| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may say that we are not gunning for the Minister but we are gunning for posterity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 15:
- Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled in the interests of consistency. Section 39 of the 1996 Act provides that any code of practice that the Secretary of State issues to a police authority or police authorities, and, indeed, revisions of those codes of practice, should be laid before Parliament. Clause 2 of the Bill makes no requirement that codes of practice relating to chief officers should, I believe properly, also be laid before Parliament.
We live in an age of communication, of open information and of trying to keep everyone informed about what is going on and how things are working. Indeed, this afternoon the Minister has made a number of gentle speeches aimed precisely at that point. Therefore, we believe that the amendment is entirely appropriate and we should like to see it included in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 74, which are grouped with Amendment No. 15, seek to apply the same condition to codes of practice in relation to NCIS and the National Crime Squad.
We do not consider this to be an unreasonable request and we hope very much that the Minister will find that he can concede to it without too much difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend, and perhaps on rather wider grounds—not only on that of consistency with the earlier Act but out of a desire to approach the whole provision for codes of practice with some caution. I believe that that caution is warranted because of the supreme importance of maintaining the doctrine of operational independence for chief officers.
I know that it is not intended by the Minister or by the Government as a whole that the codes will be other than helpful and applied within the discretion of chief officers without trenching on the doctrine that I have described. However, the point is that they may well be, and the revision of a code or the code itself may well be, phrased in terms which go beyond the proper limit.
My noble friend pointed out helpfully that the earlier statute requires a code to be laid before Parliament. I believe that I am right in saying that it is normal practice, and has been for many years now, for a code of this importance to be laid before Parliament. This code, however it is expressed, is likely to have some legislative effect. For some codes, that is provided for specifically—the Highway Code is an obvious example under the Road Traffic Act. But I believe that the noble Lord could confirm that there are codes in employment law which have legislative effect by reason of the doctrine of judicial review and the wide ambit that courts will look at when asked to review judicially a decision that has been taken by whichever officer or official is concerned.
We do not say that this code will be without legislative effect. One can foresee circumstances in which it will have some legislative effect and will, therefore, have to be taken into account by the judiciary. Therefore, I believe that this code should, on grounds rather more wide than those of consistency—important though that is—be laid before Parliament so that Parliament can, preferably by the affirmative procedure, decide whether or not to support it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I also rise to support the amendment. I point out that new Section 39A, which is to be added to Section 39, is in the strange position of not requiring that which Section 39 requires. The codes of practice to be issued by the Secretary of State to police authorities under Section 39 are required to be laid before Parliament. But these codes, which in many ways and for various reasons are of even more importance, are not.
I add to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, that new Section 39A(5) states,
Lord Rooker: I have listened to what noble Lords have said but I believe that they may be wrong. I hope that I shall be able to explain why I consider that it would be a bad idea for the amendment to be accepted. Essentially the codes of practice will be technical documents covering what can sometimes be complex areas of operational policing matters. That is one reason why the Bill provides for a strong professional input in the drafting of the codes, as we discussed in our debate a short while ago. The people involved in drafting the code will be at the sharp end in the profession. Obviously they will need to put together operational experts in the areas covered by a code. There will, in any event, be wide consultation.
However, I emphasise that they will be technical documents. In many instances they will relate to areas of policing which it would be wholly counter-productive to have in the public domain. There could be examples, such as setting out the best methods of the police in respect of crime prevention and detection, where it would be better that they were not put in the public domain.
I am conscious of the seductiveness of the amendment, so earlier today I checked on manuals that are not necessarily in the public domain. A couple of examples have been given to me and I believe that
At present when Her Majesty's Inspectorate inspects part of the police service—for example, the Special Branch—it does not necessarily put everything in its report into the public domain. These codes of practice deal with an area where it would be well outside the competence of parliamentarians to have an input, so I do not believe that it would be productive from the point of view of the police to have the amendment in the Bill.
Lord Elton: Before the Minister leaves that point, can he tell the Committee, why, if there is already machinery for issuing what is, in effect, guidance in what is called a manual that the police have to follow, it is necessary to have this procedure vitiated? Perhaps I am not making myself clear. The Minister has said that there is already machinery issued by the Home Office by which instruction, in one form or another, can be given to police officers on how to behave, without it coming into the public domain. Why is it necessary to import such matters into this process, with the result that this process cannot be transparent? Why can they not stay in the process that he has just described, and leave these matters transparent?
Lord Rooker: In giving those examples I do not believe that I have just described a process. I have simply given a couple of examples of manuals or good practice documents that in the normal course of events relate to police work. Some of them are in the public domain and some are not; some parts of some are in the public domain and other parts are not. We envisage that the codes of practice referred to here will be of a technical nature and will relate to operational matters. In regard to their drafting, I refer back to the board of the new Central Police Training and Development Authority and the expertise that that body will provide.
I have not described a system. It is true that there will be a system that follows the Bill because the new board will be set up, but I also draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph nine of the letter that I wrote to noble Lords. I said:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This is not a technical point, but new Section 39A(1) states:
"( ) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any code of practice, and any revision of a code of practice, issued by him under this section.".
"in discharging any function to which a code of practice under this section relates, a chief officer of police shall have regard to the code".
That has all kinds of statutory and legal implications of the gravest importance to the chief officers of police concerned and, of course, to police authorities and to the wider society. Not only do I see no reason why this code should not be laid before Parliament; I see every reason why it should, in particular as we on these Benches, and I suspect Members of the Committee on the Benches parallel, consider this to be a serious dislocation of the tripartite arrangements. Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister will take the matter back and review the position.
"A case in point would be the core elements of the National Intelligence Model where it is essential that all forces adopt the same methods for collecting, recording and sharing intelligence in order to deal effectively with cross-border crime".
One would not necessarily want such codes of practice.
6.15 p.m.
"If the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for the purpose of promoting the efficiency and effectiveness generally of the police forces . . . he may issue codes of practice".
I invite the Minister to respond to this point. If it could cover technical matters, it could also cover matters of the most general importance with regard to policing. Does he concede that?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page