| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 52:
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
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,
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
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Powers of the Secretary of State in Relation to NCIS and NCS]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
"(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 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."
Leave out Clause 7.
"to adopt particular operational procedures or practices; or . . . to adopt operational procedures or practices of a particular description".
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.
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."
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—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page