The amendment would remove the power of the Home Secretary to confer additional functions on the senior appointments panel, and it is important that the arrangements for the panel contain sufficient flexibility to allow it to take its work forward in future, while having the checks in place so that Parliament and the tripartite are appropriately involved.
As I have mentioned in this debate, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has scrutinised the approach taken in the Bill and is satisfied with this power to confer additional functions. The proposed amendment would also mean that the power of the Home Secretary to delegate his role in the appointment of senior officers to the Chief Inspector of Constabulary was retained. While the chief inspector will continue to have a key role in advising the senior appointments panel, he will no longer chair it, as it would no longer be appropriate for him to hold this role under the new system as HMIC takes on the strengthened role of performance improvement. The power to delegate the Home Secretary’s approval role to the chief inspector therefore does not reflect the chief inspector’s new role, and is being repealed. An independent chair and members will help to bring a wider perspective from people who do not represent organisations with a direct stake in individual chief officer appointments.
I am unclear as to the noble Lord’s intention in removing the amendments to the Race Relations and Freedom of Information Acts. The Bill ensures that the panel is subject to all relevant equality duties by amending the Race Relations Act to apply the race equality duty to the panel. The equality duties for gender and disability will apply to the panel, since it will be carrying out public functions. In future, I fully expect the panel to be subject to the requirements of the equality duty set out in the Equality Bill. It is important that a body that has a role in helping to improve the diversity of senior appointments has the appropriate statutory equality responsibilities. As an example of extra co-ordination, by allowing this not to be in the Bill we want to achieve greater flexibility in future. As soon as we tie it in to the Bill, we are tied down to something and it does not necessarily cover everything that we will want to do in the future. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 June 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c1376-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:21:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569292
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569292
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569292