| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. She drew a precise parallel with the police authorities. I do not believe that that parallel is sustained by the very nature of the two organisations that we are discussing. In order to reflect further on what she has said, I should like to ask the Minister a question. The Minister said that these two bodies were not accountable to the Home Secretary. Did she mean that it would be improper for this place and another place to debate these reports? These reports are to be placed in the Library and will receive wide distribution. Does she imply that it would be wrong for Parliament to debate them? If it is right that Parliament should debate them, surely in saying that these documents have the same status as the reports of police authorities she draws a parallel which is not precise.
Baroness Blatch: To my knowledge, I do not believe that there is any restriction on what is debated in this
place. If anyone wants to initiate a debate it is for the usual channels to decide how it can be fitted into the programme. The proposition in the amendment is that there should be a formal laying of these reports before Parliament. The important principle is that they should be publicly available documents, and I have given an assurance that that will be the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we are pretty close. If I accept the assurances of the Minister, as I do, that they will be publicly available, they can hardly avoid being publicly available if they are to be sent to all of the people set out in the clause, and that they will be published in full without excisions (the Minister nods her assent) there is not much difference between laying them before Parliament and placing them in the Library. As the Minister has rightly said, what is debated is up to Parliament. It is not for the Home Secretary to choose what is debated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Appointment of Director General]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 12:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 44. These are intended as probing amendments which pick up a question that I raised at the end of my winding up speech on Second Reading. I seek clarification of an assurance by the Minister that it is not the intention to appoint non-professional, non-career police officers as directors general of either the NCIS or the National Crime Squad. The subsection that is sought to be deleted is that which allows for the director general to take an oath as a constable. That implies that the director general of the NCIS may not be a serving police officer but may be a former member of MI5, or the director general of the National Crime Squad may be a retired Army officer. That would take us back to the bad old days of chief constables being drawn from the ranks of the military, or even the Navy on occasion. I formally seek an assurance from the Minister that it is not intended to appoint as Director General of either NCIS or the National Crime Squad someone who is not a professional, career police officer within the civilian Police Service. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that only a serving chief constable can be appointed director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the National Crime Squad. If that is the only point at issue here I believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
I am a little disturbed by what I have heard. Certainly, I will remedy the position if necessary. I wrote to the noble Lord on 19th November. I intended that that should be for the benefit of all Members of the House. I placed copies of my letter in the Library. I said:
The Bill makes clear that a person will be eligible for appointment as director general only if he holds the rank of chief constable in a police force in Great Britain or in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Even with those amendments, the provisions of Clauses 6(5) and 51(5) are still necessary. In order to take up an appointment as director general, a chief officer will have left his previous force. Therefore, the particular clause which will be removed if the amendment is accepted is important, because he or she will not have the powers of a constable unless the Bill specifically provides them. To take another example, a chief officer from a Scottish police force or the Royal Ulster Constabulary would not have the powers and privileges of a constable in England and Wales unless the Bill made specific provision for that to happen. Both directors general would require such powers in order to perform their full duties and manage the services for which they were responsible. If the noble Baroness does not have the letter I will ensure that immediately after this session she is provided with a copy.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. When I joined the Metropolitan Police--if I may reminisce for just a second--we took an oath which meant that we were constables within our police force only and within five miles of any royal palace, which included Scottish royal palaces. I believe that the Police Act 1964 changed that so that we became constables throughout England and Wales. I wonder what is the situation for a director general appointed from a force in England and Wales in relation to Scotland. Presumably, as serving officers in England and Wales, such a person can carry out his duties throughout England and Wales. Will he take an oath in order that he can perform his duties in Scotland and Northern Ireland so that the situation is now reciprocal? I am asking this merely as a matter of complication. Perhaps they would all have to take an oath to operate in both areas.
Lord Knights: I am not sure whether I should intervene, but on my reading of the Bill if a chief officer of a police force within England or Wales seeks to become the director general, he will have to retire or resign from his force. He is therefore no longer a constable. He will take up the appointment without
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is spot on. We have subsection (5) to vest in that person the rank necessary to do the job.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am still slightly puzzled, because if one moves from one force to another one does not have to retake an oath as a constable. That is surely the situation if one is moving from a force in England and Wales to become director general which, as I understand it, is effectively to become a chief constable. I am still slightly puzzled about the matter of the oath, but I am grateful to the Minister for her assurance which I wanted to flesh out by putting down the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 18; 20 to 23; 45 to 49; 51, 53, 55 to 58; 144 and 145.
This large group of amendments seeks to achieve a very simple purpose. They ensure that senior police officers who are permanently appointed to the National Criminal Intelligence Service or National Crime Squad will retain a specific police rank. In this way they put beyond any doubt the original intention of the Bill that the directors general will hold the rank of chief constable and that only assistant chief constables, or those eligible to be appointed to that rank, will be permanently appointed to other senior police posts in the two services.
The vast majority of the police officers serving in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad will be officers engaged on a period of temporary service away from their force. They retain all the powers and privileges of a constable as if they remained a member of their force and they have a right of return to their home force.
This arrangement will generally not be possible for senior police officers. It is impracticable for a chief constable to have a right of return to his previous force--the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. His former post will have been filled. The same is generally true for other senior police officers where there are a limited number of assistant chief constable posts--perhaps only one--and it would be impracticable for officers to have a right of return. That is why the Bill makes provision for them to be permanently appointed to either service.
But because they break their ties with their previous force, it is essential to make clear in the Bill that they continue to hold a specific police rank. The directors general of each service and their senior colleagues are responsible for the overall direction and control of all the
Amendments Nos. 13 and 45 provide that the director general of each service shall hold the rank of chief constable. Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 47 and 48 provide that the only other permanent police appointments will be senior officers of assistant chief constable, or equivalent rank, or eligible for appointment to that rank. Officers appointed in such circumstances will hold the rank of assistant chief constable.
I should mention that one effect of the draftsman's approach to these amendments is that officers on temporary service who were covered by Clause 9(2)(a) in the Bill are now covered by Clause 9(2)(b). Permanent police members who were covered by Clause 9(2)(b) are now dealt with in Clause 9(2)(a). The same applies in Clause 54. Amendments Nos. 17, 20, 22, 46, 51, 55, 57, 144 and 145 are all necessary to reflect this change in the order of Clauses 9 and 54. The other amendments are consequential upon these changes. For example, subsection (10) of both Clause 9 and Clause 54 which clarifies the position of senior officers in the Metropolitan and City of London forces, is no longer necessary as a result of these amendments.
These amendments will ensure that senior police officers within both services will have the rank and authority which they need to perform their duties. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
"Lady Hilton also asked whether Clauses 6(5) and 51(5) would enable someone other than a police officer to become the Director General of NCIS or the new National Crime Squad. Let me assure you that the legislation as drafted does not permit this and it is not the Government's intention to appoint someone other than a police officer to either role.
Clauses 6(3) and 51(3) restrict eligibility for appointment as the Director General of either service to a person who must be:
(i) a chief officer of police in a police force in England and Wales. That is the chief constable of a police force outside London; the Commissioner, an Assistant Commissioner or a Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police; or the Commissioner of the City of London Police;
(ii) a chief constable of a Scottish police force or the chief constable of the RUC;
(iii) eligible for promotion to one of these posts or ranks".
Page 5, line 12, at end insert--
("( ) The Director General shall hold the rank of chief constable.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page