asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government do not comment on day-to-day movements in foreign exchange markets. 'The Government's objective for the exchange rate remains a stable and competitive pound in the medium term.

My Lords, on the other hand, the Government often use the expression "strong pound"—which is what the Question is about. Surely it must always be wrong to describe the pound as strong: since the euro's launch, it has fallen by about 15 per cent against the US dollar—in which, contrary to what the Minister told noble Lords on Tuesday 60 per cent of our foreign trade is transacted. Is not the problem that those who were euphoric at the birth of the euro simply cannot bring themselves to describe it as weak, and that, therefore, the poor old pound must take the blame? Furthermore, is not "weak euro" the only truthful expression, given that it has gone down like a stone against every major currency on the planet?

My Lords, I have done an extensive literature search, but I have found only three recent references by Ministers to a "strong pound". In all those cases, the reference was not to the dollar but to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has rightly described as a "weak euro". Moreover, in all those cases, the suggestion was not that a "strong pound", in those terms, is a good thing or a bad thing. As for the euro's share in our overseas transactions, it comprises 65 per cent of the Bank of England sterling exchange rate index, whereas the US dollar comprises only 16.5 per cent of the index.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is completely irrelevant whether it is a "strong pound" or a "weak euro", but completely relevant—as noble Lords discussed earlier—whether our exchange rate is stable and competitive? Does he also agree that the best route to making the pound stable and competitive is for the Government to announce now that they plan to join the euro?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, takes us hack to the Question asked on Tuesday by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He may also have noticed that I gave exactly the same answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I shall also give him the same answer as I gave him last time. It was right then and it is right now.

My Lords, can the Minister give the House any indication of how far he thinks the pound would fall if the Government were foolish enough to announce that we shall join the euro?

My Lords, no; we do not comment on day-to-day movements in the pound.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, regardless of whether the sterling exchange rate is strong or weak, the current exchange rate combined with the Government's policies is doing immense damage to British manufacturing industry, and thousands of jobs have been lost as a result of those policies?

My Lords, no exchange rate is right for all purposes. It is true that manufacturing industry finds difficulty in the pound's current exchange rate—not only against the euro but against other currencies as well—which is why we have taken so many measures to help manufacturing industry, notably in corporation tax levels and specific help for research and development. Nevertheless, what is bad and undoubtedly difficult for manufacturing industry is not bad for, for example, service industry, which is doing very well with current exchange rates.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we need to have long memories in these matters? Is it not only a couple of years ago that manufacturing industry was screaming that the pound's exchange rate value was too low and that we were suffering dreadfully from overseas competition? Can one ever get it right?

My Lords, such pressure is always put on governments, but particularly in the run up to a Budget. We are currently in such a period, and we are hearing those pressures from manufacturing industry and the business sector generally. It is important that people should express their views to the Chancellor. However, those views should be expressed in the context of the fact that we have the lowest unemployment level in 30 years and our economy has the highest investment level in many years.

My Lords, if we start having pay increases of 9.5 per cent over a 12-month period in organisations in which the state has the sole shareholding, is there not a significant risk that we shall no longer have a strong pound?

My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord is referring to particular wage increases. However, the general position is that wage increase levels are currently very low.

My Lords, while recognising that the Question was intended to attack the euro's exchange level, does my noble friend agree that inflation and interest rate levels are much more important to our economic stability than the value of the pound?

My Lords, yes, it is correct to say that exchange rates are very seldom the prime move':; much more often they are the result of other economic indicators. My noble friend is right to say that the strength of our economy compared with those of other G7 members, our employment and investment levels, which I have described, and the improved productivity we have achieved are fundamentally important factors.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the business community that devaluation of sterling, in its exchange rate against the euro, is a precondition of joining the euro?

My Lords, I challenge the view that there is any settled view of the business community as such. There are those in the business community who support Britain in Europe, those who support sterling and those who support Britain out of Europe. There is no fixed or universal view in the business community. On the whole, however, the business community is very sympathetic to British membership of European monetary union.

My Lords, does the Minister mlise that, when he uses the Bank of England's trade-weighted index as the basis to mislead the House on the balance between our trade in euros and in dollars, that index is entirely irrelevant for his purpose? Would the Government be good enough to consider the Customs and Excise figures, which confirm the figures that I have given, rather than the figures that he gave to the House on Tuesday and again today?

My Lords, I do not take very kindly to the word "mislead". If the noble Lord wants the figures on trade shares, they are as follows: 50 per cent of our trade is with the euro zone; 16.5 per cent with the United States; and 18.5 per cent with NAFTA—which is, I know, what the noble Lord would like us to join.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government's view is that the Johannesburg Summit should focus on action to make globalisation work for sustainable development, especially for the poorest. Our priorities for the summit were well reflected in the comments made at the recent PrepCom by the European Union, speaking through the Spanish presidency. These priorities are: poverty eradication and sustainable livelihoods, emphasising capacity building and education; the opportunities presented by resource productivity, including the application of science and technology; energy; freshwater and oceans; and sustainable development initiatives for Africa.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree, though, that there is a huge challenge for the Government, the EU and the world summit in that the earth summit builds on the good principles established at Rio, of which the Minister has outlined some, but these principles, including the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle—which I believe the Government have signed up to; at least according to their website for the earth summit—are often ignored, challenged or ruled out of order by the World Trade Organisation? What are the Government doing to try to bring into a focused aim the two parallel universes that are dwelt in by these different organisations?

My Lords, I do not agree that they are parallel universes. There is a clear overlap between the objectives that will be pursued in Johannesburg and the Doha process which was regarded as a development round. It is important to recognise that the sustainable development summit will deal not only with the kind of environmental issues to which the noble Baroness referred, which were dealt with in Rio and followed up in Kyoto, but also with sustainability on an economic and a social basis. Therefore, there is a wider agenda which is, given certain conditions, fully compatible with the WTO process.

My Lords, will the Minister help to ensure—some groups have pressed for this—that the agenda of the summit enables serious consideration to be given to the subject of reproductive health? Does he accept that the subject of sustainability provides a genuine context in which to try to meet a declared target; that is, the provision of comprehensive reproductive health services for all individuals of appropriate age as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015? Does he also accept that that is in the context of a generally accepted figure of about 350 million couples world-wide who would be prepared, or would like, to use contraceptive services but do not have access to them?

My Lords, as far as the agenda is concerned, I have indicated the broad range of items which the EU has suggested to the various preparation committees should comprise the agenda for the summit. Reproductive health is not one of those priorities. I recognise the importance of the noble Viscount's comments. He will know that some developments have taken place on this issue. There have been more such developments in the OECD area than in the UN area. The agenda is not yet closed and there is not a single input into it. However, at the moment reproductive health is not one of the items we are pursuing although the noble Viscount may have noticed that a separate section in the chair's report from the latest PrepCom meeting deals with health in general.

My Lords, we on these Benches are glad that the Prime Minister has indicated his intention to be present at the summit in Johannesburg. However, does the Minister appreciate that the way to realise the eminently worthy ideals expressed at the PrepCom session, with which no one could possibly disagree, is to concentrate upon what can be done locally so that efforts in sustainable development are led by individuals and local communities? Is the Minister aware of what is already being done by Churches and local groups under the Agenda 21 umbrella to transform environmental awareness and introduce good practice? Will he do what he can to ensure that the summit meeting does not simply deal with abstraction but enables the sharing of stories of good local practice round the world which can be so inspiring for individuals and groups who are trying to do their bit?

My Lords, I certainly share the right reverend Prelate's view that this matter will not become a reality unless we build from the bottom up and make sure that local groups, local initiatives, local business and local public authorities take on board the sustainability messages. That is an important dimension of what we see as the priorities for Johannesburg. For that to work properly a framework needs to be established by the heads of government. I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's recognition of the role that the Prime Minister has played here. He was the first head of government to indicate that he would attend the summit.

My Lords, as part of the Government's sustainable development policy, and following a change of direction of the Bush Administration in the United States with regard to new power sources, what are the Government doing to support research into fuel cell technology? Are they currently co-operating with the Americans in that?

My Lords, the Government have long supported alternative transport fuels in a number of research and economic studies. Of course, major research is being carried out across the world by motor companies and others into the issue of fuel cell technology. The Government believe that that could provide a carbon-free future for a large proportion of transport. If I may say so, in my previous capacity I very much encouraged the Government to move down that road. That is the Government's position.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an element of incompatibility between the priorities that the European Union has announced for the G8 Summit and its own aid programme? What measures are the Government taking to persuade the European Union to realign its aid programme so that it fits in particular with the objective of poverty eradication by diverting aid from richer countries in the third world to the poorest?

My Lords, as is well known to the House, the Government have some reservations about the balance of the EU aid programme and, indeed, the efficiency of its delivery. I and my colleagues both in this House and in another place have emphasised that over time. I refer in particular to the dimension of focusing on building capacity and initiatives at the local level. Therefore, I largely agree with what the noble Lord said.

asked Her Majesty's Government

My Lords, that will depend on the length of the administration. However, the Government made a short-term commercial loan facility of £2.1 billion available to the administrator to pay Railtrack's creditors and keep the rail network running to the end of March.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It is a fact that since privatisation the cost of rolling stock has actually fallen in real teens. However, the cost of work on the track and signalling has multiplied two to three times. Is that due to inefficiencies in Railtrack, overhearing safety considerations, performance regimes or some other matter because it certainly does not manifest itself in the returns to the contractors who actually carry out the work?

My Lords, I should be most interested to see the evidence on that matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refers. I refer to the range of reasons that he gave and to the matter of equally competitive supply markets. However, I suspect that the issue on which he focuses is the quality and skill of procurement on the part of the train operating companies by comparison with Railtrack. Be that as it may, I shall be pleased to investigate the matter further if he will give me the details.

My Lords, will my noble friend help a little more as regards the time-scale of Railtrack's administration? Does he agree that the first stage is for the administrator to set up an information room so that bidders can see the quality and state of the assets? Will he confirm that that is supposed to be done by the end of March, or will he give an alternative date?

My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the creation of a data room so that potential proposers are well aware of all the liabilities and assets against which they would submit bids in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State at the end of October, shortly after the administration order was issued. That is a substantial piece of work. I am told that the administrator will be working to the end of March, or thereabouts, thus enabling invitations for bids to be issued in April, with a potential submission date some time in July.

My Lords, how does the Minister interpret the words "will have to spend" in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? Does he interpret that phrase to mean "need to spend" or "to have available to spend"? There is a bit of a difference between the two.

My Lords, given where the costs will eventually fall, that is probably a sophisticated but academic question.

Oh!

My Lords, bear me out! In respect of the loan facility, there is a further technical complication about state-aid funding, with which I shall not bore the House. That will effectively mean that Railtrack, underwritten by a government guarantee, will be able to replace the funding that it has from the Government in the short term with commercial funds. That will eventually be a charge against the assets of the company, as one would expect. Likewise, the costs of the administrator will again eventually be a charge against the company at the eventual settlement and, I hope, when it moves out of administration.

My Lords, in view of that reply, I ask the Minister to advise the House whether there have been any requests to the Government so far to guarantee or underwrite the finances of a proposed company limited by guarantee for Railtrack. Can he say in principle whether the Government would be agreeable to such an approach and, if so, will there be any limitation to the support that they would be likely to give?

My Lords, this is one of the situations in which I can say with honesty, "Not to my knowledge". As noble Lords well know, the Government regard a company limited by guarantee as being one possible way forward. It will ensure that when the rail administrator invites bids, there will be at least one bid on the table which is clearly in the public interest. The SRA is supporting the development of such a proposal. Clearly, that is at arm's length from the final decision that will be made by the administrator, who will put a proposal about what he believes is the best way forward to the Secretary of State.

My Lords, on the question of Railtrack making information available, is the Minister certain that Railtrack can provide an accurate list of the size and value of its assets?

My Lords, I would be mad to say that I was confident, on the basis of the knowledge that I have, that due diligence would be perfectly fulfilled in the circumstances of which we are aware. The administrator has a particularly challenging job in that respect. One reason—not the sole reason—why Railtrack went into administration was because it was not aware of the scope and extent of its assets or liabilities. The fact that that happened after a period during which it was a company is astounding. The second reason, as noble Lords know, involves the unbelievable cost overrun on the West Coast Main Line. I am certain that the administrator is doing his best to fulfil his responsibilities to the court to ensure that bidders have a full and fair picture, so that we do not have a repetition of the complete mess that we have seen previously in relation to Railtrack.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Railtrack is having to continue to advertise for new staff? Is he satisfied that, despite the uncertainties of the period of administration, it is able to recruit people of adequate skill and calibre in engineering and administration?

My Lords, I am certain that Railtrack is having to advertise for new staff—it is a substantial business and it is continuing to operate. That was the purpose of having an administration order rather than a winding up order. I do not know in detail whether it is having any difficulty recruiting staff. However, most people believe that, given the Government's commitment to establishing a strong railway industry in this country and to remarkable levels of capital investment over the next 10 years, many able people in the public and private sectors will be keen to join the rail industry. We saw that in relation to the success of the recent Chiltern bid and extension of that franchise.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that some of the comments in another place suggesting that there is a contradiction between efficient government and honest government were very unfortunate? Does he recognise that the Northcote-Trevelyan principles of independence and impartiality have been a crucial element in establishing the reputation of British governments for honesty?

Secondly, does the Minister agree that while special advisers often do an excellent job, the network of special advisers associated with the Policy Unit of No. 10 are seen, at least in some quarters, to be rather more powerful than elected Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers to whom they offer advice?

Finally, in order to close the circle of accountability—accountability through Ministers to Parliament, which the Minister mentioned, is pretty distant—would the Minister consider the possibility of Parliament being consulted on a ceiling on the number of special advisers and of Parliament having to approve the appointment of any special adviser who has the executive power to give orders to civil servants?

My Lords, I readily agree with the implication that the British Civil Service is the best in the world. We all have a shared pride in its integrity, propriety and, indeed, impartiality. As to the suggestion that there are special advisers who are more powerful than Ministers or Secretaries of State, that has not been my experience in government.

As to the other questions that the noble Baroness raised, we have promised that we shall bring in a Civil Service Bill. That will be preceded by full consultation. Those issues would best be dealt with at that point.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Select Committee on Public Administration in the other place has tried repeatedly to get special advisers to appear before it but its requests have been consistently refused? Will the Minister lift that unwarranted barrier on their coming before the committee to give evidence about what they do?

My Lords, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and, as I have said, special advisers are responsible to Ministers. It is for Ministers to judge who should appear. That includes permanent as well as temporary civil servants, such as special advisers. We have a very thorough system of accountability. The most accountable Minister of all is the Prime Minister, who answers questions every week in Parliament. The present situation and the Government's present practice are well justified.

My Lords, since two special advisers were transformed into civil servants four years ago—that is, the chief of staff and the head of communications at No. 10 Downing Street—according to government spokesmen in this House at the time, have any more special advisers undergone that transformation to the Civil Service?

My Lords. to repeat, all special advisers are temporary civil servants. The noble Lord refers, I am sure, to Article 3(3) of the Civil Service Order in Council of 1997, which provided scope for the government to appoint three special advisers, who would have the power to direct other civil servants. Only two have been appointed, as the noble Lord said—the director of communications and strategy and the Prime Minister's chief of staff.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should keep a sense of proportion about recent events and recognise that under this Government, as under the previous government, civil servants and special advisers rub along together most of the time tolerably well? Does he further agree that no codes of conduct, however well drawn up, will work if there are individuals who are determined to prove themselves the spin doctors from hell?

My Lords. I agree with the general thrust of that question. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who has great experience in these matters, say the other day in this House that no Act can prescribe for personal relationships. The noble Viscount. Lord Astor, referred to that as office politics. I have no doubt that for the people involved that is a very serious matter.

However, all governments have certainly suffered from these problems in the past. I was looking at evidence that the then Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, gave in 1996 when he complained about leaks. He said that from 1980 430 leaks were reported—about one every fortnight—which were worthy of investigation. He concluded—as I am sure would the party opposite—that any leaks are to be deplored.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there was nothing novel in 1997 about two special advisers in No. 10 Downing Street giving directions to civil servants? That has happened in the press office and in the Policy Unit of No. 10 many times in the past. What was novel was that proper provision was made for it under the Civil Service Order in Council.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. It emphasises the comment made by the Public Administration Select Committee, which praised the Government for their commendable progress on special advisers. For the first time we have a specific code of conduct and, as the Select Committee said, for the first time we have transparency, which did not exist under previous administrations.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:

Whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the operation of the EU growth and stability pact.

My Lords, we have said consistently that we support a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact, taking into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment.

My Lords, is it not regrettable that an important White Paper was published this morning and not made the subject of a Statement in both Houses of Parliament? In view of that, will the Minister ensure that an early debate on the White Paper takes place in your Lordships' House?

Are we not witnessing, in the words of the Chancellor this morning, a crude attempt by the Government to rewrite the EU's convergence programme and the rules of the EU growth and stability pact by including or omitting figures to suit themselves? Is that not because the Chancellor can see from today's published zero growth figures for the UK economy that the public finances are heading into a massive deficit, even more horrendous than the £54 billion of borrowing already planned over the next four years?

There are EU rules. The Government are in breach of them. What is their solution? It is to change the rules. Is that not what the Chancellor's words this morning really meant?

My Lords, I resist the suggestion that the Chancellor behaved in any way improperly or discourteously towards the House of Commons. He went out of his way to ensure that he was able to unveil the White Paper personally to the House of Commons. He agreed to the Speaker's request that he should defer answering the first Question until the end of Treasury Questions in order that there should be sufficient time for him to make a Statement on the White Paper and for there to be debate on it. Of course, the White Paper has been available in the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office since 11.30 a.m. today.

I also resist the suggestion that there is any way in which this country is in conflict with the stability and growth pact. We are in conformity not only with our own fiscal rules but also well within the criteria of the stability and growth pact. When the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, refers to zero growth, he is referring to this morning's headlines, which relate only to the fourth quarter of last year. Growth in the whole of last year was of course within the margins which we set for ourselves and which we expected both in the Budget last year and in the Pre-Budget Report. As the noble Lord knows, this country has been outstandingly successful in resisting the dangers of volatility in global economies.

My Lords, although one has had only a couple of hours in which to examine this document, is my noble friend aware that it is a remarkably interesting and important document? It raises almost every important question confronting our country in the economic sphere and the European Union. I am genuinely surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, takes such an acid view of the document. It does not hide anything. Quite the contrary; it exposes almost everything that needs to be exposed.

None the less, is my noble friend aware that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on one matter; namely, that this document is so important—I am not sure what my noble friend the Chief Whip is about to say—that, instead of wasting a whole day on the trivial matter of foxhunting, if your Lordships' House is to have any future, and in my black moods I sometimes wonder whether it has, we should give a debate on this subject absolutely top priority? I hope that my noble friend will speak to my noble friend the Chief Whip on the matter and press him on it.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston rightly reminds me that 1 did not respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about a future debate. Of course, as the House knows, that is a matter for the usual channels. Personally, I should be very happy to have a debate on this subject.

My noble friend is entirely right about the content of the White Paper. It was promised in the Chancellor's speech to the CBI in November last year. It addresses the reforms which are necessary in Europe in our labour, capital and product markets in order to increase competition and modernise the European economy. Those are matters of the most profound importance and they will be of great importance at the Barcelona Summit meeting and beyond. They were foreshadowed in the Lisbon Summit.

My Lords, I support both noble Lords who have already spoken in pressing for time to be given to a debate on this subject. I hope very much that the Minister will speak to his noble colleagues in the usual channels, just as I shall speak to mine, in order to press that case.

Does the noble Lord agree that if we are to have growth and stability in Europe, the level of the currency and whether we are to join the euro, which we debated earlier, will be only one factor in determining whether growth and stability come about? This White Paper, whether or not one agrees with everything in it, deals with the other factors which will be crucially important; that is, the way the labour markets work, the way the capital markets work, and, indeed, Europe's place within the world. Therefore, given the

importance of all those issues within the context of the development of the EU, I return to my first point: we should have more time in which to discuss the matter.

My Lords, I have already indicated my personal sympathy with that view. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord will express the same view to his own Chief Whip. I do so now.

Of course, these issues are of far greater significance in terms of what we can do about them than the matter which we debated in Starred Questions on Tuesday and today. That brings us back to the very important debate which we must continue to have on whether we comply with the five economic tests which the Chancellor has set.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that it has been agreed in the usual channels that this House will have a full day's debate on hunting on Tuesday, 19th March. Your Lordships may also be interested to know that my right honourable friend the President of the Council has today announced in the other place that a similar debate will take place in that House on the previous day, Monday, 18th March.

The debate in your Lordships' House will take place on a Motion which will be both amendable and divisible. I am advised that some careful thought will have to be given to the exact wording of the Motion, and the House authorities are currently considering that question. Therefore, at this stage I cannot tell your Lordships exactly what the wording will be. However, I can tell your Lordships that it is our intention to let the I-louse consider the matter fully and to vote on more than one option.

The speakers' list is now open in the Government Whips' Office. I have suggested to the usual channels that we sit at 11 a.m. that day to ensure that the votes take place at a reasonable hour. The usual channels are currently considering that proposal, but I thought that I should let your Lordships know that we were considering an early start that day.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for telling the House, in a little more detail, what most noble Lords read in the newspapers this morning or heard on the television news yesterday evening. It is good of him. However, he has not given us all the details that we need, but perhaps he or the Chief Whip plan to tell us more in due course.

The whole House knows that I have great admiration for the noble and learned Lord, but today that admiration is tempered with sympathy. We know exactly what has been going on. The Government are in some trouble: Mr Byers, Jo Moore, Sixsmith, Mittal, dodgy donations and so on. The cry goes out from No. 10 that something new and controversial must he found and, hey presto, it is hunting once more.

There will be a free vote on this subject and some noble Lords on the Benches opposite find that puzzling. No doubt it will he a challenge for them and a new experience, but I am sure that they will not have too much difficulty with it.

I have one or two detailed questions for the noble and learned Lord. Less than a year ago we had a debate on this subject. Does he believe that anything has changed in that time? Last time the debate was in relation to a Bill, a piece of legislation that the Government had brought forward and sent through another place. If a Bill was good enough then, why is it not good enough now, rather than producing yet another declaratory Motion that appears to have little effect? Would it not be better to resolve the differences that appear to exist between the Houses and perhaps within this House? Besides resolving those differences, and so that we can better understand the compromises that are talked about, would it not he better to have a Bill, with amendments proposed and debated, in the normal way'?

What will the Government do in the event of a disagreement between this House and another place? If the result is the same as last time. will the Government shrug their shoulders and say, "There we are, we tried, but that is the end of that for this Parliament", or will that encourage them to bring forward a Bill'?

I believe that it would be useful for the House to know a little more about the Government's thinking. Even better, perhaps the Government should publish a draft Bill and give it pre-legislative scrutiny. That is very much the fashion of the time.

Perhaps we should decide whether the House should sit at 11 o'clock after we have seen the final speakers' list. If there is an enormous number of speakers, and the Government are so keen for us to debate hunting once more, perhaps the debate should take place over two days rather than the House sitting at 11 o'clock.

I ask all those questions in the usual spirit of helpfulness and co-operation. I know that the Government will see them as such. However, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Peston, 1 wonder whether we should take his advice and let another place tear itself apart over this issue while we have a debate on the future of the European economy.

My Lords, consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, on the one hand, that noble Lords on the Benches opposite do not want a debate at all, but, on the other hand, that we should spend two days on it. Which is his option?

There is no question of the House of Commons tearing itself apart. Were 1 a betting man, and had I' a spare £5 note, I would willingly bet the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, on any odds that he cared to offer me, that the House of Commons will vote for a ban on hunting with hounds. I am ready to sit down while he takes me up on my offer!

Our manifesto—unlike the party of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we are able to deliver on our manifesto—states:

"we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked [in the Lords] we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved".

I believe that it is wise to revisit this matter. It is an issue on which many people feel passionately and on which some are open to rational debate. It is possible that we can arrive at some sort of legislative compromise. If that is possible, Parliament should have this opportunity. That is all we are offering. In the other place there will be a day's debate. In this House, quite fairly, and I hope honourably, I have suggested that, because passions run high and because many of your Lordships are genuinely interested, we ought to start at 11 o'clock in the morning so that we have ample opportunity for every voice to be heard.

I remind your Lordships that this is a perfectly civilised way to deal with the matter. On 12th March 2001 the Second Reading debate on the Hunting Bill started at seven minutes past three. According to my record, there were 63 speakers, not counting interrupters, and there were 10 hours and 41 minutes of debate. Most noble Lords who were present, or who took part or who read the debate, thought that that provided a fair opportunity to discuss the topic so that every voice could be heard. In suggesting that we start at 11 o'clock I am trying to accommodate all noble Lords who have differing views that they want to express.

My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Leader of the House for his statement and support his view that the debate should start at 11 o'clock so as to give a full opportunity for noble Lords to express their opinions. Like the Leader of the Official Opposition, on these Benches we too shall have a free vote.

I suggest that the crucial issue will be how the debate is framed, and whether, as the noble and learned Lord implies, we should offer the whole range of options that are before the House. That is the crucial basis on which it may conceivably be possible to reach a reasonable consensus. The noble and learned Lord's well known ability to arbitrate and to mediate almost anything will be put to an extreme test by trying to frame the Motion so that all the options can be seriously considered.

My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Baroness. We shall have a free vote on these Benches. This is an entirely appropriate issue for a free vote. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness. We need to have all the options available so that they can be voted on. That is our purpose. The drafting will he technical and that is why we want to spend a little time producing a range of options that will be available for your Lordships to discuss, to debate and to vote upon.

My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to put a further question to the noble and learned Lord. In his original statement he said, not unexpectedly, that the Motion that will he put before your Lordships' House has to be thought out by the Government and presumably thought out in the light of what happens in another place where there is to be a free vote. If the debate in another place is to take place the day before the debate in this House, we shall not have much notice of the government Motion. Therefore, would it be better, from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of this House, if there were an interval of a day or two preferably several days—between the decisions of another place and our discussion in this House?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has mistaken my point. The purpose of holding the debate in the Commons first—if your Lordships will allow me to give my view—is to allow your Lordships to be informed by what has been said and decided upon in the Commons, but not oppressed by it. I believe that that is a perfectly proper way of approaching the matter. I did not say that it will be a government Motion. I said that the House authorities are considering the form of the Motion. As has been said by the noble Baroness, it should be couched in such a way that reasonable options are available to be debated and voted upon.

My Lords, presumably the question being asked in the other place is exactly the same as the question being asked in this House. I am a little puzzled therefore that it is only our House that is considering the terms of the Motion. Is there not some sort of collusion between the two Houses?

My Lords, yes.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 1:

I support my noble friend. It is a matter of important principle, for the reasons that he gave, that his suggestion should be adopted. The Secretary of State, in this Bill in particular, should not act without consulting all interested parties.

Looking ahead, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to consider, for example, Clause 9 where the commission is appointed by the Secretary of State. Surely as we go through the passage of the Bill, as my noble friend suggested in principle, that ought to be in consultation with the same sort of people—not necessarily word for word—referred to in Amendment No. 11. I support the amendment and the principle for which my noble friend contends.

I begin by declaring an interest as the vice-chairman of the Thames Valley Police Authority, of which I have been a member for some nine years. I am also on the committee of the Association of Police Authorities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his letter, which I believe that he has circulated widely, responding to the briefing paper produced by the Association of Police Authorities.

The police authorities have, through their national body the APA, given strong support to the Government's aim of modernising the police service. We all want an efficient modern police service that, so far as possible, meets the needs of the public. We all want our local communities to benefit from improvements in policing. Police authorities inject that local voice into debates on the direction in which the service should be moving.

Police authorities and forces have generally welcomed the proposals for a national policing plan. We agree with the Government that a national plan should provide a useful vehicle for setting out clearly in one place the Government's expectations of the police service. Our amendments seek to improve the Government's proposals by including on the face of the Bill various provisions relating to the contents of the plan; how it is to be drawn up; and where it is to be published.

Amendment No. 6 standing in my name seeks specifically to ensure that the important role which the police play in policing our roads and in preventing accidents and casualties is taken into account. I remind the Minister that on our roads each year 3,500 people are killed and 38,000 are seriously injured and require hospital treatment. That role is not mentioned prominently in the Bill nor in the duties of the Secretary of State. The matter is overlooked because the media focus on crime rates and detections and have, shall we say, almost a love affair with the motorist, which blocks out the issue of road casualties. I should welcome a commitment from the Government that roads policing will feature in a national policing plan.

The amendment also requires the Home Secretary to publish the national policing plan by the end of October of the year before that to which it applies. It is critically important that we build a deadline into the legislation. The White Paper says that the Government will produce the national plan by the end of the calendar year. There is no such commitment in the Bill.

Hard experience suggests that this is not a sufficient safeguard. For example, in January this year—and I should like to impress this matter on the Minister—the Home Secretary announced his proposed ministerial priorities for policing and best value performance indicators. We are obliged as a police authority to consult with all kinds of people—the business community, the minority communities and people who are excluded in one way or another. We must consult locally. It is a long and laborious process in which I have been involved. To receive in January the Home Secretary's draft objectives after one has consulted everyone and when the document is almost ready for the printers—

I am sorry to intervene. But I think that the noble Lord has departed slightly and gone beyond the contents of Amendment No. 6, which is in this first group. He has moved on to a subsequent issue.

I apologise. Members of the Committee will have to put that down to inexperience.

Amendment No. 6 seeks to place on the face of the Bill a clear obligation on the Home Secretary to consult the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO, NCIS and NCS on the contents of the plan. We have tabled a number of similar amendments throughout Part I of the Bill.

There is a fundamental principle to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred, and to which I shall refer. We made clear at Second Reading our concerns that Part 1 of the Bill radically shifts the balance of the tripartite relationship in favour of the Home Secretary. It diminishes the say which local people, through their policing authorities, have over local policing. The amendment seeks to act as a counterweight. We are sure that the Minister and the Home Secretary want to see crime and the fear of crime reduced, but these proposals are too dramatic.

The Government have said that they will set up a national police forum. Again that is welcome. But there are two concerns that I want to raise. First, we understand that under current plans the APA and ACPO will each have one place on the forum so that the representatives of other interests can be accommodated. We agree that there should be an inclusive approach and that those with an interest in policing should have a voice on the forum. But we must also recognise the statutory role and responsibilities of police authorities and chief constables in the governance of policing. Their role is qualitatively different from that of—for example—local authorities or representatives of minority communities.

Secondly, the forum will have no statutory status. A future Home Secretary may decide that he does not want a forum and abolish it. There is nothing to stop him doing that.

Therefore, it is essential that the Home Secretary is required by law to consult the two other tripartite parties. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.

I strongly support the intention of these amendments with regard to a national policing plan. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that there is a danger that the plan will be seen by the public as indicating some lack of confidence in the service itself. If we are to have such a plan. it must not be just some piece of public relations; it must be informed by the widest possible consultation, and particularly involve those actually in the police service. The officials at the Home Office will not have to implement the plan; nor do they have the experience on the ground to advise on what is involved. That point needs underlining. We are not dealing with an unsuccessful low-performing service, but with a service which has great respect from the public here and the admiration of overseas governments.

Obviously, I do not claim that everything is perfect. But generally, the rapport between the police and the public in this country is better than in any other country of which I have experience, and certainly in Europe. That is not because numerically the strength of the police in this country is stronger: we are under-policed in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Condon. made a very strong point about that at Second Reading when he compared the strength of' the Metropolitan Police and the strength of the New York Police Department.

It is all very well talking about introducing policies of zero tolerance, but one needs the police to implement a policy of that kind. Frankly, with present strengths, that would be quite impossible. We should therefore listen to what the police service has to say. We should give respect to a service which has served us extremely well over past years. We should certainly consult police authorities; we should certainly consult chief constables and superintendents; but in many ways, the characteristic strength of the British police is the ordinary serving policeman, the policeman working on the streets around the country. We should consult him.

We should consult the Police Federation. The Government's attitude to the Police Federation concerns ine. That is one reason that I rise to speak at this point. I was frankly amazed to hear the Home Secretary's attack on the Police Federation, when he said that the federation had,

"been resisting change for decades".

The Home Secretary is plainly wrong to say that.

As it happens, I have observed the Police Federation during several decades: in the late 1960s, when I was home affairs correspondent at The Times; in the 1970s, when I was a Home Office spokesman in another place; and in the 1990s, when I was shadow Home Secretary. It is ridiculous to brush aside its point of view as simply standing in the way of change for decade after decade. When I first knew it, it was campaigning to point out the dangerous wastage levels from the police—the number of police who were leaving the service prematurely. It was right, and on that the Home Office was wrong. To come up to date, it is campaigning against the use of civilian staff to patrol our streets. It is absolutely right on that. I regard that as one of the worst proposals to be made by the Home Office for a very long time. Frankly, the Government are wrong.

The federation that has been opposing change for a decade after decade and has stood in the way of progress has had in my time as its parliamentary advisers none less than the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and Lord Morris, from the Labour Benches. What the Home Secretary has said is profoundly wrong and—I hope that the Minister understands this—causes a great deal of anger among the police service because it shows a total ignorance of police history.

But that shows something else: why we should consult and consult widely. The country does not want a plan imposed from above by the Home Office without consultation. That is the point. If we are to have a plan—there are questions about that—there must be a requirement to consult. The Home Secretary can obviously reject advice that he is given, but he must at least be made aware of that advice and of other points of view. We in Parliament must also be made aware of the advice given and be able to question the Home Secretary about why it has been rejected.

My fear at present is that the Government are going down the wrong path in their relations with the police. To accept my noble friend's amendment would show a much better sign to the police service.

I rise briefly to support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Fowler about consultation. While I was a Member of the other place for 27 years I received many representations from my police authority and the chief constable, usually about funding matters. Rarely have I received representations on constitutional issues, but in this case, the chairman of Norfolk police authority has written to me in strong terms about the danger of a fundamental shift in the balance of the tripartite arrangements between the Government, police authorities and chief constables that this and other provisions in Part 1 could involve. While no doubt the Minister will tell us that of course the Government intend to consult and that all the provisions will be carried out in a reasonable way, the concern is that under a different government or Home Secretary the powers could be used to override the views of local police authorities and—under later provisions—chief constables around the country.

I cannot understand why the Government are likely to resist this group of amendments. It seems to me sensible for the Government always to want to consult in advance of producing the national police plan. To link the amendment with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, if those arc not accepted there may easily be no consultation at all. Police authorities may go through all the processes of consultation and so on in drawing up their own arrangements for the year ahead and then find that they are completely overridden by the Home Secretary's diktat. That is just one instance in which there is a real concern that a future government could fundamentally change the balance. That is why it is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to accept this and the next group of amendments. Without them, the authoritarian attitude of the Home Office will be under suspicion.

We also support the amendment. Our Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 11. There is no fundamental difference between them in terms of the consultation process, and I fully endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I also fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said about the bodies that are essential to the consultation process if we are to have positive policing in this country.

As was mentioned on Second Reading, the tripod that consists of the local police authority. central government and the local community is essential. If we disturb the process by suggesting that much control will be exercised centrally, we create a dangerous situation. We shall highlight that later through a number of amendments that we intend to the issue in Committee and on Report.

We do not intend by our amendment to question the powers of the Home Secretary. Nor do we question the need to set out strategic priorities for the police. That is right and important. Our amendment sets out how such plans should be produced. it is common sense that the people who must implement the plans and those whom they may need to consult—essentially, we are talking about local consultation—are involved. We go slightly further in our proposals than does the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, by identifying some relevant bodies, but the list is not exclusive.

In essence, the formula suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of,

"consultation with relevant persons",

may create such an obligation, but we should also write in statute the minimum number of bodies that should be consulted before producing a plan. As has already been pointed out by Members of the Committee, in the hands of a good Home Secretary we may have no problems hut, from time to time, people may be in power who abuse their authority. Then we are headed for serious difficulty.

The other essential element in producing plans is the involvement of the local community. We seem to underestimate the importance of local consultative councils. To a great extent, their interests are represented by the police authority. Their participation is important. Although we may have a national strategic plan. we should never forget what is required in local situations. What may be required in Cumbria may be quite different from what is required in metropolitan London. Those groups must take part in consultation.

Finally, in the Police Act 1996 there was an obligation on the Home Office to consult the tripartite state partners. What made the Government reject that proposition in this Bill? It is an essential element. I hope that the Minister will take into account the views of those of us on these Benches and on the Official Opposition Benches and accept the amendment, so that the partnership can become a reality.

The structure of Part I of the Bill is interesting. It is open to the Minister to reply that there are requirements to consult in one form or another scattered among subsequent clauses and to say that the national policing plan is merely an announcement of What the Secretary of State intends to do with the powers granted him by those clauses. However, he will be committed to the national policing plan, and its feasibility and advisability should be considered by the Secretary of State in consultation with those most closely affected by it.

It is leaving it too late to rely on subsequent provisions for consultation; for instance, Clause 7(3) and (4), forming part of the proposed new section of the 1996 Act. By the time the Secretary of State—or his surrogate, as it is in subsection (4) arrives at the consultation, he will be committed to the policy set out in the national policing plan. My noble friend is right to say that the consultation should be brought forward. I would not dissent from what has been said by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches about specifying some of the bodies to be consulted.

My noble friend raised a concern that is not just a bogey; it is a real danger. The structure of this part of the Bill could be used by an ambitious and irresponsible political party in five or 10 years' time to issue directions to the police in a way that would make them subject to political control. We saw that in Germany in the 1930s, and it is as well for those of us who remember that time—even if we were fairly young—to make sure that others do not forget. That purpose lies behind many amendments to come, including several of mine, but at the moment we are simply talking about prudent, good government. The matter should be taken forward in consultation and not by the Secretary of State on his own.

I agree warmly with what my noble friend Lord Fowler said; I need not repeat it. The reason why the Bill is viewed with a degree of suspicion that verges on hostility is that it seems to be just one more acceptance of the idea that all wisdom resides in the centre. It is unlikely that anybody agrees with that, but the view has been constantly pushed and promoted by successive governments. And it flourishes in no Whitehall department more strongly perhaps than in the Home Office.

If such a modest amendment, ably proposed by my noble friend, is rejected, it will be taken as a shutting of the door to consultation. It will be seen as saying, in effect, that consultation, even in as complex a field as policing, forms no part of our thinking. I am certain that that is not the approach of the Minister who will reply to the debate. I hope that he will make it clear, by accepting the amendment, that it is not the Government's approach either.

The statute book is full of requirements for consultation. It would seem distinctly odd to leave it out on this occasion. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. It is such a modest amendment, of a kind that government after government—even the unreasonable ones—have had little difficulty in accepting. It would show an extreme degree of pig-headedness and obstinacy if such a reasonable amendment were to be rejected.

The Minister has displayed the great virtue, when confronted with a briefing with which he does not feel comfortable, of being able to forget that it is there or of saying, "Here is something that I don't agree with" and accepting a wider view. To reject an amendment asking for a degree of consultation about such a huge, sensitive matter would be the height of unwisdom. I hope that the Minister will think carefully before doing so at the behest of a department that is not by any means unable, from time to time, to make major errors.

I also support the amendments in this grouping. The Minister will by now have gathered that there is a certain amount of surprise that the requirement for consultation was not part of the Bill at the outset. I suspect that many are worried by comparable omissions, given that, in relation to the citizen and the state, there can be no more sensitive area than policing.

I want to make a point arising from the letter that the Minister sent out on St Valentine's day in response to the APA briefing. In connection with this group of amendments about required consultation, he said:

"As to the first of these, the White Paper made clear that we propose to establish a non-statutory National Policing Forum to provide a formal structure for consultation on the plan with the tripartite partners".

That is clear. No doubt, in a minute, the Minister will ask himself, "What is all this about?". It is about making absolutely sure that we put in the Bill that which is in the Police Act 1996. Section 37 of that Act places a requirement on the Home Secretary to consult with regard to his plans for police authorities, so it seems bizarre that there is no comparable requirement in this Bill to consult on the more important matter of the national plan.

In the St Valentine's day letter, the Minister went on to say that the Government wished to keep the forum on a non-statutory basis in order to provide flexibility. None of the amendments requires the forum to be on a statutory basis. If the consultation requirement is written into the Bill, it will not affect the flexibility relating to the forum. With others, I am somewhat perplexed as to why the amendments have not already been made.

I support Amendment No. 1 and the spirit of Amendments Nos. 6 and 11. I agree with the comments that noble Lords have made about the amendments. Putting a duty to consult into the Bill will be seen as an act of good faith and will assuage fears that, taken as a whole, Part 1 significantly moves the balance of power away from local police authorities and chief constables to central government.

If the national policing plan is to succeed, it will require the co-operation of the Police Federation. Neither Clause 1 as it stands nor, alas, any of the amendments so admirably put forward by noble Lords, refer at all to the Police Federation. I do hope that, in further considering Clause 1 and the importance of the national policing plan, the Government will decide that the Police Federation must be consulted.

I am grateful for the contributions made to the first group of amendments, although I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was about to hold a debate on whether Part I should stand part of the Bill. I then thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, had jumped the gun because the date in October arises in the next grouping of amendments.

I know that this may disappoint some Members of the Committee, hut I am happy to say that I am pleased to accept the spirit of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has just remarked in making a point about one amendment and commenting on the spirit of the others, consultation is important and we want to get it right. I do not intend to pooh-pooh that and I am certainly keen to take this away for further consideration.

In his brief remarks, the noble Lord. Lord Phillips, was the only noble Lord who has spoken to this grouping to mention the proposed national policing forum. One might have thought that it simply did not exist, whereas as I pointed out in my letter and as was made abundantly clear in the White Paper, in particular in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Executive Summary on page 9, we have set out how we propose to involve the national policing forum in the plan. So we have no difficulty in accepting the spirit of the amendments. I shall certainly reflect on the points that have been made in advance of the Report stage because this is such an important part of the Bill.

It is true to say that the Bill is littered with aspects of consultation. I do not seek to hide behind that by saying that I want to reflect on the way that Clause 1 has been drafted. I remind noble Lords that in the White Paper we made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the national policing plan, as set out in the new clause introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill, is to consider strategic policing priorities. That hits it on the head; this does not concern micro-managing the police force. That is not its function. If a matter moves away from the area of strategy, then it will be thrown out. We are not interested and it would not form part of the action. Let us do away with any red herrings before we start, otherwise we shall hold debates on things that are not being proposed and are not going to happen. It would be far better to debate the Bill in order to make it a decent piece of legislation before we send it down the corridor to the other place to see what a mess they can make of it using, their sometimes different procedures from those used in this House.

Again, I should like to make this absolutely clear: this is not about micro-managing the police. It concerns only general strategic policing priorities for the police forces. It is crucial that Members of the Committee keep that in mind.

Certain elements of the plan will in any case be the subject of consultation in their own right. Section 37 of the 1996 Act has already been mentioned. It requires the Home Secretary to consult on the national objectives for police authorities. The national policing forum will be a non-statutory body to advise. ft will be appointed and up and running at some point in March, before we reach the Report stage. It will advise the Home Secretary on policing matters in general and the national policing plan in particular. Its membership will include representatives of the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police staff associations, as well as victims' and ethnic minority groups.

As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out in relation to my letter, it is true that we want to keep the body non-statutory in order that it can remain flexible, but the core membership of the forum will be the tripartite partners. I want to make that point absolutely clear to the Committee. As I have said, the focus will be on strategic priorities for the police forces of England and Wales. To the extent that the plan will impact on the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, consultation would naturally extend to the directors general and the service authorities.

I want to say to noble Lords that we will look at the drafting of this clause. We genuinely want consultation and there is no attempt to do anything underhand here. I realise that today it would appear that I am alone in speaking for the Home Office, which does not seem to have many supporters. But in a mature democracy everyone should be suspicious and should ask searching questions. That is the function of this House and the other place.

Having said that we shall take away the amendments and consider them further, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.

It is important to get one thing clear if the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee are not to be at cross-purposes during the following deliberations. There is a very important difference between statutory and non-statutory institutions. Statutory institutions are protected by Parliament whereas non-statutory institutions are not. Statutory institutions can be removed only by primary legislation, if they are set up by primary legislation. Non-statutory bodies can be swept aside according to the policy of any incoming government with a different political view from the one that set them up.

I am reminded of those pillboxes that were put up in 1939. They were built of brick with earth heaped up all around them. Sixty years later, the brickwork is still in place, while the earth has gone. Statutory bodies are rather like the brickwork of those pillboxes, while non-statutory bodies resemble the earthwork. When we are considering something as fundamental as the control of the police force in a democracy, it is essential to stand on brickwork rather than on earthwork. That is why we shall wish to put more into statute than perhaps the noble Lord is minded to do at the moment.

I hope that the noble Lord will be able to move a little further. He has already been helpful, but if what he has said amounts to a declaration that it is the Government's intention to consult at all stages over the whole of this very sensitive field, then why on earth do they not say so on the face of the Bill? I would ask the noble Lord to say today not merely that he will consider this, important though that is, but that he will bring forward on Report an amendment which makes it clear in this clause that consultation there will be.

During the course of our deliberations on the Bill there will be many times when I shall have to say to noble Lords that there is a line in the sand and that it is the view of the Home Secretary and the Home Office that that is the line. I am not saying that here. I shall take away all that noble Lords have said with the force and experience that they can bring to bear. I shall ask officials to see whether we can find a form of words used today by noble Lords that could be put into the Bill in order to meet their requirements. That form would keep what the Home Secretary wants to see and would meet the will of the Committee. Since we are in any case saying what we are going to do, there should be no major problem about finding a form of words. They may not make the forum a statutory body, but a form of words will be found.

As I have said, I shall take the amendments away and consider them. Unlike in my previous incarnation, I understand that in this place—the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will know this well—should someone say that they will take something away and return with a response on Report, if they then have nothing to say at that stage, they are in the doghouse.

Before the discussion ends, will the noble Lord ask his advisers to consider that the clause will repeal a statutory provision as to consultation? Will he ask them what effect that will have in a court of law?

I shall certainly do that.

I want to be absolutely clear. The Minister said that he sees the benefits of not putting the national policing forum and another body onto a statutory basis. His resistance is to making statutory the body to be consulted. The thrust of our argument is that the requirement to consult should be statutory. I assume that that is the issue he will address.

I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, many of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, have all supported the thrust of the amendments we are addressing.

I should apologise to the Minister because I did not make clear when I had finished my general opening remarks and shifted to dealing with the specific amendments in the group. I should have done that. If I had, he would not have had the slight confusion as to whether I was addressing Clause 1 stand part. I was not doing that; I addressed my remarks to all of the clauses in Part I of the Bill.

However, I wish to make one point. It is purely fortuitous but it illustrates the background danger, the reason why we are concerned and why we need to put these safeguards into the Bill. At lunchtime, I fell into conversation—it is easy to do—with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who shares my room. With no prompting—I had not done anything to introduce the subject of the Bill—he said, "You know, it's a funny thing, Bill, but in Northern Ireland the Prime Minister controls the careers of individual policemen". That, of course, is a situation which would not be acceptable here. I am sorry. It is not Northern Ireland; it is southern Ireland. Let me get my facts right. "In southern Ireland the Prime Minister controls the careers of individual policemen". That would be clearly intolerable.

My noble friend Lord Elton made a very important point about the difference between having a statutory requirement to consult and a non-statutory requirement. His allegory of the brick fortress surrounded by an earth bank is appropriate and I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that. We would say that the issue of consultation should be explicit and not implicit in the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for conceding the principle of the amendments and I shall study his remarks with care. I shall study with even greater care and even greater pleasure the product of his remarks when we return to the Bill at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 2:

I apologise for having got this matter confused previously. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that, in a good, well-ordered situation, the strategic priorities to which the Minister referred should be put at the beginning of a process and not somewhere towards its end. We should like to see an amendment to the Bill in which those strategic objectives are made clear at the beginning. We should also like to see them confined to a few strategic objectives and not, as the Home Office is sometimes wont to do, sub-divided into "A"s and "B"s. We do not wish to be told, for example, that there will be many fewer best value performance indicators only to have them divided and sub-divided in such a way that there are as many as we had before.

We certainly want to respond to government directions. It makes it a lot easier to respond throughout the police authorities if the strategic objectives are received in good time.

I, too, believe it to be essential that the indication by the Home Office of what it would like police authorities to do should he given at the earliest possible stage. As the Committee is aware, I chair the Metropolitan Police Authority. Today, we spent a happy half-hour wrestling with issues relating to the setting of our own policing priorities and the targets for individual borough command units. We were faced with a situation whereby, quite recently, the Home Office had indicated the priorities it is seeking in the coming financial year—when we were already well into the process of discussion, debate and consultation at local level about local priorities.

There should be a proper sequencing of these events. The ideal arrangement is that the national tone is set first. That allows for consideration at police authority level and then local discussion about what it means in practice at local level.

If, for some internal reason, the Home Office does not believe that October is the right point in the year to set out its views on overall policing priorities, it needs to recognise that it will in essence be influencing a different year's set of priorities. This process occurs each year, and the results of a consultation exercise in one year influences what is done the following year. It would be much better if the Bill made it explicit that the plan should emerge by 31st October, so as to enable police authorities to have sufficient time to consult on the local implications and on how it might be translated into local priorities and plans.

My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble colleague Lord Harris of Haringey, although I am not allowed in this Chamber to call him "my noble friend". As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I should declare that I too am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Association of Police Authorities. More relevant to this debate is the fact that, as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I chair a committee with the grand title, the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee—the word "planning" being a reference to the production of the annual police plan for the Metropolitan Police Authority. Indeed, I chair the planning panel which does the detailed work.

I want to reiterate and emphasise the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. He referred to our half-hour discussion during the full authority meeting this morning. As he will recognise, that is but a small part of the total discussion that has taken place throughout the year on the production of a police plan for a service as large and complex as that in London. During this morning's discussion, we commented that the production of the police was virtually an all-theyear-round event. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, told us that we "could have April off"—although I suspected that he was being a little optimistic.

This is a complex business. We are keen that it should be—to use an awful expression—a bottom-up process. The consultation with the London boroughs is important. Meaningful consultation takes place not only with the operational command units but also with the PCCGs, the crime and disorder partnerships—of which there are 32 in the Metropolitan area. Next year, they will have their own bespoke targets. That is important. It gives them a degree of ownership. We have to take full account of the Metropolitan Police Service's own priorities—of the MPA's priorities. In London, for better or worse, we have the added complexity of the mayor's priorities to consider as best we may. Therefore, when we come to consider the Home Secretary's priorities—the national policing plan—it is extremely important that we receive those indications in good time and that they properly set the strategic framework in which all the consultation, discussion and consideration can take place.

This year, we did not receive the Home Secretary's priorities until January. These are of national concern and do not relate merely to London. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right to say that effectively that is looking at the year beyond. We are so far down the process by that stage that they can have little influence, and it is disruptive. Not having those priorities—in this case not having the national policing plan—in a sense inhibits the discussion that takes place throughout the year. During the whole of that time we are wondering and speculating on the content of the plan.

Therefore, I strongly support whichever amendment is chosen. Both seek to achieve the same end. We should receive the national policing plan in good time. The date suggested is 31st October. From my experience in the Metropolitan Police area, that is the latest date by which we should receive it. The Bill as drafted suggests that we could receive the plan before 31st March. I know that it is not the intention, but it would be absurd if we received the plan in March. The intention as stated in the White Paper is that the plan should be published by 31st December. That is significantly too late. It would mean us actually receiving it on Christmas Eve and not beginning to consider it until the early part of January. That is too late. But even that date written on the face of the Bill as a requirement, as distinct from a good intention in a White Paper, would be a step forward.

The Bill should contain a requirement that the national policing plan is produced in good time—by 31st October—so that all police authorities can take the strategic framework properly into account in the lengthy consultations that some of us, quite properly, have to undertake. I hope that the Minister can be as accommodating with this set of amendments as he sought to be with the previous set.

Perhaps I may put a short question to the Minister. The White Paper said that the Government would produce the national plan by the end of the calendar year. Yet there is no specific commitment in the Bill. What were the reasons for omitting a time-scale? Effective plans require effective deadlines. One would have thought that essential. Why is no deadline laid down in the Bill?

First, perhaps I may respond to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It relates to a point raised at Second Reading. The Bill is not exclusively about implementing the White Paper. The White Paper goes way beyond the material in the Bill. Issues contained in the White Paper are being taken forward daily which are not included in the Bill. I ask the Committee to bear that in mind.

As to the date, I well understand that Members of the Committee who have spoken have first-hand experience of drawing up local plans for police authorities, which I do not have. I appreciate the constraints that they feel they are under.

If either of the amendments was on the face of the Bill, it would without question cause us considerable difficulties. It would make the overall process extremely tight. We do not believe that it is realistic.

We set out in the White Paper our commitment to publish the plan by the end of each calendar year. I am being more modest when I say this, but to publish on Christmas Eve would be outrageous.

It is not unknown!

In terms of a yearly publication that would be a failure of public administration. To publish between Christmas and the new year would be even worse, or to publish the week before Christmas, when meetings will not be taking place. There is not much leeway, therefore, between that period and 31st October. I am not going to the stake over six weeks, and I do not believe that Members of the Committee should.

It is not as though the plan will appear without any warning. I must make that clear. The framework for local plans to achieve consistency in performance among police forces is important. However, to return to the previous set of amendments, the national policing forum will be drawn from the very organisations whose members prepare the local plans. So they will be more than aware of the content of the national plan before its formal publication. As I say, it will not appear without any warning whatever to the members of police authorities, who will be responsible for drawing up their plans. We are determined to stick to our commitment to publish the plan well before the end of each calendar year, so that there is a reasonable period before the end of the calendar year. We have no secret plan to dump the plan on police authorities so that they do not have an opportunity to consult. I know nothing about existing plans. However, today is 28th February and I wonder why in London it has been left so late to discuss these issues. I suspect that this is not the first discussion on the forthcoming year. That is my little tease; please do not hold it against me!

I hope that this comment will be useful to the House. The White Paper states that the publication of the plan could provide the basis of an annual parliamentary debate on policing. I am new to this House; I am still learning. I asked the Whip whether this House has those important annual debates on the Army, Navy or Air Force, as does another place. My noble friend replied, "Not unless someone asks for it". I welcome debates in another place on policing and the penal side of the Home Office agenda. It is important to change the way in which Parliament considers the issue. We need to provide a fulcrum for debate to help those who are providing input into their local plans.

I cannot go beyond that. I admit that the consultation on priorities for best value performance indicators was delayed because of the planning and publication of the White Paper and the reform process contained within it. That is wholly exceptional and is not likely to arise again. I apologise for that delay. I realise the pressure it will have put on police authorities.

We want to publish the plan a reasonable period before the end of the calendar year so that we are not seen to "pull a fast one". We do not want knowingly to have poor conduct of public administration. We shall do our best to have plans published in a reasonable time. However, in their unpublished form the plans will be well known to members of the organisations who will prepare the local plan. They will not surprise anyone. I hope that I have taken a reasonable approach. I hope that we can reach agreement. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

In order that my noble friend's tease does not become part of perceived wisdom, I assure him that today's discussion by the Metropolitan Police Authority was the third by the full authority and followed numerous discussions by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the planning group and many others.

I hope that this issue is not developing for the Minister into one of those lines in the sand. For a policing plan to have local support there must be local consultation if it is to be implemented locally. My noble friend's offer was that the framework in which police authorities should operate would be published by mid-December. That is very late if there is to be meaningful local consultation informed by national priorities. That is why the amendments are framed as they are. I hope that my noble friend will ask whoever draws lines in the sand to consider whether an earlier date could be offered.

As so often occurs, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I speak as one on these matters. Not for the first time the noble Lord has taken the words out of my mouth.

I am grateful to the Minister for his aspiration—I am not sure that it was a commitment—that publication would be by mid-December rather than the end of December. I apologise if 30 years of local government experience has made me a little cynical about things being published on Christmas Eve— or, more usually, at the end of July, with a requirement for a response by the beginning of September, an annual event. However, there is a significant difference between the middle of December and the end of October—the Budget. The Metropolitan Police Authority is a new authority. We are struggling, so far unsuccessfully, to match our budget planning with the police plan so that the budget can better reflect the policing priorities in the police plan. There are added complexities, given the structure of London government: it is the mayor's budget rather than the police authority budget.

The Minister will know—if he does not, the Whip sitting next to him does—that budget planning starts early in the year and builds in intensity throughout the autumn. By the middle of December it is, in effect, in its final stages, albeit the formal decisions are not taken until into the new year. A budget for any large organisation is pretty well set by Christmas. The revenue support grant settlement comes usually at the end of November or beginning of December. So there is a particular difference. It is not just the period of six weeks; it is an important six weeks if we are to achieve budget planning and police planning together. In London we have the added complication of having to submit a budget to the mayor to be consolidated into that of the Greater London Authority. But that is a specific London problem.

The position I describe must apply to every police authority in the land. It is important to have the strategic framework. It is to be hoped that we shall not have too many surprises: we shall have a fairly good idea of it. But until one gets that framework it does not exist and one does not know what will arise. If we have the strategic framework we can be well advanced with the local—I hesitate to use that word in a London context—police authority planning scale which can be matched with the budget.

I ask the Minister to give further consideration to the issue. I did not understand why 31st October was so out of the question other than that the timing will be very tight. It is very tight already for every police authority in the country. Perhaps the Home Office should share some of that tightness.

If it were to be published by 31st October, it would have to be ready effectively by the end of July. That is the reality, because of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

I cannot make any commitments. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Harris said. So have others.

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit of his reply. I hope that he will forgive what may sound like an acid comment. The brutal reality is that police and local government authorities throughout the country have to comply with deadlines. They do not have flexibility. It is not unknown for there to be deadlines in national planning.

The Minister has given a generally conciliatory reply to the amendments and the principle enunciated. We should all consider carefully what the noble Lord said. I hope that the Minister will think carefully about what has been said in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Tope. They have direct experience. If they will forgive me, it is relatively brief experience. It is only a short time since control of the Metropolitan Police was taken properly from the Home Office and given to a London authority, a most welcome move.

Whether the authority is new or over a century old, these matters must be dealt with properly and by due dates. That is the critical issue. The purpose of the amendments is to smooth that process. We shall study carefully what the Minister said. I hope that he will study what has been said by the noble Lords I mentioned. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment..

moved Amendment No. 4:

I understand why the noble Lord has moved the amendment. Any reasonable person concerned about road safety would naturally take that view. We want the national policing plan to provide a consistent framework for England and Wales and to set the priorities and objectives for the police. We place great importance on roads policing. Just because it is not mentioned specifically does not mean that we do not place great importance on it. The Bill is about reforming the police and the system within which they work so that we can be more effective in delivering reductions in crime and in the fear of crime. It does not single out any particular area of police work. On later parts of the Bill I shall go out of my way to point out why not. That is a matter for the chief constables, not the Home Secretary.

Road safety is an important issue. The Government's road safety strategy Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone has set a target of a 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads and a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured. Enforcement of all aspects of road traffic law must be an essential part of achieving those goals, which were raised more than once during Question Time just before Christmas, when we had a mini-debate about the speed of traffic.

Of course, it is open to the Secretary of State to include road policing in the priorities and objectives or in the regulations and codes of practice if he considers it necessary. We want the contents of the national plan to retain the flexibility provided by the current drafting, but that does not diminish the importance of road policing and road safety, to which we attach a high priority. The fact that they are not mentioned in the Bill does not mean that work on them is not being taken forward in other areas.

I hope that the noble Lord regards that as a robust response of support for the spirit of his amendment and that he will not seek to press it.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I hope that chief constables and police authorities will take due note of what he has said today. I am satisfied with his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

I shall speak to Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with Amendment No. 7. I share the quizzicality of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, with regard to Amendment No. 7. My amendment is equally simple. What is meant by "plans and advice"?

I hope that I can answer both noble Lords satisfactorily. They have asked fair questions, given the drafting of the Bill. The national plan will be a forward-looking document designed to give police authorities and police forces advance notice not only of the steps that the Secretary of State definitely intends to take but of those that he is proposing to take. There is a difference. For example, the Home Secretary may have a firm intention to issue revised policing objectives under Section 37 of the Police Act but he may only be proposing to make particular regulations or a code of practice. At the time when the national police plan is published, some of the regulations and codes of practice that it refers to might still be the subject of consultation and consideration. They may not be due to be finalised and to come into effect until the following year. However, they ought nevertheless to he included in the national policing plan so that people can see what is coming around the next bend.

The words that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is seeking to delete add clarity to the clause and should be retained because they allow more information to be given about what is in the Home Secretary's mind than would be the case if we narrowed the drafting by taking the words out. Similarly, the words that Amendment No. 10 would delete allow the flexibility for the contents of the plan to include matters not specifically mentioned elsewhere. Basically, they allow flexibility in the drafting of a plan. I therefore hope that noble Lords agree that they should be retained.

If I may say so, the noble Lord has a most engaging quality of optimism and cheerfulness in his nature.

I am known for it.

Never have I seen that optimism better illustrated than when the noble Lord said just now that he thought that including a declaration or an indication of the Home Secretary's intentions—as opposed to proposals—in the plan would add to its clarity. I differ profoundly with that. Very few Home Secretaries—except, of course, for my noble friend Lord Hurd, who is sitting on my left—have ever been able to make their intentions all that clear. It would be a terrible mistake to mix their intentions and their proposals. It would be a ghastly mixture. The intentions would need to be put in italics, or something like that, which would make the document extremely complicated and very inelegant. I hope that the Minister will not just dismiss that argument, because it is a serious point. Nobody would be helped by having the Home Secretary's intentions included in the plan at this stage. If they were simply intentions, as opposed to proposals, they would just muddle everything up. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to give the matter further thought.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, got rather the better end of the Minister's reply, because I was given no solace as to what plans might be considered—plans for whom, by whom and about what? The same goes for advice. On the first group of amendments, when questions were raised about the setting of strategic policing priorities, the Minister pointed out forcefully and convincingly that anything outside strategic policing would be ultra vires. Yet here we have a little weasel clause at the end of it all—the sting in the tail, it might be—that says blandly that the great plan can include anything by way of plans or advice. There is no qualification of that. I, too, would be most grateful if the Minister might review that. We might even have a conversation about it before Report.

If I have not answered satisfactorily the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I shall take advice from my learned friends in that respect. However, I do not believe that that undermines the fact that we are talking about strategic policing priorities. Those words are not, if you like, the Trojan Horse to undermine the fact that we are discussing strategic plans.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord Lord Peyton, who was most complimentary about my optimism. But I am a Home Office Minister so, as I acknowledged from a sedentary position, I am always optimistic. The noble Lord must be realistic. Events may be occurring at the time that the plan is formally published that are ongoing for the Home Secretary. Publication will be before Christmas, so there is progress there. However, there is a difference between giving a firm indication of what will happen as opposed to what the Home Secretary wants to happen. For example, at the time of publication, regulations and codes of practice may have been submitted for consultation with other bodies and they may not form part of the flow—the cliff-edge of decision-making—because, as noble Lords have observed, the planning will be ongoing. The annual plan may be published, but planning continues throughout the year.

We wish to take account of matters that are in the system but upon which no final decision has been taken at the time of publication of the annual plan. I believe that providing greater clarity is a good idea. It will enable noble Lords to hold Ministers to greater account.

I do not wish to prolong the argument, but there is nothing to stop the Home Secretary including his intentions if he feels that that would be of assistance. However, to lay upon him a duty to specify his intentions at a time when they may not be all that well defined seems to me to be foolish from his point of view. I still believe that the Government would be wise in their own interests, and for the sake of simplicity and clarity, to delete this term. Nothing that the noble Lord has said thus far has convinced me to the contrary. Nevertheless, every now and again—even in my sort of gloomy make-up, which is much more gloomy than that of the Minister—I do allow shades of optimism to appear. The latter lead me to hope that the noble Lord will allow his good nature a fair rein. Perhaps he will give this a little further thought between now and Report stage, and conclude that a very unlikely event has come to pass; namely, that I am right. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

When the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, moved the first amendment today, he expressed the concern on this side of the Chamber about the proposal that would give the Home Secretary and Whitehall far greater control over policing than has ever been the case. There are various assurances, promises and protocols from the Government, and we have been told that no new powers are to be introduced as a last resort. However, assurances and protocols are not binding; indeed, as explained earlier, they can be ignored by a future Home Secretary.

I am delighted with the way that the Minister has conceded on some of the major worries that have been expressed on this clause, especially on consultation. On that basis, it is not my intention to pursue the matter further at this stage. Can the Minister say whether it will be possible for him between now and Report to give us some indication of how his mind is working in terms of the consultation process that was identified earlier? That would help to save a repetition of this sort of debate on Report. Obviously, if we are unhappy with the situation we shall certainly return to the matter at that stage.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for opposing the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. He has given me the opportunity to express my point of view. I regard this as just another example of thoroughly inelegant and unsympathetic drafting. The business of simply superimposing one Bill on a previous Act is messy; it is very inconsiderate as regards those who have to read it at this stage, and even more so for those who have to apply it.

The only excuse for this kind of clumsy legislation is that the Government have in mind an early consolidation Bill. As I always believe the best of everyone and credit people with the most noble intentions, I sought the advice of the Public Bill Office on the present situation regarding consolidation measures. I was told that there is but one consolidation Bill—the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—awaiting consideration by the Joint Committee. I understand that no further consolidation Bills are likely to be introduced in the near future, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that I am quite wrong in that respect.

I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Renton has just entered the Chamber. He has a longterm interest in the clarity—or rather the obscurity—of legislation. I should very much like the Minister to tell me whether he considers that the provisions in this police Bill are fit and proper measures for consolidation. I hope that he will at least agree that everyone would benefit from such consolidation. If the noble Lord accepts that that would be a most reasonable and intelligent course to pursue, perhaps he can tell the Committee whether there is any reason why it should not be pursued. It seems to me that the cause of consolidation has been allowed to go by default, with its merits and the need for it being almost forgotten. I trust that the Minister will not take this as a frivolous complaint.

In the interests of those who have to try to understand the contents of the statute book, it is important to limit as far as possible the number of different Acts that are placed upon it. If the noble Lord agrees with me, that will prevent me being tiresome and repeating my plea throughout the passage of the Bill. As I said, this kind of drafting is messy; it is inconvenient; it should be avoided whenever possible; and, in any event, it should be remedied by consolidation at a very early stage.

Clause 1 deals with a national policing plan which, by its very nature, raises issues of principle. We all know that organised crime these days often operates nationally. We also know that criminals do not restrict their activities to one police area; indeed, they may escape from one and move into another. Moreover, we are aware that terrorism may be considered a "national threat". Nevertheless, is it not inescapable that a national policing plan will have to be a very broad-brush matter?

When one considers the huge differences in the problems that occur as between rural areas and urban areas and even between inner-city areas and suburbs, it is hard to see how much positive content a national policing plan will be able to contain. How, for example, does one weigh up the relative importance of controlling the trading, supply and flow of drugs in relation to the deplorable and hateful trafficking in

women and children? These are imponderables and must vary very much from time to time. In his reply, will the Minister give us a bit more information on what will go into a national policing plan?

I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Peyton on the need for consolidation. I think that, if one accepts that there is need for further legislation, this method of drafting is perhaps not quite as inconvenient as my noble friend said, as practitioners and those who have recourse to the current law will find that the statutes are set out with the amendments incorporated. However. it would make for very considerable ease if the legislation were put together in a consolidated Bill. Although such Bills can take much of the draftsmen's time, they do not take much time in Parliament. I once carried a consolidation Bill of 726 clauses in, I think, seven minutes.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in so far as I am able—I am not one of the business managers—I intend to ensure that the Bill is passed in a considered and mature manner, after tranquil debate. I also hope that, when we are able, we suitably improve the legislation. I shall certainly make it my business to make good use of the gaps that we shall have between the stages. Noble Lords should therefore receive no surprises about the Government's view on what has been said in Committee. I think that it would be much better for our consideration on Report if advance warning were given. If that entails holding some joint meetings or one-to-ones, I shall be happy to do so. I shall endeavour to operate such a process.

I am and have always been a fan of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but I am even more so now. Once, in the other place, I almost had my legs chopped off for suggesting that Parliament should take a year off from passing new legislation to put right and bring together the great body of law that we had already passed hut was a mystery even to practitioners—although it should not have been, because the practitioners have to serve the great British public. Ultimately, we are here to serve the public. Consequently, I am a great believer in consolidation. However, I do not know about any plans for such legislation.

I should say that extensive extracts of the Police Act 1996 as amended by the Bill are available in the Library. Noble Lords can therefore see how the Act will be amended.

Why has the Minister changed his mind? Does he not still think that it would be a good idea to have a holiday from legislation?

I am not in charge. However, I think that the way in which we legislate is crazy, inefficient and a mystery to the public, although we legislate on behalf of the public. Legislation is not necessarily intended only for the cognoscenti. Finance lawyers get away with building one Act on another—the Finance

Acts are consolidated annually, as a matter of course, for the convenience of the UK taxation industry—although that service is not provided in relation to other legislation. I shall therefore certainly make it my business to ask whether there are any plans for consolidated police legislation. Nevertheless, as I said, we have put that information in the Library for noble Lords. I regret that I did not mention that earlier.

As for the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, I cannot list the national policing plan's contents or go beyond what is stated in the White Paper—which is a little more detailed than the legislation. I should, however, say a little about the plan's purpose. Currently, there is no single document in which the Government are able to state their priorities, performance indicators and plans for new development. Police authorities and chief officers have a plan for coming years on the basis of various requirements set out in different places at different times without necessarily having a clear sense of the Government's intended direction for the police service. The national policing plan is intended to fill that gap.

The national policing plan will provide an overarching strategy within which the local force and basic command unit area plans can be prepared. We also hope that it will give the police a sense of direction and coherence. It will supply a framework at national level for continuous improvement and the achievement of strategic policing priorities and objectives. As such, it will be a mechanism to help minimise variation in performance. As the Home Secretary has said, one of his biggest concerns is the variation in performance between various police forces. However, that is not to say that we are seeking to create a national police force, as that is not our intention in the legislation. Nevertheless, we want to use the plan as a basis for consultation on proposals for regulations and codes of practice. The plan will, of course, not interfere with the operational independence of chief officers.

If we can provide the same information about all police forces—there are currently 43—and authorities at the same time and in the same format, it will certainly be beneficial to Ministers who are subject to parliamentary Questions. Ultimately, the blame lies with Ministers—that is our bit of the tripartite arrangement; the other bits are the money and the power. It will help if we have that information in one place. As the debates continue, we can further elucidate the content. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will not be able to see the bigger picture until the first plan is published.

I should like to say how grateful I am—ingratitude would be very churlish in these circumstances— to the Minister for his accurate and elegant description of our legislative methods. He has earned everyone's gratitude for that, and I am most grateful to him.

moved Amendment No. 12:

I support my noble friend who has moved the amendment. I also support the other two amendments with which it is grouped. There is a theory on the part of some people that a code of practice—

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but Amendment No. 12 is not grouped with any other amendment.

I am much obliged. I am sorry. We are talking about Amendment No. 15, are we not?

Amendment No. 12.

I must apologise to the Committee. I have been out of the Chamber and I thought that I had picked up where we were, but I have not.

We on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Our aim is simply that the codes of practice we are discussing should conform to those which are issued for police authorities generally. We are now discussing codes of practice for chief officers. The consultation process that the Home Office has in mind would probably take longer than 12 months. However, there are a number of issues here which we need to identify. A good code of practice will need to bed down and its effectiveness will have to he monitored before anyone proposes any revision of it. I believe that 12 months is probably the minimum period of time that should elapse before such an exercise is undertaken. As we argued earlier, it is sensible to introduce an adequate time-scale. It would be a tragedy to tinker with revision before a code of practice had had time to settle down. Will the Minister say why a code of practice would need to be revised before 12 months had elapsed? Where does all this lead? Where does the ultimate accountability of a chief officer lie under such codes of practice? Does it lie with the police authority or with the Home Secretary?

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we do not plan to issue codes of practice in under 12 months. That is the whole point of the drafting of the clause; there is no specific time-scale. If a code of practice had been issued on, for example, equipment, and it was known to be out of date, it would not be efficient for chief police officers to be required to use a code of practice that was known to be out of date and for the law to prevent our updating it because we were stuck with some 12-month rule or some other time limitation. It is necessary to be reasonably flexible.

However, it is not the intention to shower police officers with codes of practice on a monthly basis or to impose change for change's sake. Each code of practice has to be subjected to a test before it is introduced. It is unreasonable for the Committee to proceed on the assumption that we would without good reason issue and reissue codes of practice on the same subject at intervals of less than 12 months. However, if an issue of good practice needs to be revised, surely it is important that we can revise it so that chief officers are not working with information and codes of practice, to which they are required to have regard, which everyone knows are out of date. I believe that any reasonable person would consider such a situation to be grossly unfair on them.

As I say, we do not intend to issue or reissue codes of practice at intervals of less than 12 months or at intervals of 12 months. The clause does not specify a time-scale. For the reasons I have given, it would be had practice to restrict the Bill's flexibility in the way that is proposed. To do so would put at risk the attempts of chief officers to be more efficient and more effective. They would rightly complain if, for example, they had to apply a code of practice that was known to he out of date simply because Parliament had tied the hands of the Home Secretary in terms of updating it.

The Minister has given a clear exposition of the situation. I can well understand that one has to cater for the situation where a code of practice has to be brought up to date to take account of new legislation. Perhaps that is the proper answer to the concerns which were expressed by my noble friend. However, surely it is possible to devise an amendment to provide that a code of practice should not be superseded in less than 12 months unless it is necessary to issue a new code of practice to take account of new legislation.

Before the noble Lord replies to that point. I have a difficulty with the language of the Bill which emerges when we start to try to amend it. I do not know what the term "revise" means. Does it mean beginning to consult, drafting or publishing? Plainly, it may he necessary to start the process of revision by means of consultation and drafting in less than 12 months in order to bring out a revised edition in 12 months. If that imprecision is of importance in any respect, it might be as well for the Government to consider the relevant subsection between now and Report to determine whether some more accurate term could be used. In the mean time, I commend to the Minister the practice in certain commands of the Metropolitan Police with regard to the smoking of cannabis. It is always possible to turn a blind eye to a hit of a code of practice which is not up to date.

I do not think that that is good practice. There are enough lawyers outside who would like to make a "buck" to ensure that that would not happen.

Perhaps I have given an inadequate explanation of the matter. There is a trigger here. I draw the Committee's attention to subsection (3) of new Section 39A. When the Home Secretary wants to issue or revise a code of' practice under subsection (3), he must first require the Central Police Training and Development Authority to prepare a draft. The board of the authority has only just been appointed and was announced yesterday, 27th February. It consists of independent members, ACPO members and police authority members. Those people will be involved in the drafting. I genuinely believe that if the ACPO members, the police authority members and the independent members—that is a necessary mix—were asked constantly to revise the same code within some ridiculous time-scale, they would draw the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary before they proceeded with the drafting, which is their responsibility.

The Minister has given a helpful response. However, one has to weave one's way through it to a certain extent, if one may put it that way.

I have always accepted that the Central Police Training and Development Authority will be involved in any change. However, that authority will do what it is told. It might complain about that, but that is what it will do—that is what its job will be. A rather unfortunate situation could develop.

The Minister said that it is not his intention to keep churning out codes of practice, and I have every faith that that is the case. I am not sure that I can envisage a circumstance that would require such an urgent change of police practice—that cannot take place anyway because of the procedure that is necessary before a new code of practice is introduced—that meant that one was likely to want to revise a code of practice in less than 12 months. I therefore have some difficulty with the Minister's response, but I shall study it with care. His intention is correct, although I do not agree with all of the detail. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 13:

I am not sure why my Amendment No. 14 should be sandwiched between the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. His amendments are related to each other but mine is rather different. I am of course very happy to be associated in any way with the noble Lord. I am again concerned about the question of consultation. My amendment relates to proposed new paragraph (4), which states:

"Before preparing a draft code of practice under this section … the Central Police Training and Development Authority shall consult with such persons as it thinks fit".

I am sure that that authority is absolutely full to the gills with intelligence and perception and wants only to be fair. Nevertheless, one must always bear in mind the possibility of failure in human affairs. The possibility that worries me is that the authority may not consider it appropriate—indeed, the Home Secretary does not always consider it appropriate—to consult chief officers.

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I seek to improve further the detail of his speech. The board of the Central Police Training and Development Authority, which I mentioned earlier, has two ACPO members: Jane Stichbury, the chief constable of Dorset police, and Peter Loughborough, the director of training and development at the Metropolitan Police, who I am sure is known to the noble Lord.

I do not know Peter Loughborough personally but I certainly know of him. My point is that it would be good to have a written requirement. If the Minister is satisfied that those two very important people will always take it upon themselves to ensure that the views of chief officers are known and understood, I should be satisfied.

I rise to support the principle that my noble friend has enunciated. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the Central Police Training and Development Authority will consult fairly thoroughly before preparing a draft or revised draft code of practice? We have on numerous occasions debated from these Dispatch Boxes whether one should list all of the people who should properly be consulted. I will be relaxed on the point if the Minister gives the assurance that, in drafting any code or revised code, the intention is that consultation will be wide and thorough.

I am not sure that I am as easily satisfied as my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke to an amendment that struck earlier in the process. The Minister can of course point to the consultation that will be carried out on his behalf by the Central Police Training and Development Authority, which may or may not be fortified in the way in which my noble friend suggested. The point is that however much it consults, it has to consult on a draft that it has prepared that,

"must contain all such matters as the Secretary of State may specify".

Surely, however, consultations are needed before that list is produced and before such matters are included in the code of practice. We return to where we were in Clause I, and I request the Minister to be as open to suggestions as he was previously. I hope that he is open to the idea that the Secretary of State himself should consult before he sets the relevant matters in a form in which they cannot be excluded by the authority after consultation.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that for the avoidance of further doubt a relevant press release is available in the Library. I do not want to list all of the people but there are also two members of the Association of Police Authorities on the new board. There was a Home Office board, but that is no longer the case. I refer to the vice-chairman of the Wiltshire Police Authority and the chairman of the Northamptonshire Police Authority. I completely deny the suggestion that there are not quality people around to ensure that a good job is done. There is also a list of independent members which contains people of worth.

I am prepared to look at the matter before Report—I have no problem with doing so—in order to concrete the matter in position, as it were. We genuinely want to consider the views of noble Lords. There is no question whatever of drafting codes of practice without consulting chief officers of police. I cannot spell that out more clearly. My right honourable friend John Denham, the Minister responsible for crime reduction, policing and community safety, made that clear in his letter of 3rd December to the president of ACPO, Sir David Phillips. I shall put on the record just one paragraph from that letter. My right honourable friend said:

"ACPO will be involved with the formation of the drafting groups and will be at the heart of the drafting process. The Home Secretary will commission [the Central Police Training and Development Authority board] because we wish to combine consistency of approach with the flexibility to cover diverse areas of policy. ACPO are formally represented in [the Central Police Training and Development Authority board] and your operational expertise, as well as the need for professional support, will mean that it would be profoundly against anyone's interests for ACPO to be 'frozen out'. The White Paper makes it clear that ACPO will be centrally involved in the drafting group and we will be happy to give a commitment to that effect in committee".

I cannot make the matter any clearer. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances, but I am more than happy to reflect on what has been said before we reach the Report stage.

If the noble Lord is not going to withdraw the amendment immediately, perhaps I may add a footnote to that very welcome comment by the Minister. I have always believed that declarations by one government of what they intend to do under legislation which they pass have absolutely no force when another government come into power. Therefore, such declarations have a limited life.

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.

moved Amendment No. 15:

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 he, 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.

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,

"in discharging any function to which a code of practice under t his 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.

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 counterproductive 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 I put one in the letter that I wrote to noble Lords. One is the ACPO firearms manual. Part one is on the website. Part two is not in the public domain for reasons that are obvious. It contains information relating to police tactics in interception, intrusion and covert surveillance. That is not in the public domain. However, guidance from the independent surveillance commissioners is in the public domain. So matters are separated. There are areas where to put it all in the public domain would be counter-productive.

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.

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?

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:

"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.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This is not a technical point, but new Section 39A(1) states:

"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?

It could do, but the end of the subsection relates to,

"the discharge of their functions by the chief officers".

I do not have an analysis of that, but the subsection says,

"promoting the efficiency and effectiveness".

We are considering crime reduction, fighting crime and variations in performance. I am happy to look at the wording, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I do not believe that there is anything untoward about it. It hangs together because it relates to codes of practice relating to the words in the final part of the subsection.

I have probably misled the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There is non-statutory guidance. There is a process already for manuals and guidance, but the Bill requires the chief officer to have regard to the codes. It is part of the reform process and noble Lords have recognised that there is a stronger obligation than is attached to non-statutory guidance and manuals. There is no question that there is a stronger obligation here. I do not argue that what we propose in this clause is exactly the same as what has gone before. However, I believe that the appointment of the new board and the role that it will play in ensuring that the codes are drafted is best for ensuring our protection.

I also point out to the Committee—I do not hide behind this, but it is not an unimportant point—that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform did not make any comment on this part of the Bill. I have warned my elders and betters in the other place that the writ of that committee is important in this Chamber. Indeed, we have already tabled amendments in relation to advice given by that committee, but it makes no comment on this part of the Bill.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the thrust of his reply. Can he explain why some of these matters are too sensitive to be capable of being laid before Parliament? Why does that not apply to the codes of practice and the provisions of Section 39A to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has drawn attention? That is widely expressed. It says that the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice about the exercise and performance by chief officers of police of their powers and duties under this chapter. At the moment the Government appear to be saying that because in some conceivable circumstances some of these matters may be sensitive, therefore, none of the codes shall be brought before Parliament for specific approval. The Minister may want to reconsider that.

The debates do not end with the Committee stage. I cannot give any commitments in relation to this matter. We have listened to what has been said. I accept the point that the codes of practice will be technical documents, covering complex areas of operational policing. I cannot hide behind that, because clearly some of them may be important. In no way, shape or form would any reasonable person argue that that needed to be kept out of the public domain. As I do not have a list of the potential areas of codes of practice, I am unable to elucidate further.

One fair point that was raised is that the codes of practice of tine police authorities cannot be equated to the codes of practice of chief constables. I did not make that clear, but I know that one noble Lord raised that point. The police authorities are not involved in operational policing. They deal with the financial management. The police authorities do not deal with operationally sensitive matters. That is where I would draw the line. Following the comments of noble Lords, and without any commitment, I am happy to have this matter looked at again.

Before the Minister sits down, I was just looking at the paper from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers. It says that the power is likely to be used in areas of operational policing where specific concerns arise. The Minister said during Second Reading that the Secretary of State had no intention of using any powers to affect operational matters. So this directly contradicts what was said during Second Reading.

Can the Minister say precisely what the code of practice is about? Is it about operational matters? If so, we must go hack to the drawing board. If not, we need a better explanation.

In considering this matter further, it may help the Minister to bear in mind that, though many years ago codes of practice were considered never to be part of the law, in more modern times they have become part of the law without actually being secondary legislation. They become part of the law because a breach of the provisions contained in them can give rise to legal action. It is only fair therefore to those who may perhaps be placed in a vulnerable position if such a breach occurs, that codes of practice he given as much prominence as possible.

Admittedly, if it were secondary legislation it would have to be laid before Parliament. But in view of the legal implications and the interest which Parliament has a right to take in these matters, it would surely be much more sensible and fair to lay the codes of practice before Parliament.

I take the point about the history or codes of practice made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It has been self-evident over the past two or three decades that in a whole range of activities codes of practice have taken on greater importance simply because of the court cases that have arisen around them.

I cannot respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. For some reason I do not have the Delegated Powers Committee paper in my Box—I thought I kept everything. But I make it clear that this is not interference with the operational activities and responsibilities of chief officers. The two matters are not related and I do not see a contradiction. However, given the nature of the debate I am happy to have a look at this issue again just so we can get clarity. But I make that point without any commitment.

We are now in some difficulty. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden raised a fundamental point when he raised the issue of the need to protect the operational integrity of our police forces. The Minister clearly indicated that from time to time codes of practice, under this section, may well be codes of practice which relate to operational matters. A clear problem arises when those two statements are looked at in simple opposition. I found the Minister's response disappointing when he came to explain that already some codes of practice on the operational front are not in the public domain. Under this amendment, codes of practice properly should be in the public domain.

I do not have a great deal of difficulty with the procedure with which the police agree; that is, voluntary codes of practice on operational matters which are not in the public domain. It would be wholly remarkable if that situation did not exist. But that is not what the Bill says. I accept too that it is necessary to make a distinction between codes of practice for police authorities and codes of practice for chief constables or the commissioner as the case may be. There is a distinction between the matters which may be dealt with by one group on the one hand, and the matters which may be dealt with by another group on the other.

The Minister however said just enough to persuade me that we should not divide on this amendment at this stage. I am grateful to him for that. It is vitally important for Parliament to be sure that the operational integrity of the police force can be maintained.

I do not want to protract the debate. Could my noble friend add to the matters he raised for consideration by the Minister the whole question as to whether codes of practice are the right vehicle by which the Secretary of State should give advice to police officers on sensitive issues? He has said that that is the difficulty for him. But one wonders whether sensitive matters should be included in codes of practice or whether there should be some other vehicle by which that advice or instruction should be given. That is the real point.

My noble friend raises another aspect of what is a very difficult matter. But we have had a useful debate.

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, for which I shall be grateful because it will stop me from rising again. If the codes of practice existed in isolation, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would be a fair one. But I draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the long letter I wrote to them recently and in particular to one sentence in paragraph 8:

"The white paper set out a three-tiered approach; regulations, binding in law; codes of practice, to which chief officers must have regard, but which are open to variation for good reasons; and guidance which is purely advisory (much of which will continue to be non-statutory)".

In other words, the codes of practice are not the be all and end all; they are not the only vehicle.

Unfortunately I have too much experience of codes of practice in another area. I certainly recall 150 pages of one code of practice which was a statutory code of practice with which local authorities had to comply. The administrative cost of that to each and every authority was horrendous. Any of my local authority colleagues who are present today will remember the specimen to which I refer.

However, the Minister has said just enough to persuade me not to divide on this matter. I shall study his response with great care. I shall study with even more care the response he makes when we reach the next stage of the Bill. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

We have had a number of interesting debates around this issue. It is a matter of fact that codes of practice are seen increasingly in administration. But as a matter of principle, because they are legislation by the back door—they do not get direct parliamentary supervision in the sense that regulations do—we ought to be extremely wary as to how they are handled.

It was for that reason that I tabled Amendment No. 15. At the moment we are in a situation where the question of whether or not this clause is satisfactory is what I can only describe as "pending". I suppose we shall have to be satisfied with that. I shall therefore curb my impatience and withdraw my objection.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. But there are two matters of concern to these Benches. The first relates to the whole process of consultation. The Minister has made it fairly clear which parties will be involved in the process. We are asking the Minister whether those bodies could be included on the face of the Bill as part of the consultation process so that there will be no confusion about how the code is arrived at.

No one is taking away the central role of the Central Police Training and Development Authority. It will obviously be consulted on the matter. But the CPTDA is very much a strategic body. Is this a suitable role for it? Will it not simply become bogged down in considering, line by line, draft regulations and codes?

The other matter of concern is the matter which we have just discussed. I refer the Minister again to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Paragraph 3 on page 7 states:

"The power is likely to be used in areas of operational policing where particular concerns have arisen (for example, investigation of murder or paedophiles)".

This is a direct reference to interference with operational matters. It would be very helpful if, before the Report stage, the Minister could identify clearly what are the operational matters in which the Home Office still has an interest.

A further matter concerns me. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made an important point that rather than certain information being made public, there must be other ways in which it could be held. Perhaps I may give an example. If there was a death because of the use of firearms by the police, and the police followed the code of practice, would the court of law be able to ask for that code of practice to be produced? If it is produced, should it not become a public document? There is confusion and there is interference in policing operational matters. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify some of those points before the Report stage, because I am sure that we shall all return at that stage with further amendments on the matter.

I support this proposal. In this regard there has been no concrete reason advanced for increasing the powers of the Home Secretary. We have not had one single practical example of where it is necessary to take these very considerable powers to the Home Secretary. Frankly, unless there are convincing examples of where policing is—as we sit here—being impeded and made less effective because of the absence of this power to impose a code of conduct, then I, for one, hope that these Benches will vote against it when the time comes. The Minister has made clear his own support of what is called the "tripartite arrangement". As we heard at Second Reading, it is a crucially important balancing of powers between the state, localities and chiefs of police. Any substantial interference with it must be justified, not in abstract, but in practical terms.

I add that surely in this House—I do not suppose that it is any different down the way—we have abundant examples of a massive accretion of secondary legislation, and now codes, which all have the best intentions on earth, but which seem to end up very often—for example, in health and education—choking the very organs that they seek to vivify and make more effective.

I am a sceptic about the power that is being taken by this clause. I think that there will be a terrible tendency on the part of a Home Secretary who is being berated by an often ignorant press to say, "Well, I am about to issue a new code of conduct". As has been mentioned by Members of the Committee, this is not a code of conduct that is merely advisory, it has legal statutory effect. Chief constables will have to have regard to it. Without prolonging what is a profoundly important constitutional issue, I should like to support strongly the Question that this part of the Bill is removed.

Perhaps I may add a brief contribution. So far we have been discussing this clause only in the context of its application to chief constables. The Bill makes it clear that it applies also to the directors-general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and of the National Crime Squad. One only has to mention that to see how particular and specific this code could be in operational matters—as the Minister has confirmed, it will amount to more than guidance— and how close those codes could be to really specific operational matters. That gives added force in my mind to the arguments that have been pressed on the noble Lord.

I probably must take some blame in respect of a misunderstanding by Members of the Committee on the question of operational matters as opposed to operational policing. I am not playing with words. As I have said, the codes will cover aspects of operational policing. We have not made any secret about that. They will help to spread good practice; for example, in tackling robbery and street crime and in the management of the force, perhaps with an effective occupational health system. That is operational policing. That is not interference with how chief officers put their own policies into practice in terms of operational decisions. Therefore, there is a distinction.

I shall give one example. On 7th February, Sir David Phillips from ACPO, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. Sir David had voiced some concerns about how the codes would be constructed. In terms of the construction of the codes, I have made it absolutely clear on three groups of amendments how operational police officers—ACPO—will be involved, through the new board, in the process from beginning to end. In terms of how the codes are constructed, we meet the concerns 100 per cent. Sir David said to the committee:

"I can see the virtue in there being codes of practice around, for example, intelligence issues because if we are to have an intelligence system we have got to be able to share information. That means that it has to be collected against the same standards of probity and against the same criteria for recording everywhere, so you need to have a common system. Having the Home Secretary's approval of a code seems to me to be a sound idea".

There is no scintilla of questioning there of interference in operational decisions of the police. The codes are about operational policing, which I believe is something quite different.

What the noble Lord quoted was approval by the Secretary of State for a code of practice. This is a code of practice that the Secretary of State himself would have generated. Surely, that is not the same thing at all.

No; I do not accept that. It will be put together and drafted by a professional body of frontline officers, with a board that includes independents and members of police authorities as well as serving police officers.

Perhaps I may indulge in a slight diversion for a moment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for reopening the discussion when I was about to close it. In opposing the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, I neglected to tell the Committee that Amendment No. 70 is also in the group. The reason that it is grouped with this particular clause stand part debate is simple: it is consequential on it. If we were to reject Clause 2, Amendment No. 70 would automatically come into play. I apologise to the Committee for not previously mentioning that.

We could continue the debate for some time.

The difficulty that we all have is that if the codes of practice are not put before Parliament, we will not know whether they are interfering with operational matters. Parliament is entitled to know that. The point made by my noble friend Lord Elton is important. There is a distinction between codes of practice drafted at the request of the Home Secretary because he thinks that there is a particular problem and codes of practice developed in the operational field by practitioners, in which, in effect, they are sharing best practice to ensure that the whole policing system works in the best possible operational way across the country. That distinction is valid.

If we wish, we can continue nit-picking around that subject for some time but the Minister has given us an assurance that he will consider the matter. Our little secondary debate has reinforced the need for him to do so. I hope that, when we return to the matter, we vvill hear some second or even third thoughts.

moved Amendment No. 17:

May I speak in opposition to the amendment? I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has, with others, given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I ask the noble Lord's forgiveness for anticipating him, but presumably he will then deploy arguments that there may be no circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be justified in requiring inspectors to carry out an inspection.

But the logic of the amendment is that the noble Lord accepts that there may be some circumstances in which it would be justified for the Home Secretary to require inspectors to carry out an inspection. The noble Lord wants to hobble the Home Secretary, if I may put it that way, by providing that he would need to have,

"reason to believe that the inspectors … have failed to comply with their obligations".

That strikes me—I hope that I am legally correct on this point—as requiring an objective test. If the amendment were accepted, the Home Secretary would be subject to judicial review if he ever sought to exercise the power under the clause. He would have objectively to demonstrate that he had met the condition in the amendment. That would unduly restrict the Home Secretary. If there is ever any justification for the Home Secretary to require inspectors to perform an inspection—and sometimes there must be—the amendment ought not to be passed.

As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has brought forward the question of clause stand part, I should like to ask a simple question. If Mr Blunkett were today to say to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary that he felt that it would be a good thing if a police force X were to be inspected and particular attention paid to its firearms section, would it not do so? Is not the provision entirely unnecessary?

I would seek to explain to the Committee that there are several types of inspection. There is a general inspection of the force, which takes some time and is very thorough. There are one-day special inspections, which we in Thames Valley have just had, which take the general pulse of the force through a number of tests and determine whether a general inspection should take place. There are thematic inspections, carried out by the chief inspector of, for example, roads policing. Latterly, we have had basic command unit inspections, where inspectors visit a police area and look at what is going on in great detail.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I believe that the provision is totally unnecessary. Police forces are inspected very thoroughly, very often. Inspectors well know who are the weak links in the chain. I do not know this for certain, but I am sure that they are in fairly close touch with the Secretary of State and his advisers. The Secretary of State does not need this power and it should be struck out.

I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had to say. As ever on such matters, he spoke with great wisdom. Of course he is right to be suspicious of the intention behind any legislation. We are right to give the Bill the sort of careful scrutiny that we are this afternoon. The clause is no different from any other in that respect.

It is worth reflecting on what the clause is attempting to achieve and the effect of the amendment. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to require HMIC to carry out an ad hoc inspection of a force, part of a force or particular functions carried out by that force. The duty as it stands in the 1996 Act is to inspect and report on the whole of every force. HM IC could have fulfilled its duty in that respect but without necessarily providing the evidence to spot shortcomings in a particular part, function or exercise of that force. For the purposes of issuing directions to forces under the new Section 41A of the 1996 Act, inserted by Clause 5, that power is useful in considering the particular remedial measures required.

The amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others said, would restrict the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could call upon HMIC to carry out an inspection of a force or any part of a force to occasions on which he considered that HMIC had failed in its duty under Section 54 of the 1996 Act to inspect and report on all forces. That would be difficult to demonstrate if in fact HMIC had inspected and reported on the efficiency and effectiveness of all forces.

The duty under Section 54 is to inspect all forces—the whole force in each case. That must be understood. However, the inspectorate will not necessarily have failed in its duty under that section if more information is required regarding the performance of a particular part of a force or a particular function of a force. The amendment, as the noble Lord said, would restrict the Home Secretary's ability to seek detailed information on a particular part. There is already a power in Section 93 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to require an inspection of the Central Police Training and Development Authority. Clause 3 would also replace a power in Section 40 of the Police Act 1996 to commission a special inspection of a force.

We think it right that the Home Secretary should be able to seek that more detailed information. It would be helpful in the generality of things; inspectorate reports exist to assist the force that is being inspected to improve the service that it offers and the way in which it performs. In a sense, that is what we are trying to do here. We want to provide extra flexibility and enable the provision of support from the centre when it is required.

Is it not fanciful to suggest that the inspectors would refuse to carry out any sort of inspection that they were asked to carry out by the Secretary of State? Can the Minister assert that there has ever been a case in which HMIC has failed to carry out such an inspection?

I defer to the noble Lord's greater knowledge about such matters. He has experience of high office, and I am sure that he is right. However, we are seeking to put on the statute book something that may, in particular circumstances, be of use and assistance and will enable an inspection to be gone over in greater detail to elucidate and draw out more than was drawn out in the first place. It will enable the Secretary of State to do that. The noble Lord makes a good point, and he will reflect carefully on the points made in the debate.

I can see that it does not go to the amendment; it goes to the substance of the subsection. Other noble Lords have cast doubt on whether it was necessary at all. I concede that it does not go to the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further elucidation. It was most helpful.

We have had an interesting debate, but it causes me some concern. The amendment dealt simply with the principle of when the inspections could happen and whether the Secretary of State should have the power to whistle one up on the wind, so to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is correct in the sense that, if we take the clause out, it does not matter how or whether we amend it. On the other hand, there is no certainty that we will want to take the clause out. If we are satisfied with the content of the clause, we might be prepared to leave it in.

I am not sure that what we propose would be an unreasonable restriction. We come to the issue of part inspections, which the Minister mentioned, in the next group of amendments. The question relates to what would be practised by reasonable people. I am appalled by the idea that, six months after an inspection, the Secretary of State could wake up and say, "Oops! We want a bit more information on this or that", and that, therefore, there should be another inspection. It would appal every practising police officer in the country. If the Secretary of State wants further information, he can request it, for Heaven's sake. He need only write a letter. He does not need an inspection to get further information.

I am not happy about the response to the amendment. None the less, we have had a useful discussion, and I hope that the Minister will do as his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is doing and study what has been said. They are important matters. We must ensure that we do not restrict or contain reasonable reform, while preserving the absolute operational integrity of the force. All the amendments form part of an attempt to make sure that that is what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 18:

I had not intended to speak on this amendment and I shall make only a few brief remarks. Having listened to what has been said, in particular with regard to the last group of amendments, I think that the matter is more important than I had considered to begin with.

I can see that if one is a chief officer, to have an inspection foisted upon one is a very considerable pain. It is expensive and distracts one from other matters. Furthermore, it represents something that one would probably like to avoid if one could. I am not persuaded by the arguments. Perhaps the Minister could direct our attention to any need for this power that was expressed and then recorded in the White Paper. If so then I am afraid that I have forgotten about it.

One is enormously tantalised by the presence in the Chamber of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who has been present throughout our debates. It may be that we are talking absolute nonsense and he would be able to tell us that that is the case. However, as laymen we are doing our best. I can see a considerable potential danger here if the Home Secretary can hold out a threat over a chief officer or perhaps the director-general of the crime squad that he will order an inspection that will not prove to be a particularly pleasant experience.

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Condon, will be able to confirm my impression that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary keeps its ear close to the ground. It has a very professional and experienced ear and I suggest that not much can escape it. Why do we need this? Am I speaking unrealistically when I say that I foresee that there is here the real danger of possible abuse?

Again, I can understand the nervousness and expressions of concern over this. However, perhaps noble Lords opposite are making more of it than is necessary.

The proposition that we are seeking to put into legislative effect is simple enough. A whole force does not need to be ineffective or inefficient for it not to be providing the best possible service. Particular parts of the force may be under-performing. I believe that a basic command unit was mentioned earlier, which provides an adequate example. The whole force may be under-performing, but only in relation to one function such as perhaps, say, the gathering and handling of intelligence material.

We would argue that in those circumstances it would be a waste of the resources of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to invite it to carry out an inspection of the whole force, if we are aware of a problem only in one geographical area or one particular part of a force. We all know that the inspection of an entire force takes much longer and would be of less use as a means of analysing and taking apart a specific problem so that a solution in all of the best supportive terms can be found.

The Home Secretary already has a power to require Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to conduct an inspection of a whole force. The purpose of Clause 3 is to provide a far more flexible and responsive power to look at particular parts of a force. It is no more and no less than that.

While I can appreciate the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, surely all our collective experience of the work of the inspectorate is that it will operate in an entirely cooperative, helpful and supportive way with local police forces the length and breadth of the country. That is exactly what we are seeking to facilitate. The clause helps to further refine that process so that inspections can focus on a particular difficulty that may in some way be disabling to the whole of a force, undermining its effectiveness and efficient operation. As I have said, it is no more and no less than that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, invited me to comment on this, which I hope may be of some assistance to noble Lords. I believe that my former colleagues would probably perceive this clause as being unnecessary but they would not in any way feel threatened by it. In a sense, they would probably see it as unnecessary because there is sufficient collaborative endeavour between all those involved or mentioned in the provision so that most inspections will go ahead in a collaborative way. If there is a dispute and if therefore this is seen as a failsafe new provision which will give the Home Secretary of the day the final power of arbitration as to whether there should be an inspection. I still do not think that my former colleagues will feel severely threatened because the establishment of the facts and the truth would be in the interests of all concerned.

As I have said, they may perceive this provision as unnecessary, but I do not believe that they would feel threatened by it.

I am partially reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, but I still feel like Alice in Wonderland. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which, if a Home Secretary were to ask for an inspection of a part of a force, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary would refuse to do it. It may be necessary for the inspectorate to be given statutory powers to carry out an inspection, but it already has those.

I think that this provision is a symptom of the sickness of the age—the legislative sickness that keeps us at work in this building month after month, year after year, until we all drop dead or are evicted by statutory instrument. I speak entirely for myself.

It is not necessary to have a law to do this any more than it is necessary to have a law to say that the headmaster of Loughborough Grammar School shall be obeyed when he states that the sixth form shall study history on Tuesday week. There are some things that can be done without the law. If something can be done without the law, then it can be done without the lawyers, thus making it quicker and cheaper.

The nature of inspection has changed considerably. A great deal can be achieved on one-day inspections or through very tightly drawn thematic inspections. Inspectors do not come in and spend a great deal of time going through the force. I believe that the inspectors have very much moved with the times.

Perhaps I may also say that a police force does not become inefficient overnight. It is a process and I am quite certain that the inspectors know which are the least efficient forces and which need the most inspections without any advice from the Home Secretary. I maintain that this is totally unnecessary.

Perhaps I should make one further point that is worth putting forward at this stage. Noble Lords have commented that this provision is unnecessary and that we are producing too much legislation—a point made most ably by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, the clause is not entirely new. We have been here before. I do not seek to make a smart point, but I refer to Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which was not enacted under our watch. That section already allows for special inspections and was originally introduced under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

What we are seeking to achieve here is refinement and greater flexibility. I am sure that noble Lords should be able to accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, eloquently made the point that this is a helpful part of what we are trying to achieve in terms of raising standards within the service.

Before the Minister sits down, does lie accept that there is a one-way ratchet. on all these things? Every single time it pushes more power to the centre and more power to the Home Secretary.

I do not accept that we live in a ratchet world. There are swings and there are roundabouts that is, things go one way and come back the other way. As with most of this legislation, the provision is a statement of our intention to do all we can to support local police forces in improving the quality of their service operationally so that they can do the things that we all want them to do: feel collars and put people behind bars when they have offended. We want to make sure that forces work well towards those ends and objectives. That is why we have the police service that we have in this country.

Perhaps I may briefly respond to the Minister. He said that this is a matter of swings and roundabouts. Can he cite one example in this huge Bill of powers flowing back to the police authorities?

The noble Lord scores a good point. I shall not go through the Bill line by line here, nor go through the swings and roundabouts—we are not in that game—but the noble Lord makes a good point.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, is more than able to speak for himself, but he never said that this clause was helpful. He said that it was unnecessary but that the police would not feel threatened by it. He never said that it was helpful.

I am sure that the Minister will reflect on this issue. When he does so, will he remember the principle of human life that when people are given powers they tend to use them. In the case of government, it is not inconceivable that a particular chief constable or a particular director general will get up the nose of some diligent official, who may then put it to the Secretary of State that it might be a good thing to direct an investigation. The Secretary of State, who perhaps has five boxes to deal with that night, may very well decide to take that advice and make use of it. That is something which occurs in ordinary life. I hope that the Minister will reflect upon it.

We always reflect carefully on what is said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I would not want to see—I am sure that that would not be the intention of any government—the powers used in the arbitrary way suggested by the noble and learned Lord. We shall carefully listen and also watch how these powers are used in the future. We shall at all times reflect on the way they operate.

We have had a useful discussion. I recall listing at Second Reading many of the existing powers that the Government have under the 1996 Act. The improvements—if that is what is claimed for the additional powers that the Government are taking in the Bill—are, in some ways, marginal. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is right to describe them as a one-way ratchet.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, made perhaps the most significant remark when he said that the powers are unnecessary. At the same time he said that they were unthreatening. We are in the business of passing good legislation, but here we may be in the business of passing unnecessary legislation. Whether it is good or bad legislation ceases to be relevant if it is unnecessary.

The Ministers, who are sitting together on this issue, have heard the debate. In a sense, the critical issues relate to the question of whether the clause should stand part. We have twice been round the field and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 19: