| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on this matter. I am also grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It is an unfortunate fact that practice elsewhere has, on occasion, been wholly unsatisfactory. It was with that in mind that we tabled the amendments. It has provoked a useful discussion. If we are to see it dealt with in some way through regulation, that may well be extremely helpful.
We shall of course be flying blind, if I may express it in that way, until we see those regulations. The Minister is fortunate that we now know him very well. We know that he is a very straight man, and we can take what he says as being what will happen. I do not believe that we have to worry about that. But a situation is always difficult when one is dealing with legislation which is dependent on regulations and sometimes on guidance and other matters. Without having those in front of one to interpret, one has some difficulty. We shall study what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 303 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 303A:
- Page 28, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: On the last occasion that I drew attention to the consequences of squeezing a new Bill into an old sausage skin in company with its previous occupant—in other words, the 1996 Act—I made a protest against the inelegancies that result. As a consequence, a large load of paper was sent to me but it went missing. The unfortunate person who delivered it obviously found it too heavy and collapsed under the weight of it. I pointed out that only the letter had arrived and I received a second copy, after which the first copy arrived. Courteous as that was, I hope that that will not happen again because I have limited storage space in my modest-sized house in London and I simply cannot go on accommodating a load of paper.
By way of reward, with Amendment No. 303A I am offering the noble Lord an opportunity which he should be keen to seize in order to strike a blow for lucidity and for the English language. I am sure that in this I shall have the energetic support of my noble friend Lord Renton.
In order to make it clear to any Member of the Committee who has not in front of him or her the text of the horror, I am afraid that I must read it out. I apologise for the pain that it will cause to your Lordships. Subsection (3) states:
- "In each of sections 9F(3), 9FA(3) and 9G(3) of that Act (application of sections 9E(1) to (3) in the case of Assistant
- Commissioners, Deputy Assistant Commissioners and commanders), at the end there shall be inserted 'but with the omission in subsection (2A)—
- (a) of paragraph (b);
- (b) in paragraph (c), of the words from 'or been sent' to 'exercise that power'; and
- (c) of the words after paragraph (c)".
The noble Lord would be within his rights if he were to rise to his feet immediately and say that in some way I have misrepresented or misread that horror. The noble Lord kindly agrees that I have done nothing of the kind. Therefore, I cannot help feeling that he must be in an extreme hurry—I shall cut short my remarks—to get rid of such a ghastly piece of language. There must be other ways of achieving the same effect.
Lord Hylton: Does the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, agree that exactly the same consideration as he has rehearsed applies to subsections (4) and (5)?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I had no desire to weary the Committee, or to try its nerves by repeating similar horrors. I chose subsection (3) as an illustration.
Lord Renton: Without appearing to be patronising, I say how refreshing it is to find a layman applying his broad mind to matters that some people would consider to be the responsibility of lawyers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to my noble friend. In the dim years of the past, I was called to the Bar and I did practise.
Lord Rooker: I declare an interest: I am not a lawyer! It is probably unfair to put the matter this way. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, read out the subsection perfectly. The subsection includes the deputy commissioner with the commissioner. The assistant commissioners, the deputy assistant commissioners and the commanders are there, but the deputy commissioner is missing. The beginning of Clause 29 states:
- "In section 9E of the 1996 Act (removal of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner".
As with the existing intervention powers under Section 42 of the Police Act 1996, the power for the Secretary of State to require a suspension is restricted to officers having the overall direction of the force; in other words, the chief constable. That is the intention. He is the person in overall charge. The suspension power deliberately extends, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, to include the deputy commissioner, but only the deputy commissioner, in view of his significant role in relation to the overall direction of the force. The power of suspension in the Bill is to be exercised primarily by police authorities.
In that respect, I apologise for the way in which the subsection is drafted, but it is necessary because that is the way that the parliamentary draftsman has tried to match the two Bills together, as the noble Lord will have seen from the vast tranche of papers that I sent him—obviously in duplicate.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I strongly object to the abominable practice of trying to squeeze into an already over-filled sausage skin—namely, the earlier Act of Parliament—a new Bill. It is a bad habit and all sorts of horrible inelegancies result. I suggest that should the noble Lord ever lose ministerial office—I am sure that will not happen in a hurry—he could apply his talents to the art of draftsmanship and produce wording that will be greatly preferred to what we have in front of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30: [Removal etc. of senior officers at the instance of the Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 303B to 305 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 305A:
- Page 30, leave out lines 25 to 28.
The noble Lord said: Are the words that my amendment seeks to leave out really necessary? I understand that the Secretary of State has already exercised his power under subsection (1) to require the removal of the chief officer concerned. That being the case, is it necessary—or have I misunderstood—for the police authority to seek his consent? He has initiated the whole process. It appears to me that that is superfluous. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: This amendment would reintroduce an unnecessary piece of the process. The new subsection (4A)(a), as inserted by Clause 30(5), removes the need for a police authority which has been directed by the Secretary of State to take action under Section 42 of the Police Act 1996 subsequently to seek the approval of the Secretary of State for a course of action which he has required to take place.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I sought to excuse the police authority from asking the Secretary of State for his approval to do something which the Secretary of State had instructed the police authority to do. The Secretary of State's agreement could surely be taken for granted.
Lord Rooker: When consolidated, that is precisely what happens.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Regulations concerning procedure for removal of senior officers]:
[Amendment No. 305B not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 306:
- Before Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause: disciplinary regulations for special constables. Special constables are included in the provisions of Part 2. However, if an investigation into a complaint against a special constable found evidence of misconduct, there is no formal mechanism for bringing disciplinary charges against that special constable, as there would be for a regular police officer.
The reason for this is that there is neither a code of conduct nor misconduct regulations for special constables. It is left to the discretion of the chief officer as to how disciplinary matters are dealt with. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory situation. When I read the briefing note, I was surprised that that was the case. Perhaps worse still, special constables can be treated in a different way in different forces so there is a lack of equity across the constabulary.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under Section 51 of the 1996 Act as to the conduct of special constables. This will place special constables on a similar footing to regular officers so far as concerns conduct and discipline.
A code of conduct and misconduct regulations for special constables is being prepared and will be completed in time for the introduction of the new system. I beg to move.
"DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL CONSTABLES
In section 51 of the 1996 Act (regulations for special constables), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(ba) the conduct of special constables and the maintenance of discipline;"."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page