Debate on whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
That almost gave me a heart attack.
I will now raise yet again the issue of the large number of regulation-making powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State. I am afraid that you will hear a great deal more from me on the subject as the Bill progresses. It is fundamentally an unsatisfactory way to make laws. The powers tend to be wide-ranging and non-specific to make sure that every future possibility is catered for, but that is completely unclear about what is intended in the first place. This clause is no exception. What precisely is meant by, ""steps to be taken in connection with the appointment of senior officers"?"
That is very wide-ranging. Might it include, for instance, limiting the number of candidates put forward for interview, which follows on from the issues discussed on Clause 2 about the role of the senior appointments panel? I am also not clear whether the new paragraph on payments to senior officers is designed to mandate or prevent large golden handshakes being doled out to failing senior officers who depart prematurely. I had a lot of experience of that over the years when I was chairing my own police authority.
I understand that one key driver for the provision was a concern on the part of ACPO that chief officers were not always fully consulted by police authorities before the authorities made appointments at deputy or assistant chief constable rank. However, I understand from the Association of Police Authorities that protocols governing the topic have now been agreed between it and ACPO in principle, which looks like a good move. I do not see any reason to regulate on the subject at all if the main reason that drove the inclusion of the clause has been removed. It remains the job of the police authority, not the Home Secretary, to appoint chief officers and to determine the pay and conditions on which they are appointed. Regulation-making powers of this nature look like an attempt to erode and blur this important line and they are to be greatly resisted.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Harris of Richmond
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1382 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:21:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569319
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569319
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569319