government have had with the police about the use of undercover operations in relation to environmental protest groups.  Her initial answer was:

“My Lords, decisions on intelligence gathering are operational matters for chief officers working within the relevant legal framework. The Government do not discuss with the police the use of undercover operations in relation to environmental protest groups. The Home Office has spoken to Nottinghamshire Police about the next steps in this case, which has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is talking to ACPO and HMIC about which body is in the best position to undertake a review of the wider lessons to be learnt.”

Later, however, I asked:

“Can the noble Baroness confirm that all such operations would require RIPA authorisation, and what level of authorisation is required? Can she also tell us whether there is an expectation that such operations would be subject to regular internal review at a senior level regarding whether they were still appropriate and proportionate in the light of circumstances?”

This elicited the following response:

“RIPA—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—specifies how that should be done. The authorisation has to be by a senior officer. There has to be a regular instruction and record kept and there are various other procedures in the Act which are designed to manage and control the operation. I do not think that it is the framework that is lacking.”

So the message was clear: the Government sees no need to change the rules governing such operations.

Footnote:

It is interesting how Baroness Neville-Jones seems to try the patience of the House.  The answer to another supplementary question was interrupted by cries – from the Government benches – of  “Too long”.  This was recorded by Hansard as follows:

“Baroness Neville-Jones: My noble and learned friend makes a very important point. As I mentioned, governance in this area is a very important element. I must say that the police agree. The chief constable of West Midlands himself has said that the line is not to be crossed between infiltration to gather intelligence and the agent provocateur. He is quite right.

As to the codes of practice, the legal framework is provided for by regulations contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. There is also a code of conduct and practice, which has been published by the Home Office under the previous Government, on how covert human intelligence sources should operate. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners has also provided procedural and interpretational advice.

Noble Lords: Too long!

Baroness Neville-Jones: I am telling the House what I think that it would like to know: what the governance arrangements are.”

This follows an earlier incident on 21st December when the House was so dissatisfied with her answer to points made in debate that it agreed by 156 votes to 112 to adjourn “to allow the noble Baroness the Minister to seek further advice so that the House may be allowed to hear the response that she should have given to noble Lords”

The Conservative Coalition came under sustained fire from all sides in the House of Lords this afternoon over the proposal to abolish the role of the Chief Coroner – a proposal tucked away in the Public Bodies Bill.

My contribution, in support of an amendment from Baroness Finlay of Llandaff that had the effect of removing the proposal to abolish the role from the Bill, was as follows:

“My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the advisory panel on deaths in custody. That is relevant because the panel made recommendations on the back of the legislation that created the role of the chief coroner that were endorsed by the ministerial board on deaths in custody.

There are a number of reasons why Amendment 26 should be supported. The first relates to process. Whereas the passage of the Coroners and Justice Act involved a very long process in this House that included a considerable period of debate on what was a major piece of legislation, the Public Bodies Bill seeks to overturn by means of what is almost a footnote—one line in Schedule 1—all the work that was done in both Houses, which considered the issues in great detail. In addition, the Coroners and Justice Act was regarded by many people as long overdue. The process point is whether it is right and proper that such a major piece of legislation should be dismembered by a single line in the Bill.

The second process point is that we have had no adequate explanation of why the Government regard the proposed abolition as being able to produce significant savings. I am aware that every death in custody costs the taxpayer, on average, £500,000 or so for the investigation process and all that goes with it. A good and effective coronial service that picks up the lessons from deaths in custody could easily save substantial sums of money. One of the problems, on which my panel made recommendations about the role of the chief coroner, is the need to draw out at national level the material that emerges from narrative verdicts and from Rule 43 reports and to identify the best practice that emerges from those.

Another reason why my panel felt that the role of the chief coroner is important is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has just referred to—the impact that delays can have on families. One issue that concerns me and the panel that I chair is the very long period that can elapse before a proper hearing or inquest is held into the deaths of people who die while in the custody of the state. Sometimes there are good reasons for such delays, but sometimes the reasons are extremely obscure. There is certainly a problem in the allocation of work among coroners. The appointment of a chief coroner provided the possibility of being able to allocate work more rationally by perhaps creating specialist coroners who could look in detail at particular types of death and thereby build up a body of experience. The chief coroner could also draw attention, where necessary, to the fact that some coroners might be inadequately resourced by local authorities, which is the mechanism by which coroners are funded.

Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the charter for bereaved people, I understand that the coalition Government have said that they wish to make the charter even stronger. However, the key point about the charter is that, if a bereaved person feels that their charter rights have not been met, there is a mechanism or route that they can go to, which involves the chief coroner. Exactly how will that mechanism be strengthened in future?

We are assured that, by some magical process, civil servants in the Ministry of Justice will be able to fulfil the role that will now not be fulfilled by the chief coroner. How exactly will that be done? I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will give us chapter and verse on how that will happen. Like all other government departments, central administration in the Ministry of Justice is being reduced by 20, 30 or 40 per cent. Perhaps some of these things could have been done by Ministry of Justice civil servants before those reductions, but given that that has not happened, why should we believe that somehow, with reduced resource in future, the benefits that would have accrued from a chief coroner will magically be delivered from within the Ministry of Justice? The noble Baroness’s amendment deserves the support of the House.”

There were powerful contributions from Viscount Slim:

“After any military action, it is a fairly awesome job—not a pleasant job and a very moving job—to gather one’s dead who have made the supreme and final sacrifice for King or Queen and country. They are dead. Dead is dead. Why then does it take one, two, three or more years to declare such a person, man or woman, officially dead? What about the grieving widow? What about the mother? What about the family waiting, not really understanding what a coroner’s inquest is, not being told, not being supported, not being moved to the inquest, not being paid for, not being looked after? That is one of the reasons why we need a chief coroner.

We need a leader in this outfit somewhere. We need someone who can administer, speed the process and make certain that everything is done more speedily and correctly. The chief coroner must be rather special. He must be a leader and an administrator. I do not mind whether he is a judge or not, but he must be competent. He must grip these coroners who are scattered around the country, a little lethargic and not necessarily working every day of the week. There needs to be a little bit of cohesion here. The chief coroner is vital.

Is an unproven, newly constituted Ministry of Justice good enough to do this? I do not think so. Who is the leader who will emerge from this legal morass? I wonder. I do not think that this is possible. Surely the Government have heard enough today to realise that they are on the wrong track and that there has to be a chief coroner.”

And from Baroness Butler-Schloss:

“My Lords, I declare an interest as a former assistant deputy coroner—something that I did for as short a period as I could. Coroners, like judges and judicial officers, sit alone and quite often become isolated. If they always sit in the same place, there is a danger that their arrangements will not be consistent with those of adjoining coroners or indeed of coroners in other parts of the country.

Coroners receive a certain amount of training, as did I. As far as it went, it was good but it was not sufficient. The advantage for judges and judicial officers is that not only do they have the Judicial Studies Board but, infinitely more important, at the top of the ladder is the Lord Chief Justice, and under him are senior judges who keep the standards up and give very important guidance. That is absolutely essential. The purpose of the chief coroner and the deputies beneath him or her is to give important guidance to individual coroners right around the country who sit on their own and are isolated, and to offer guidance and keep the standards up, as the standards also vary. Losing a post not yet filled would leave coroners to carry on without that necessary help. It would also deny the public a sufficiently good coronial system.

In answer to a Question asked at Question Time some weeks ago, the Minister said that the guidance would be given by the Ministry of Justice. Like judicial officers and indeed judges, coroners are independent, and it is just not good enough for the Ministry of Justice to offer guidance to those who sit in a judicial or semi-judicial capacity. It just will not do. The Minister clearly did not understand—or perhaps, rather more importantly, the Ministry of Justice did not understand—that the sort of guidance it would give would not be good enough. Judges would not accept it, and why on earth should coroners accept it when it is possible to have a much better system? It is clear to me that the roles of chief coroner and the deputy coroners and so on are essential, as set out so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and that this amendment absolutely deserves to be carried.”

A number of Tories and Liberal Democrats also indicated their dissent with the Conservative Coalition’s proposals (although most abstained rather than voted against the Government).  However, the vast majority of the cross-benchers voted for the amendment and in the event the Government was defeated by 277 votes to 165.

When the Home Secretary’s statement on last week’s student protests was repeated today in the House of Lords by the Leader of the House, Lord Strathclyde, I asked about the fencing around Parliament Square, which was pulled up and used to attack police officers, and about the failure to board up statues (as has happened on previous occasions when there have been big demonstrations).

This was the exchange:

“Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and it would therefore probably be inappropriate for me to ask any questions about the detailed policing arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, raised the issue of the tented community opposite the Houses of Parliament and I would also like to ask about Parliament Square. I believe that the arrangements for who is in charge of what in Parliament Square are immensely complicated, but my understanding is that the grassed area in particular is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, and I assume therefore that the fences surrounding the grassed area are the mayor’s responsibility as well. It was those fences which were broken down and used as weapons against the police. Given that for previous demonstrations the statues in the square were boarded up—particularly the statue of Sir Winston Churchill—I was surprised that that was not done on this occasion. What representations have the Government made to the Mayor of London about his stewardship of Parliament Square under such circumstances?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that responsibility for Parliament Square was handed over to the GLA when it was set up, and therefore to the Mayor of London, so I can confirm that there is a confusing and sometimes disjointed ownership of different parts of the square. The grass is the responsibility of the mayor and the GLA, while the pavements are the responsibility of Westminster City Council. I can also confirm that the fences were therefore the responsibility of the GLA. The noble Lord might well ask why other precautions were not taken to protect the statues or to firm up the fences, but these are precisely the questions that not only the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police but also his commanders on the ground will be posing. No doubt we will learn lessons from that.”

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mayor Boris Johnson should have done more.  Another example of needing to get a grip on the details?

i hadn’t noticed it until tonight, but just opposite Pentonville Prison on the Caledonian Road is a cafe called ‘Break Out’.
I wonder if they get much passing trade.

I have just been to an event organised by the Probation Association for MPs and Peers to meet probation trust chairs and chief executives.  The intention was to broaden the understanding by Parliamentarians of probation – often regarded as the Cinderella of the criminal justice system.  This was a laudable intention and there was a good turnout of members of both Houses.

What was striking, however, was how mono-ethnic the probation trust chief executives were.  I spoke to Beverley Thompson, whom I first knew when she chaired the Metropolitan Police’s Independent Advisory Group.  She is now the Acting Chief Executive of Northamptonshire Probation.  However, as far as I could tell, she is the only black chief executive in the country – and an acting one at that.

Given the probation service’s workforce and the make-up of their clientele, I find this lack of senior black probation leaders surprising and depressing – it’s a bit like the Police Service.