| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord picks up his needle and thread and starts sewing my words into a piece of material for perpetuity, perhaps I may convey to him that, as I read the amendment, it seems that the Secretary of State would be expected to measure the impact of the levy on each individual authority. I believe that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made that very point. Each local authority will have decided how it will spend the sum of money allocated to it from the grant for police authorities. Some will have different priorities from others. The impact of paying the levy may be different for different authorities. Once they have received their sum of money, it is not for the Secretary of State to second guess how they will deploy it operationally. That is the point I was trying to make.
The sum of money that is made available for NCIS comes in fact from the Police Vote money. That is taken into account in the share of money which is given to each local police authority. I do not know about the actual mechanics of whether the police authority takes the money and gives it back to the Government, or the other way round. However, it is part of that Vote and properly reflected in the allocation to each police authority.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall not detain Members of the Committee any longer because I understand that the noble Lord has already indicated that he will withdraw the amendment for further consideration. The noble Lord has revealed to me the fact that he has been out of local government rather longer than I have. However, I will say this for him: there is a difference between what actually happens and what is supposed to happen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall, indeed, enjoy discussing the next local authority expenditure
round. The amendments may not be adequate to the purpose, but the problem will not go away. I do not believe that it has been resolved by the Minister's response, and it certainly was not resolved by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 28:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Codes of practice]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. All three amendments are designed to ensure that the general public as well as Parliament are consulted in the preparation of a code of practice. I pause for a moment because I gather from the Minister's face that I have done something wrong? Is that correct?
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to clarify one point. I understood this grouping to include Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 65 to 67.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the Minister's pardon; of course this grouping also applies to Part II of the Bill, and Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 are the comparable amendments relating to the National Crime Squad.
The codes of practice which are promised in this part of the Bill are welcome and we look forward to an opportunity to debate them in due course. However, it is important that the process of consultation should be clearly laid down in the Bill as is the case for other
Amendment No. 29 and the comparable amendment for Part II of the Bill propose that there should be a draft laid before both Houses of Parliament and that the affirmative resolution procedure should be adhered to. Amendment No. 30 proposes that other people outside Parliament should have regard to the code. In other words, there should be proper provision for observance of the code of practice. We suggest a number of enactments which will need to be covered by the code. Amendment No. 31 and the comparable amendment in Part II provide for the use of the code of practice where relevant in evidence in criminal proceedings.
What we are doing is not new; it is an extension of the authority underlying codes of practice, ensuring that they are properly drafted and properly observed and that they have the same effect in criminal proceedings as the conditions set out in detail in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. There should be no obstacles to the introduction of consultation proceedings for the drafting. There should be no argument that it is unnecessary. NCIS is holding extremely sensitive criminal intelligence. It is an important, indeed vital part in the fight against serious and organised crime. Under those circumstances the control of the detailed operation of NCIS should not be left to the Secretary of State. Provisions subject to consultation and to conditions on observance should apply to the code of practice. It is vital that the code of practice has the authority necessary to ensure that everyone in NCIS and those who deal with NCIS in any way are assured that the code of practice is in place, has been properly drafted, and is being observed. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendments. I greatly understand the noble Lord's desire to ensure that codes of practice are properly drafted, approved and observed. But, quite frankly, if one considers it very closely indeed, Amendment No. 29, which is intended to replace subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 28, adds practically nothing. It contains a tremendous amount of verbiage but has no further effect that I can understand. The noble Lord said that there must be consultation. Consultation is not mentioned in Amendment No. 29. I am open to correction, but I understand that the provisions of Clause 28 are now common form; there are a number of precedents. The essence of the matter is that a copy of the code shall be laid before Parliament, as set out in subsection (3) and in the noble Lord's amendment. The noble Lord's suggestion that there needs to be a draft code of practice and that that constitutes something fresh is somewhat mistaken. In a sense, every code that requires the consent of Parliament is a draft. If Parliament does not approve it, it is not approved.
Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 29 provides that,
Therefore his suggestion of a draft adds nothing to what is already in the Bill.
Amendment No. 30 puzzles me. It begins with the word "persons". It does not state which persons. But we all know that the code of practice will affect people concerned with police affairs who would be bound by the code of practice. But it states that,
--and they are specified; they are police statutes--
A code is a code and obliges people anyway. It seems to me that the amendment adds nothing in effect.
Codes of practice have never had to be regarded as evidence on which there can be cross-examination. A code of practice is almost part of the law. Some of us wish that we had never invented this phrase. It is just like a statutory instrument. But let us make an exception in our minds and say that it is different from other statutory instruments. The point is that it has only to be presented to a court as having had the authority of Parliament. It should not be regarded as evidence.
For those various reasons, I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendments. They add great length and confusion to the Bill.
Page 8, line 36, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of").
Page 12, line 27, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert--
("(2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice under subsection (1), he shall prepare and publish a draft of that code, shall consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the code of practice prepared under this section.
(4) When the Secretary of State has laid the draft of the code before Parliament, he may bring the code into operation by order made by statutory instrument.
(5) No order under subsection (4) shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) An order bringing the code into operation may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the bringing into force of that code.
(7) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code to which this section applies and issue that revised code; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of the code.").
6.30 p.m.
"When the Secretary of State has laid the draft of the code before Parliament, he may bring the code into operation by order".
"Persons, other than persons required to have regard to any code of practice issued ... by virtue of regulations under any of the enactments",
"shall by virtue of this subsection have regard to any such code in the performance of their functions".
"In all criminal and civil proceedings a code issued under this section shall be admissible in evidence".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page