Police Reform Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 15 April 2002)

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 43: Page 6. line 4, leave out "such" and insert "with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other"
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I can be brief. Clause 6 and its equivalent for the National Crime Squad relate to the regulation of equipment. Under the original wording, the Home Secretary would be required to consult, such persons as he thinks fit before making regulations under the provisions. In response to concerns expressed in Committee, Amendment No. 43 would make it crystal clear that he was required to consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers of police before regulating equipment. Amendment No. 95 makes the equivalent change to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1. I beg to move.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I welcome the amendment. Although it is in keeping with others, it is no less welcome for that. I think that the Government are doing a great deal to try to move the Bill along the lines that are being suggested.

§ Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I endorse what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We certainly welcome the amendment.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
moved Amendment No. 44: Page 6, line 18, leave out "operational The noble Lord said: My Lords, many noble Lords expressed concerns about this clause in Committee. Before I explain the intention of these amendments, I should just re-iterate what our intention is in this clause.
Where it would be in the national interest for all police forces to adopt common procedures or practices—but only then—the Home Secretary would lay a regulation before Parliament. By that, we mean where forces need to be able to work closely with one another—where they need to share resources or be able to work in the same way, or where they need to be able, effectively and efficiently, to share information. We have offered the example of the national intelligence model as a means of ensuring that all forces are gathering and handling intelligence material in the same way.
Sadly, criminals do not operate within force boundaries; it would be much easier for us if they did. Forces therefore need to be able quickly and effectively to share robust information on criminals, their modus operandi and their whereabouts. A number of other 785 examples powerfully make the case for this regulation-making power. There may be occasions when adjacent forces need to respond to the same terrorist or firearms incident; an armed robbery, for example, may give rise to a pursuit across force boundaries. It is essential in such circumstances that the officers responding to incidents have received similar training and are deploying similar tactics. There could be a very real risk to the safety of the officers and to members of the public if different approaches to such situations gave rise to any confusion.
We think that there is a strong need for this provision. That need has been acknowledged by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has long argued for more effective machinery to ensure that good practices are adopted across all forces. The association's original concern was that the Bill as drafted did not give sufficient weight to its position as the professional leader of the service. The government amendments, the detail of which I shall come to, have addressed that concern. In a press release issued today, the association stated, We welcome the amendments to the Bill which have been proposed … We particularly welcome the recognition that the leaders of the Service have a key role in giving professional endorsement to any operational codes and regulations". Noble Lords made it quite clear in Committee that this power as currently drafted had the potential to be too far-reaching. We acknowledge that Clause 7 as introduced went rather wider in its effect than we had intended. Accordingly, these amendments seek to narrow the ambit of the regulation-making power and introduce a number of further safeguards to ensure that the views of the service are fully taken into account. First, we have introduced a requirement for the Home Secretary to consult police authorities and chief officers at an early stage to seek their views on whether regulations are needed in any given case.
Secondly, we have spelt out much more clearly what the test will be for regulations under this clause. Regulations may be made only where it is necessary, in the national interest, for the service to adopt common procedures or practices in order to facilitate the carrying out by members of any two or more police forces of joint or co-ordinated operations.
Thirdly, the Central Police Training and Development Authority, in preparing advice for the drawing up of any regulation under this section, is explicitly required to consult police authorities and chief officers.
Fourthly, and perhaps most significantly, the Home Secretary is required to consider not only the advice of the Central Police Training and Development Authority but must also have advice from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary that states that he is satisfied that the making of a regulation is necessary to meet the test I have just set out.
These changes not only bring chief officers and police authorities in at every stage and every level, but also introduce Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary as an independent assessor of whether given regulations are necessary. The amendments to Schedule I introduce like provisions in the case of 786 regulations relating to the National Crime Squad. These Government amendments make significant changes to Clause 7. I should hope that, in the spirit of some of the earlier debates, noble Lords will recognise that and fully endorse the proposed changes. I beg to move.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 51: Page 6, line 19, leave out "operational Page 6, leave out lines 21 to 26. Page 6, line 28, after "from" insert "— (a)the chief inspector of constabulary; and Page 6, line 29, at end insert— () Before seeking advice under subsection (3) the Secretary of State shall consult about his proposal to do so with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; and

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police."
Page 6, line 29, at end insert— () A request for the purposes of subsection (3) may specify a period within which the requested advice is to be provided; and, if a period is so specified, the requested advice must be provided within it. Page 6, line 32, leave out "such" and insert "with—

(a) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other"
Page 6, line 32, at end insert— (4A) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under this section requiring the adoption of any procedure or practice unless—

(a) he has, as respects that procedure or practice, received advice from the Central Police Training and Development Authority and has considered that advice;

(b) the advice of the chief inspector of constabulary states that that inspector is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (4B); and

(c) the Secretary of State himself is satisfied as to those matters.

(4B) Those matters are—

(a) that the adoption of that procedure or practice is necessary in order to facilitate the carrying out by members of any two or more police forces of joint or coordinated operations;

(b) that the making of regulations is necessary for securing the adoption of that procedure or practice; and

(c) that securing the adoption of that procedure or practice is in the national interest."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Dholakia
moved Amendment No. 52: Leave out Clause 7. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already indicated that the amendments tabled by the Government are extremely welcome. I am pleased to be able again to say to the Minister that we recognise 787 that he has listened to the concerns which have been expressed and sought to respond very constructively. For that we are very grateful.
With the government amendments, Clause 7 is a very different animal from that which appeared originally. There are now significant limitations on the extent to which the clause can be employed. For example, there is no longer any reference to "operational matters"; regulations can be made only when they assist forces to collaborate; and HMIC has to certify that the regulations are "in the national interest". We recognise that those are very significant changes. However, these changes make it even more difficult to see where and when regulations might be made and what they would cover. The Minister should not take that as a concession. Rather, we should be asking ourselves why—if regulations are to be few and far between, as they must now clearly be—this power is needed at all.
The Government have now removed any reference to "operational" in Clause 7. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what types of practices and procedures the Government envisage regulating under Clause 7. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the national intelligence model, but he also suggested that there might be a code of practice. However, as all forces are committed to rolling out the national intelligence model, what use would regulations serve? We on these Benches remain to be convinced that the Home Secretary needs these powers to set local policing policy or practice through national regulation.
The strength of our system is in tailoring policing to meet the needs and expectations of local communities. Police authorities do want to identify and implement good practice, but imposing something in regulation may not be the answer to that. Clause 7 represents an unnecessary and unwarranted interference by the Home Secretary in local policing. It distorts the tripartite relationship which we have discussed in earlier debates and undermines our system of policing by consent. It should have no place in this particular Bill.

Lord Renton
My Lords, I, too, have very grave doubts about Clause 7. The trouble is that circumstances vary so much, both geographically and in relation to population, in so many different parts of England, Wales and Scotland. Just consider the difference between, for example, East Anglia, where I live, and the metropolis of London, where I have to live when I am working. However, even the difference between East Anglia and Cumbria is really rather remarkable. In Wales—which I know quite well—the roads never seem to lead anywhere.
It is going to be a terrible challenge for the Home Office to have to expect the Secretary of State by regulations to make provision for all police forces in England and Wales, requiring them, to adopt particular operational procedures or practices; or … to adopt operational procedures or practices of a particular description". 788 I was in the Home Office for four-and-a-half years where my responsibilities included answering questions on police matters. To expect Home Office officials to know all the circumstances when they vary so much locally and geographically in England and Wales to be able to regulate operational procedures is not feasible.
I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his suggestion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I respect entirely the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made his case. The previous group of amendments, which we have just approved, effectively changed Clause 7 dramatically. I do not wish to go over the debate again as that would be counter-productive. An example of a change is the removal of the word "operational". The amendments, as a package, will introduce the following steps that the Secretary of State will be required to take before making regulations under Clause 7.
He will consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers about any proposal and will seek advice from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Central Police Training and Development Authority on the introduction of a regulation. He will then seek advice on the proposed regulation from HMIC and the CPTDA. He will specify a time frame within which that advice must be delivered. Before providing any advice to the Secretary of State, the CPTDA will be required to consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers as well as anyone else it sees fit. Following that advice, before making the regulation, the Secretary of State must have received and considered advice from the CPTDA. He and HMIC must be satisfied that the adoption of a particular procedure is necessary to facilitate joint co-ordinated operations between two or more forces. In making the regulations it is necessary to secure the adoption of that procedure and securing that procedure is in the national interest.
That is a summary of the previous group of amendments which I hope makes the case for retaining Clause 7. I do not propose to use the extensive notes that I have to defend Clause 7 because it has been radically changed. I am not saying that the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was not a strong one from his point of view—far from it. But the previous group of amendments that we approved go a substantial way down the road. I shall not talk about roads in Wales that lead nowhere. It may not get the noble Lord, Lord Renton, into trouble, but it will get me into trouble.
It is better to have Clause 7, as amended, in the Bill. We have considered many of the points that were made, especially in Committee, where the genesis of the amendments were discussed. I therefore hope that your Lordships will leave Clause 7, as amended, in the Bill.

§ Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His remarks require some study and I shall 789 read them carefully. If need be, we can discuss the matter again at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54: Page 85, line 22, leave out "shall consult such persons as it" and insert "("the CPTDA") shall consult with—

(a) the NCIS Service Authority;

(b) the Director General of NCIS;

(c) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the CPTDA"

Page 85, line 24, at end insert— (5A) The Secretary of State shall lay any code of practice issued by him under this section, and any revisions of any such code, before Parliament. (5B) The Secretary of State shall not be required by subsection (5A) to lay before Parliament, or may exclude from what he does so lay, anything the publication of which, in his opinion—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or

(c) could jeopardise the safety of any person."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57: Page 86, line 11. leave out "shall consult such persons as it" and insert "("the CPTDA") shall consult with—

(a) the NCS Service Authority;

(b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad;

(c) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the CPTDA"

Page 86, line 11, at end insert— (4A) The Secretary of State shall lay any code of practice issued by him under this section, and any revisions of any such code, before Parliament. (4B) The Secretary of State shall not be required by subsection (4A) to lay before Parliament, or may exclude from what he does so lay, anything the publication of which, in his opinion—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or

(c) could jeopardise the safety of any person."

On Question., amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61: Page 86, line 29, after "such" insert "remedial Page 86, line 30. at end insert— (1A) Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than—

(a) a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b); or
790
(b) a matter that the Secretary of State considers relevant to any matter falling within paragraph (a)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 65: Page 86, line 40, after "such" insert "remedial Page 86, line 41. at end insert— (3) Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than—

(a) a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b); or

(b) a matter that the Scottish Ministers consider relevant 10 any matter falling within paragraph (a)."

Page 86, line 41, at end insert— (4) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section—

(a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power; and

(b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

(5) If the Scottish Ministers exercise their power to give a direction under this section—

(a) they shall prepare a report on their exercise of that power; and

(b) they shall lay that report before the Scottish Parliament.

(6) A report under subsection (4) or (5)—

(a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate; and

(b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power to give a direction under this section."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 70: Page 87, line 13, after "such" insert "remedial Page 87, line 13, at end insert— (2) Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than—

(a) a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b); or

(b) a matter that the Secretary of State considers relevant to any matter falling within paragraph (a)."

Page 87, line 13, at end insert— (3) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section—

(a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power; and

(b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

(4) A report under subsection (3)—

(a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power to give a direction under this section."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 95: Page 90, line 35, leave out "such persons as he" and insert "with—

(a) the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad;

(b) the Director General of that Squad;

(c) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 97 to 103: Page 91, line 6, leave out "operational Page 91, line 7, leave out "operational Page 91, line 10, after "from" insert "— (a) the chief inspector of constabulary; and Page 91, line 11, at end insert— () A request for the purposes of subsection (2) may specify a period within which the requested advice is to be provided; and, if a period is so specified, the requested advice must be provided within it. Page 91, line 11, at end insert— () Before seeking advice under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall consult about his proposal to do so with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; and

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police."

Page 91, line 14, leave out "shall consult such persons as it" and insert "("the CPTDA") shall consult with—

(a) the NCS Service Authority;

(b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad;

(c) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the CPTDA"

Page 91, line 14, at end insert— (3A) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under this section requiring the adoption of any procedure or practice unless—

(a) he has, as respects that procedure or practice, received advice from the Central Police Training and Development Authority and has considered that advice; and

(b) the advice of the chief inspector of constabulary states that that inspector is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (3B); and

(c) the Secretary of State himself is satisfied as to those matters.

792 (3B) Those matters are—

(a) that the adoption of that procedure or practice is necessary in order to facilitate the carrying out by members of the National Crime Squad and of any one or more police forces of joint or co-ordinated operations;

(b) that the making of regulations is necessary for securing the adoption of that procedure or practice; and

(c) that securing the adoption of that procedure or practice is in the national interest."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 104: Page 7, line 18, leave out "at any time The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 105. The first amendment is a drafting amendment as the words to be left out are superfluous.
The second is in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I said then that accredited persons will be members of the extended police family and, as such, will work closely with the police. Although they are not employed by a chief constable and they exercise very limited police powers, it would not make sense to have on the commission someone who is doing that job, or who has done that job. It is possible that they will be viewed as lacking in independence and objectivity because of their association with police work. Therefore, I am fulfilling a commitment to return with an amendment. I beg to move.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 105, which we are grateful to see on the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 105: Page 7, line 20, at end insert— () he is a person in relation to whom an accreditation under section 36 is or has been in force; On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Independent Police Complaints Commission]:

§ Viscount Bridgeman
moved Amendment No. 106: Page 94, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (3). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive and to approve the appointment of subsequent chief executives.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the Government were 100 per cent in favour of independence. That must surely mean what it says. This is probably the most sensitive of any appeal tribunal in this country and it is essential that it should be transparent. The power of the Secretary of State to 793 have an effective veto over the appointment of the chief executive into the indefinite future must surely be resisted. I beg to move.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's point about this being an important independent body and it must be seen to be so. As we said earlier, it will be much more powerful and much better resourced than the existing complaints authority.
It is essential for the Secretary of State to be able to appoint the first chief executive of the commission. I am not making a big thing about this, but it is sometimes the practice for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive of a non-departmental public body. I may have used the analogy in the past—it is the one I had experience of as a Minister—of the Foods Standards Agency although I was at MAFF and therefore not responsible and had left MAFF by the time the agency was set up. However, I took the legislation through its various stages and it was my baby as a White Paper as well. I was very conscious of the fact that that was not a non-departmental public body. It was set up as a non-ministerial department, so the structure was slightly different in the way the department went about making the appointments.
There is a good case for making an early appointment of a chief executive in advance of the appointment of the hoard members. The chief executive will need to be in place well before the commission is formally set up to take forward the establishment of the commission and its operating procedures. The chief executive will be the accounting officer of the body. If the chief executive is not in place to do that, I have to say to the House—resting on the prejudices of some noble Lords, although of none present—that it will be left to the Home Office to do it; and some people may not like the Home Office doing that work and then handing over to the chief executive. It is a less than satisfactory way of proceeding.
However, I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion that the Home Secretary will be able to put his own man or woman in the post. The first chief executive will be recruited in an open and fair process according to established practice; that is, by public advertisement and proper sifting procedures.
As with other members of the staff of the commission, the chief executive will be an employee of the commission and under its direction and control. Obviously the chief executive will have to satisfy the commission that he is performing satisfactorily. The commission's chair and members will then select subsequent chief executives. It must be borne in mind that, whatever the process of the Secretary of State approving the appointment, the Secretary of State will be in no position to put forward his own person as the chief executive. The commission will put forward the name. It may be that it puts forward a name to which the Home Secretary objects. But the Home Secretary is not then allowed to put another name in position. It is the commission's right to do that. The Secretary of State's right is only to refuse or approve a nomination.
794 Furthermore, the chair and commission members will define the role and duties of the chief executive. The Secretary of State will only be able to refuse or approve the role rather than prescribe it. There is no suggestion that the Secretary of State's approval will compromise the independence of the commission or that he can place his own representative there to mould it according to his wishes. He cannot. The commission will be appointed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments through the proper process.
The power of the Secretary of State to give approval is an important safeguard for the Government, mainly to ensure that the appointee is appropriate to the position. In establishing new non-departmental public bodies, it is important to have in place checks and balances. I do not say that this is the same process in every case, but there are many non-departmental public bodies in existence.
As I said, the chief executive will be the accounting officer. The Government need to be satisfied that the selection process was open and fair and in line with established best practice. At the end of the day the Home Secretary has an oversight role of the operation of the commission and the police complaints system generally, for which of course he is accountable to Parliament. Parliament will be in a better position to be able to hold the Government to account for the commission's effectiveness if the Home Secretary is in the seat for approving the commission's selection of the chief executive. The Home Secretary will not be able to run away and say, "It was nothing to do with me, guv. The commission appointed this person" From Parliament's point of view, that is a better position than any of the alternatives, which would mean that the Home Secretary had no role at all.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
moved Amendment No. 110: Page 10, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee the Minister gave an assurance that in the delivery of reports there would be a presumption in favour of publication, and that was very much to be welcomed. But taking into account what the Minister said about the previous amendment, this is a very much more subjective decision for the Secretary of State and we must once again look to future Secretaries of State whose armour may not necessarily be shining with the brilliance of that held by the present incumbent. We would be very much happier if the presumption of publication could be enshrined in this clause. I make a further suggestion to the Minister that it might be possible to have the condition turned around so that 795 only in exceptional circumstances would the report not be published. I ask for the Minister's views. I beg to move.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the noble Viscount moved this amendment at Committee stage. We are not of a mind to offer a different response now. I shall carefully explain why.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and cause to be published every report that it receives from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. On the face of it that seems to be a reasonable proposition, but we argue that it could be potentially harmful to the public interest if the legislation demands that all reports are published.
It is highly likely that this amendment would result in reports not being written at all by the commission or useful information being excluded because it would be considered as potentially harmful. It is right that the commission's annual report will have to be laid before Parliament and published.
As regards other reports, the Secretary of State should have some discretion as to whether to publish or not, having considered all relevant factors. For example, a report might contain sensitive, potentially harmful information or recommendations about police practices, which, were they to be made public, would damage future police operations. I believe that this House is agreed that the police must have flexibility over police operational matters. After all, it is their domain—policy on one side and operational matters on the other.
The discretion provided in the clause allows the Secretary of State to balance the need for conflicting public interest arguments for and against disclosure of such reports. In this context no doubt he will be aware that it would he possible for reports to be released with any sensitive information removed.
The amendment could be self-defeating and that is the kernel of our argument. Normally, we would want to argue for maximum disclosure, but in certain circumstances where that disclosure would be harmful to the service or operations, we believe that the Home Secretary needs to have that flexibility and to exercise his or her discretion in future. For those reasons I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, the Minister holds his ground. I accept his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
moved Amendment No. 111: Page 11, line 15, leave out from "public" to end of line 19. The noble Viscount said: This again is an amendment which was moved at Committee stage. We consider that the category of individuals who can make complaints remains too restrictive. We 796 appreciate that the administration of the commission must be had regard to, which is a point made by the Minister at Committee.
But we believe that this is a very sensitive area and there must surely be provision for the informed whistle-blower. That is not provided for in the complaints catchment at the moment and in certain circumstances it could be very useful. Will the Minister consider this amendment? I beg to move.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I fully accept the reason why the noble Viscount has returned with this amendment. I have no doubt that this is not the last time when this particular issue will be raised during the passage of the Bill.
We have tried to embrace in Part 2 of the Bill the principle of much greater accessibility to the police complaints system. We have more explicitly defined than in existing legislation who can make a complaint. This will, therefore, replace any scope for the use of discretion over the recording of complaints with much more consistency and clarity.
We have also provided the would-be complainant with a right to appeal to the commission against the non-recording of a complaint. This right of appeal is predicated on the fact that while the definition of a complaint is a wide one, it also sensibly limits complaints to those made by people who are likely to have a relevant connection with the police conduct under question.
We want a system under which the conduct of anyone serving with the police, which has an adverse effect on a member of the public, is dealt with efficiently and effectively. That is why it is not just "victims" who will be able to make a complaint. People who can make a complaint will also include "witnesses". I gave one example during Committee stage, as I recall. That is people who have full control of a CCTV system, for example. Also, people acting on behalf of "victims" or "witnesses" will have the right to make a complaint. It is also why people who may be apprehensive about approaching the police, which I fully understand, will also be able to make complaints through "gateways", that is to say, through certain community organisations and individuals who have regular contact with members of the public.
While I do not want to open up a new debate, it may be that this will cover the area of the informed whistle-blower referred to by the noble Viscount. However, these amendments would enable any member of the public to complain about the conduct of anyone serving with the police whether or not they had any connection with the incident or would be able to contribute in any way towards an investigation.
These amendments, coupled with the right of appeal, would radically change the nature of the system by creating a significant amount of additional administrative work for the police and the commission. It would mean that any and all allegations might wend their way through the system, taking up time and resources disproportionate to the importance of the complaint.
797 The intention is to open up the system so that conduct by anyone serving with the police which has an adverse effect on a member of the public is dealt with, while ensuring that that is done properly. Members of the public who, for various reasons, do not want to make direct complaints to the police can do so through others. They will have a connection with the complaint. The change proposed would jeopardise that, which I do not believe would be in anyone's interest.

§ Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I recollect that at such an hour in Committee the Government introduced a measure that gave the commission authority to initiate an inquiry of its own on which my noble friend Lord Renton animadverted at the time. Was the Minister thinking of that in relation to what he has just said, or was that quite a separate matter?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, that is a separate matter. I see noble Lords nodding. If a category of people has a connection with an incident in which the public have been treated badly by someone serving in the police or working for the police authority and that category is not covered by what I have said. I would be pleased to hear about it. We do not want to rule that out.
We do not want to give carte blanche so that anyone who reads something in the media can make a complaint and have the right of appeal and all the other rights that go with the new process. We do not seek to stop anyone who has a complaint relating to themselves or to a friend dealing with it through a go-between or through a third party, but there has to be a connection with someone who has been badly treated by the police. If the matter is left wide open, it will not take long for someone who wants to create a mountain of paperwork to work out how to clog up the system as an act of policy. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, relates to the fact that the commission itself—it is a powerful commission—can initiate inquiries about complaints, but that has nothing to do with the substance of this amendment.

§ Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I have one question arising out of that. I have no difficulty in accepting why the Government are anxious to prevent people who have no connection with a case starting hares running. In terms of the points raised by my noble friend in moving the amendment in relation to whistle-blowers, it is presumably conceivably the case that the commission might act on a whistle-blower's contribution.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, if the commission knew who the whistle-blower was, and the complaint was made to the commission by the whistle-blower but he did not want to do it publicly, it may be up to the commission to take that on board. Alternatively, I think that the whistle-blower would be able to complain to the commission through another party—a friend or an organisation. We are not closing off the 798 opportunity for the complaint to be made if the person concerned is operating as a whistle-blower, by which I am assuming that he is someone inside the organisation or the police. It is not unknown for that to happen. We do not want to exclude that in any way, shape or form, but the complaint has to be about someone who was badly treated by the police. It is difficult to conceive of the circumstances. If noble Lords can come up with better examples, I shall try to come up with a better answer.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I am sure that we are all working for the same purpose, which is to make the new commission work as well and as efficiently as possible. We appear to be discussing whether, in drafting legislation, we can make a judgment about the validity of a complaint, or whether it is better to leave the commission to make such a judgment when it receives the complaint. I believe that that is what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman is proposing.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, in mentioning a whistle-blower, I meant someone who is totally independent. I did not mean an inside person. I have carefully noted what the Minister has said. If there is a possibility of expanding the category slightly, perhaps we can return to the point at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
moved Amendment No. 113: Page 12, line 15, at end insert "; or (d) he is an accredited person for the purposes of section 35 The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 12 defines who can be the subject of a complaint to the complaints commission. We believe that the clause is inadequate. Unless we manage later to implement some other changes, we shall have people exercising police powers on the streets who are not subject to normal police discipline nor to the complaints commission.
We think that that is an omission which should be corrected. I accept that we debated the issue in Committee but we believe that we should return to the matter. We are clear that the ultimate supervision of people who act with police powers has to be, first, by the police and, ultimately, if it comes to a question of complaint, through the police complaints commission.
A difference of principle exists between ourselves and the Government. However, we do not apologise for again raising the matter. I beg to move.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, no noble Lord needs to apologise for bringing matters back on Report. I make no complaint about that. I am switching back to emollient mode at the moment. I mean that because we could look at issues three or four times. We may think that we have got it right but we can always have a second look. The noble Lord is right: there is a matter of principle. These people are not employed by the chief constable. They are not employed by the police 799 authority. By definition they are well outside the police family. They are part of the extended police family. They have an employer because they are part of the accredited system. The individual or the employer would not be accredited unless the employer had a good complaints system. If things go wrong, the ultimate sanction is for the chief constable to remove the accreditation of that person or organisation.
My right honourable friend and I have discussed the matters raised. I give an example to the House. There are organisations with powers over people. Examples include neighbourhood street wardens and dog wardens. In some parts of the country there are still park keepers. Environmental health officers have fairly substantial powers. Those are not police powers but they are similar to the powers used by the accredited person. No one has suggested that they should be brought within the remit of a police complaints authority. The employer should have a satisfactory system for complaints about such persons. At the end of the day, the issue can go to the independent ombudsman as well as to elected councillors.
A strong case cannot be argued. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, it is a point of principle. If it is inappropriate to use the new independent police complaints commission for existing local authority employees, it is equally inappropriate to bring accredited community safety officers within the commission's jurisdiction. We have a problem. The accreditation process is meant to help the police by providing a co-ordinated response from other sections of the community, whether shopping centre wardens, local authority guards or private sector security people. Theirs is a more hands-on role. They will have to keep their house in order or they will lose their accreditation. Without accreditation some of those people will go out of business. The shopping centre will not use an unaccredited person under this system. It will become the norm that people not approved by the local chief of police will be told, "Sorry, we don't want you or your staff". That will be important for the public perception. Where people are guarding premises, looking after shopping centres and so on, it will be a comfort to the public to know that the chief of police has had a role in who is doing the "policing".
If an accredited person is alleged to have committed a crime, the police will investigate that matter as with any other. The allegation of misconduct breaches the employer's disciplinary code. If the employer does nothing about it, that is unsatisfactory. The ultimate sanction is that the employer loses the accreditation of the people; that is, he will go out of business. That is quite a sanction.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, the Minister gave a full and good reply, but the difference between us remains. The difficulty is that his ultimate sanction, the removal of accreditation from an employer, will not necessarily provide adequate satisfaction to someone who runs into difficulty with an accredited person exercising a police power. One can envisage a 800 circumstance in a shopping centre where someone says, "You shouldn't be doing this" or, "You've been drinking too much" and tries to confiscate alcohol from some young people or something like that. That may lead to an unjustifiable argument which turns violent and then becomes an affray and one gets into the business of who is responsible.
That could cause immense difficulty. The situation would not be as easy to deal with if one was dealing with a commercial group such as Securicor or Group 4, as with employees of a local authority, where one might meet a slightly different attitude. Unless we can persuade the Government to move on the matter it will be difficult to persuade commercial firms to become involved and take the risk, however good their complaints procedure may be. It is not a question of complaints procedure so much as liability. Complaints procedure is one thing, but liability is another. When one sees what happens nowadays when the courts argue liability, it is a different situation.
I will study the Minister's response. It does not satisfy me now and we may need to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Handling of Complaints and Conduct matters etc.]

§ Viscount Bridgeman
moved Amendment No. 114: Page 105, line 45, leave out from "with" to end of line 2 on page 106. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the only point in moving the amendment is to inquire whether the phrase we have suggested deleting is otiose and whether the clause would have the same meaning without it. I beg to move.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the short answer is "No"; it is not otiose. Subparagraph (7) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 is designed to allow flexibility to make regulations for the time periods with respect to the requirements of paragraph 10 in relation to conduct matters arising from civil claims.
I will explain further because the matter is worth putting on the record. The words the amendment seeks to delete are useful because, unlike the normal situation where a complaint is made to the police, the paragraph is concerned with circumstances where police conduct is challenged in the civil courts; for example, by an action for assault, false imprisonment or mistreatment.
It is right in such circumstances that there is greater flexibility in determining when the clock starts ticking and the time period starts running. The proposed deleted words would allow the regulations to empower the independent police complaints commission to determine the appropriate time period for compliance with the requirements, as I said earlier, in relation to an appeal of a civil claim brought out of time. If the words were taken out it would be damaging to the interests of the complainant, and, one would argue, natural 801 justice. They are not otiose; they are essential, but I appreciate the noble Viscount's desire for brevity in legislation.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's very informed explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments No. 115: Page 119, lime 23, leave out from "proceedings" to "to" in line 24. The noble Lords said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 116. I shall be brief. Under Clause 12, alleged misconduct by anyone serving with the police can be dealt with under the new system. Paragraph 27 of Schedule 3 currently provides for the new complaints commission to make a recommendation and, if necessary, a direction to the appropriate authority regarding the disciplinary proceedings to be brought against, a member of a police force". The purpose of these amendments is to extend that power to disciplinary proceedings against both special constables and civilians—that is, civilians employed by the police. It is entirely appropriate for it to be extended to special constables, as the complaints commission will in any event be able to bring, conduct or intervene in disciplinary proceedings against them. The Government believe that it will also be appropriate to extend it to support staff to ensure that the complaints commission will be able to decide that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against a civilian who has committed an act of misconduct. When the complaints commission exercises this power, it will have to take the specific terms and conditions of employment of the civilian into account. I beg to move.

Lord Roolker
moved Amendment No. 116: Page 119, line 28, leave out "member of police force" and insert "person serving with the police On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Baroness Harris of Richmond
moved Amendment No. 117: Page 12, line 38, leave out "maintaining a police force" and insert "in securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we welcome and support the contents of Clause 15. Our amendment seeks to improve it in a way that reflects the current provisions of Section 77 of the Police Act 1996. This requires police authorities not just to keep themselves informed as to the working of the complaints procedures. It goes further and links this to the duty on authorities to maintain an efficient and effective force, and thus gives them scope to act if things are going wrong.
802 We welcome the establishment of the new IPCC. But, let us face it, when complaints reach the IPCC it usually means that things have gone seriously wrong somewhere. As we all know, prevention is far better than cure. We want to ensure that police authorities can have in place a rigorous process and structure to oversee all complaints, and to take remedial action where there are concerns.
I hope that the noble Lord's emollient mode will extend to my moving this amendment, because Clause 15 is important. However, as currently drafted, it does not in our view go quite far enough. Issues relating to complaints, whether to do with the alleged conduct of police staff, or issues relating to direction and control, go to the heart of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force; and they go to the heart of public confidence in policing.
Section 77 of the Police Act 1996 recognises this by tying oversight of complaints issues to the statutory duty of police authorities to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force. That enables police authorities not just to monitor what is going on, but also to act where the handling of complaints impacts on efficiency or effectiveness.
Our amendment is based on the wording of Section 77 of the Police Act 1996, which will, of course, be repealed by this Bill. The difference made by the slight change in wording incorporated in the amendment is small, but important. It would ensure full and proper oversight and accountability for complaints. The public should demand no less. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the spirit of the amendment. I appreciate that he may well want to consider whether the wording of the amendment can be improved, but the key issue is the principle of effective oversight of the complaints procedures and clear accountability to local communities. I should welcome a commitment that the Government will take the matter away and bring forward proposals at Third Reading. I beg to move.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, this is quite an interesting point about the drafting of the provision. I have looked again at the wording and reflected on what the noble Baroness has said. The provision currently places a duty upon police authorities to keep themselves informed—or at least this is what the drafting is about—of the workings of the complaints system.
We read our provision as being slightly wider than the similar one used in Section 77 of the Police Act 1996, to which the noble Baroness has referred. We cannot see a reason to limit it just to one function of a police authority, when they have others; for example, and in particular—and the noble Baroness and I have talked about this aspect in the past inside and outside the Chamber—of achieving best value. We believe that lessons from the complaints system may be relevant to all the police authority's functions. Our argument really is that the amendment of the noble Baroness is more restrictive than she imagines. We think that our wording is broader.
803 We are mindful that the police authority must keep itself informed of the workings of complaints systems so far as is necessary in relation to all its functions, rather than the narrow confines of efficiency and effectiveness. In practice, we do not think that this duty will be very different to the one placed upon police authorities by the current system.
Therefore, I am not minded to suggest that we want to accept the amendment, but if the noble Baroness writes to us explaining how she feels her amendment broadens rather than narrows the provision—as we argue in defence of our own position—obviously we will reflect on that. We are probably not one million miles apart. We are trying to achieve that necessary breadth because we think that it is in the interests of the public and the police and in the interests of securing an effective and efficient complaints system. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. However, if she wants to give some further thought to the matter we shall certainly listen to her.

§ Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving me the reassurance that he will consider the matter at least if I write to him and further tell him what is proposed. It is important that he also understands that police authorities need to, and do, keep themselves apprised of the procedures. I am reassured by what he says. I shall consider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 118: Page 18, line 35, leave out from "required" to end of line 36 and insert "on proportionality grounds The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119. Under Clause 20(6)(iii) the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to prevent the disclosure of information or investigation reports to complainants to secure that no person is adversely affected by the disclosure.
In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, moved an amendment which had the intention of ensuring that disclosure would not be prevented on the grounds that it would adversely affect the person complained about where the complaint had been upheld. In fact, as I explained then, the duty to keep complainants informed under Clause 20 does not apply at the stage in the process where a complaint may or may not have been upheld. Complaints can only be either upheld or dismissed during disciplinary proceedings by which time any disclosure under this clause will already have taken place. There are separate provisions under Clause 33 for complainants to be involved in disciplinary proceedings.
Nevertheless, it is important for the sensitivity test under Clause 20(6) to provide for the prevention of disclosure where someone could be adversely affected. A substantial amount of information on the person 804 complained about will often come to light during the course of an investigation, and much of it may have no bearing whatever on the complaint. To disclose that information to the complainant would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily breach the privacy of the person complained about.
However, it has never been the Government's intention to allow the person complained about to prevent disclosure on general grounds that he would be adversely affected. The amendment would make clear that disclosure should be prevented only when it would disproportionately adversely affect someone. It will be explicit in the Bill that in all cases a judgment will need to be made based on the balance between the need to keep the complainant informed and the need to avoid unnecessary breaches of anyone's privacy. I beg to move.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, the provisions are entirely equitable and we support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
moved Amendment No. 119: Page 18, line 38, at end insert— () The non-disclosure of information is required on proportionality grounds if its disclosure would cause, directly or indirectly, an adverse effect which would be disproportionate to the benefits arising from its disclosure. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Power of the Commission to issue guidance]:

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
moved Amendment No. 120: Page 19, line 17, at end insert— () Before issuing any guidance under this section, the Commission shall consult with—

(a) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other persons as it thinks fit."

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 122.
It has always been the Government's intention for the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and others to he consulted before issuing regulations and guidance. For that reason, we were happy to give fair consideration to the proposals made at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and to return today with something that reflects what was sought.
The effect of Amendment No. 120 will be to place an obligation on the independent police complaints commission to consult people representing the interests of police authorities, chief officers and others on guidance that it intends to issue before seeking the approval of the Secretary of State to issue that guidance.
The government amendment varies from the amendment moved in Committee in that it will require the commission to consult on guidance that it intends 805 to issue before seeking the approval of the Secretary of State to issue that guidance, whereas the amendment moved in Committee would have required the Secretary of State to consult before giving his approval.
The reason for that is that the commission will want to take account of the views of the key players in drawing up the guidance and it would therefore not he appropriate for the Secretary of State to consult them again. To do so would mean either the key players having to confirm their views or, if they were not reflected in the guidance, a risk that the independence of the commission would be impugned if the Secretary of State sought to introduce those views into the guidance.
Similarly, the effect of Amendment No. 122 would he to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under Part 2. In addition to persons representing chief officers and police authorities, the consultees would naturally also include the independent police complaints commission. So our amendments reflect the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, proposed, but also respect the independence of the new independent police complaints commission. I beg to move.

§ Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, I rise simply to thank the Minister for his consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Regulations]:

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 122: After Clause 22, insert the following new clause— "CONSULTATION ON REGULATIONS Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) the Commission;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(d) such other persons as he thinks fit."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 123: After Clause 28, insert the following new clause— "PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL OF SENIOR OFFICERS (1) In subsection (2) of section 9E of the 1996 Act (removal of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) for the words from "an opportunity" to the end there shall be substituted "—

(a) an explanation in writing of the Authority's grounds for calling upon him, in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or to resign; and

(b) an opportunity to make representations;

and the Authority shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the Commissioner. The opportunity given to the Commissioner to make representations must include the opportunity to make them in person. 806 (2) In subsection (3) of section 11 of the 1996 Act (removal of chief officer of police), for the words from "an opportunity" to the end there shall be substituted "—

(a) an explanation in writing of the authority's grounds for calling upon him, in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or to resign; and

(b) an opportunity to make representations;

and the authority shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the chief officer. The opportunity given to the chief constable to make representations must include the opportunity to make them in person. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125, 128, 129 and 130. The Government share the wish that an officer who is subject to proceedings should have a full and fair opportunity to present his or her case. The government amendments will have that effect. They will go a substantial way to meet the intended effects of Amendments Nos. 124, 126 and 127, although we disagree with some aspects of them.
The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 123 will require three distinct courses of action: first, the officer would have to be given an explanation, in writing, of the police authority's grounds for calling on him or her to retire or resign; secondly, the officer would have the right to make representations, in writing, in person or through someone acting on his or her behalf; thirdly, the police authority would be under a statutory duty to consider those representations.
Correspondingly, in cases in which the Secretary of State intervenes under Section 42, Amendment No. 125 provides for the officer to be given notice of the Home Secretary's intention to intervene and a written explanation of his reasons for doing so. Amendment No. 128 provides for the right to be heard by the inquiry and for the officer to be heard in person. That amendment also provides a statutory right for the police authority to make representations to the inquiry if it wishes. Amendment No. 129 is a consequential amendment and merely ensures that officer's right to a written explanation from the police authority is disapplied in a Section 42 case, for which the explanation will come from the Secretary of State.
I hope that, following our debate in Committee, I have been able to persuade the House that the purpose of Amendment No. 126 has been achieved and that retention of the inquiry provisions for Section 42 cases, at which Amendment No. 127 appears to be aimed, is part of the Bill.
With regard to Amendment No. 124, as I said, the police authority would be able to put its views to the Section 42 inquiry. The amendment would go further and introduce a statutory process of consideration of representations for suspension cases. In the Government's view, consultation will be the norm, where such cases arise. There may be cases in which urgent and critical action is vital. If such a serious situation arose, it would not be right to inhibit the capacity of the Secretary of State to move swiftly, if circumstances made it imperative.
807 Government Amendment No. 130 creates a requirement for consultations to include representatives of police authorities and chief officers before regulations are made in respect of Part 3.
In moving Amendment No. 123, I hope that I have touched on some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 124. The Government's amendments to Part 3 of the Bill are welcome. They provide additional important safeguards in cases where a chief officer is forced to retire or resign. That is right. However, those safeguards apply only in cases in which the decision has, in effect, been taken to exercise the power; that is right at the end of the process. There should be an earlier dialogue between the Home Secretary and the police authority, before the Home Secretary tells the authority to remove its chief officer.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that dialogue will go on and that the Home Secretary will not simply get out of bed one morning and issue a peremptory order that a particular chief constable must go. However, it would be more reassuring if that safeguard were built into and reflected in the legislation.
We made it clear at Second Reading that we have considerable difficulty with the idea that the Home Secretary should have the power to require a police authority to suspend its chief officer. We are not persuaded that the Home Secretary should second-guess the judgment of the authority on whether local confidence in the force demands that the chief officer be suspended. That is a matter for the local community and its representatives; namely, the police authority. I see that the Minister accepts that argument.
If the Home Secretary insists on taking the power, we would be considerably reassured if, before exercising it in any given case, he were required by statute to consult the police authority concerned and consider its views. Currently, the Bill simply gives the authority the opportunity to make representations after the Home Secretary has reached a conclusion. The effect of our amendment would be quite simple. It would require the Secretary of State to consult and to have regard to representations received. That should be enshrined in the Bill.
The Minister has assured us that it is a power of last resort, but the Home Secretary may come under considerable pressure from the media and others to use the power as an instant response. We would not want that to happen. Our amendment would help to ensure that the power was used only after full and thorough consideration. We believe that it would protect the operational independence of a chief constable, to which we on these Benches are deeply committed. As I said earlier, this provision would provide a buffer between the Home Secretary of the day and the potential for direct interference and undue influence. I 808 strongly urge the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration. In no way does it undermine the Government's aims; rather it seeks simply to improve the process.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I have tabled two amendments in this grouping, Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. Amendment No. 126 seeks to ensure that the person affected by the decision of the Secretary of State in Clause 30 has an opportunity to make representations in writing or, indeed, via a third party acting on his behalf.
Amendment No. 127 is perhaps the more significant amendment. It quite deliberately seeks to introduce an independent third party into the process. A question is wrapped up in all this; that is, is there any potential conflict with the processes set out in the human rights legislation which one would normally expect to apply? It is a cause for real concern. If the Secretary of State comes to the conclusion—it may be a perfectly valid conclusion—that a chief constable or commissioner has to go, and he then goes to the authority, that authority has to comply and act in response to the request put by the Secretary of State. So we have here a one-way track.
We need to ask how independent are the existing procedures. We may be dealing with, if not a Commissioner of the Met, then a chief constable of around the age of 40. The loss of employment at that age presents real difficulties with regard to the possibility of securing alternative employment. The dispute may have arisen over a difference of opinion, shall we say, rather than over a matter of real substance. Without the intervention of some form of third party, this seems to pose particular problems.
We felt that it was worth tabling Amendment No. 127 simply to open up the issue to debate. At one point the facetious suggestion was made that chief constables do not in fact have any human rights, but of course that is absolute nonsense. I have to say that, on looking again at the matter, we decided that this is compliant with human rights legislation because, as a last resort, the chief constable can go to judicial review, which would impose an independent appeal. However, that also imposes huge costs and risks and thus could be extremely difficult.
We are dealing with the futures of people holding senior office. If they happen to be high-flying staff who arrive in senior posts while they are still young, then we are not dealing only with matters of salary and the security of a family, we are dealing with a person's potential in the pensions arena. This is very much a lifetime matter.
I ask the Minister to consider seriously whether we have struck exactly the right balance in these clauses. Even if Amendment No. 127 does not provide the right way of going about it, perhaps we ought to look again at this issue. I am not absolutely convinced that we have got it right at the present time.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I shall be brief. Amendment No. 127 is otiose. It appears to assume 809 that the requirement to appoint an inquiry in Section 42 cases has been removed, but the Bill retains that requirement. I hope that that answers the noble Lord.
As to the amendment of the noble Baroness, I am happy to consider the points she made. I do not want to repeat what I said about Amendment No. 124, but the best way to prescribe those matters is in the context of the regulations. The points she makes are valid and will not be forgotten. Consultation will be the norm— I hope that is taken as read—but there are cases where urgent action is vital. We shall look at this in the context of the regulations.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 125: Page 30. line 16, leave out from "give" to "and" in line 19 and insert "the officer concerned—

(i) a notice of the Secretary of State's intention to require the exercise of that power; and

(ii) an explanation in writing of the Secretary of State's grounds for requiring the exercise of that power;"

On Quest ion, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129: Page 30. line 31, at end insert— () After subsection (3) there shall be inserted— (3A) At an inquiry held under subsection (3) —

(a) the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or, as the case may be, the chief constable in question shall be entitled, in accordance with any regulations under section 42A, to make representations to the inquiry;

(b) the Metropolitan Police Authority or, as the case may be, the police authority concerned shall be entitled, in accordance with any regulations made under section 42A, to make representations to the inquiry.

(3B) The entitlement of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or, as the case may be, the chief constable in question to make representations shall include the entitlement to make them in person. Page 30, line 45, after "constable" insert "a written explanation of the authority's grounds for calling upon him to retire or to resign, to give him On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Regulations concerning procedure for removal of senior officers]:

§ Lord Rooker
moved Amendment No. 130: Page 31, line 14, at end insert— () Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Bradshaw
moved Amendment No. 131: Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause— "SPECIAL CONSTABLES (1) The chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area who appoints special constables in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), shall submit to the police authority for that area a draft scheme relating to the appointment, deployment and progression of such special constables. (2) A draft scheme submitted under this section shall include the chief officer's proposals for—

(a) the recruitment, appointment, retention and progression of special constables;

(b) the arrangements for the provision of training for special constables;

(c) the arrangements for the provision of equipment for special constables;

(d) the arrangements for the making of payments to such special constables and the circumstances in which special constables shall be eligible for such payments; and

(e) an estimate of the costs to the police fund kept by the police authority of the scheme as a whole and cacti of paragraphs (a) to (d) above.

(3) Before approving any such scheme, the police authority may, after consulting the chief officer, revise or amend it. (4) The chief officer may from time to time submit draft proposals for a revised or modified scheme to the police authority for its approval. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to the amendment, which stands in the names of myself and my noble friends, I should declare that I am an elected member of a police authority. Regardless of the earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale—who said that he had never made representations to an elected member during 23 years in the other House—I am an elected member. I am surprised that he went through 23 years without meeting one, which probably reflects on him as much as it does on any police authority. I represent 610,000 people in the county of Oxfordshire and I am accountable to every county councillor for the behaviour of the police authority. So there is a democratic line of accountability, of which I am a part. I resent the remarks that were made earlier. They were thoroughly uncalled for.
In Committee, we had a useful debate on special constables—the subject of the amendment—where their commitment and work was rightly praised on all sides of the House. The Minister assured us that his department was actively looking at the issue of making payments to Specials, possibly through amending existing statutory instruments, which would not require primary legislation. He also said that a range of work was under way to tackle issues such as training, recruitment and so on. That was welcome news, which I know is fully supported by the APA and everyone involved in police work. The Minister recognised the principle behind the amendment, and what we are trying to do is very much in line with the Government's aims.
We have returned to this amendment because vie believe that it is vital that the issue of the Special Constabulary is addressed. It is important that we are making the best use of the Special Constabulary before 811 we turn our attention to the issue of community support officers and accredited persons, which we shall do tomorrow.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all police authorities and forces have in place a coherent strategy for the use and deployment of Specials. It does not, as the Minister mischievously suggested, require the authorities and forces to have special constables if they do not wish to do so—although it would be a rare force which did not wish to have special constables. It will not place any new burden on the service. I am sure that every police force would welcome a coherent strategy.
We know that the number of special constables has declined rapidly, a decline matched by the inactivity of the Home Office in this respect. This is a matter which demands attention because the payment of Specials would be a ready made vehicle for increasing the numbers of the Special Constabulary at once. The amendment would ensure that authorities and forces have in hand a properly resourced strategy for recruiting, promoting, training and equipping Specials. I am sure that it is a way in which we could quickly boost the number of uniformed officers on the streets.
So I hope that the Government will give the amendment serious consideration. What we should like to hear above anything else is a date by which an order will be published, so that we know, even if it is some time in the future, that we can get on with recruiting and paying special constables. I beg to move.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, in principle we support the amendment, albeit we believe that more original thinking is needed on the issue of special constables. The 1996 Act currently contains the section under which special constables are appointed. It is somewhat limited in terms of the breadth of provisions that can be made by regulation. To that extent, this amendment would assist. I hope that the Government will agree to consider it seriously and that they will not reject it out of hand. This is a serious matter.
Good though the amendment is, I am bound to say that it will not provide the kind of radical thinking that is required if we are ever to stimulate and rejuvenate the special constables process. That will be an occasion for a different debate. As I said, in principle we support the amendment.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, in spirit, we are there. I do not think that there is much disagreement that volunteering is a jolly good thing. One of the things that I remember most from my time as leader of my local authority is the fact that, if I did not agree with the chap at the end of the table, who was one of our chief officers, he had the opportunity to arrest me at demonstrations on Saturdays. We were all in it together somehow.
812 The Government are committed to increasing the size of the special constabulary. It has been in decline for some years. We share the aims behind the amendment. However, we believe that we can achieve the objectives more effectively through other means.
We feel that the proposed new clause risks further fragmentation and lack of clarity about the role and conditions of service of Specials at a time when we are working with stakeholders to provide the clarity that is needed and uniformity for the special constabulary in response to feedback from Specials themselves.
Asking individual forces to determine whether and, if so, how much Specials should receive by way of payment will prove divisive. We believe that it would also lead to Specials measuring how much a force valued them in terms of financial rewards rather than in terms of the training and management efforts made. It could also undermine the voluntary status of Specials.
The Government are considering the case for a new allowance for Specials in recognition of the commitment made by them and, more importantly in some ways, by their families. That consideration will be subject to the current spending review that is being undertaken. This allowance, were it to be made, would be uniform and would apply across the country. It could be introduced via an amendment to conditions of service regulations made under Section 51 of the Police Act 1996.
We are working on good practice guidance on the management and deployment of Specials as well as on advising the conditions of service regulations. The regulation-making power in Section 51 of the 1996 Act, together with the new power in Clause 2 of the Bill to issue codes of practice, already give us the necessary means to give statutory underpinning to any elements of good practice should it prove necessary to do so. Accordingly, while I can enthusiastically endorse the spirit behind the amendment, I cannot agree to it because of the difficulties it would cause.
I reiterate: there are many good things going on. We are mounting a national press campaign linked to the "could you?" campaign for regulars which was run in January this year. We are trying to do all that we can to attract special constables back into the service.
It is true that there has been a national decline over the past few years. Part of that is explained by the fact that many people who want to come forward into the police service, instead of using the Specials as an interim route, are going straight into the service itself, recognising that that is a better long-term career prospect.
We want to encourage volunteering. There is agreement across the House on that. However, well intentioned though the amendment is, we do not feel that it is the best way to achieve the objectives sought by the noble Lord, who has so much experience in the area. Those objectives are shared across the three main parties. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Unfortunately, volunteering requires some form of payment to turn it into a satisfactory contribution towards policing. Until the issue of payment is addressed, we shall remain short of volunteers. We shall return to the issue at every opportunity until some concession is made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
814 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord Rooker
I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.