Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

That is an important principle. I am really troubled that so much of this debate is described as delegation, whereas actually it is about getting other people to do a job in a way that, in other businesses, would be quite natural. That is not the same as delegation. On the term limit, had the Public Bill Office allowed my amendment, it would have addressed all the points that the Minister made. However, the Minister did not address the problem—or, perhaps it would be fairer to say, the question that I asked—which is, ““Why is London different in this respect?””. Let me mention two final issues. The first is about the arrangements that the London Assembly makes and the Government’s insistence on requiring a bespoke committee. The Minister said that this is a matter of practicality. Well, there are practical considerations, but if central government is going to keep out of these things, central government should let the London Assembly work out for itself what the best practical arrangements would be. Frankly, I think that it is a bit paternalistic for central government to say, ““You 25 people won’t be able to cope, so let us tell you how best to do it””. It seems to me that certain matters could and would be best handled by a committee, whereas some issues—the budget is obviously one of them—would be matters for the whole Assembly. The Government’s proposal seems an unnecessary intervention. Finally, on the issue of appointments, although bureaucracy has been blamed, sometimes bureaucracy is a good thing. Actually, the point made is the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, about the lines of connection—I had better avoid words like ““accountability””—which I think is the right approach. I do not think that one should be saying that, in the name of avoiding bureaucracy, we will make the process, frankly, rather dodgy. I am sorry that it must have been quite difficult for those Members of the House who are not directly involved in these matters to have tried to follow the debate, but certain themes have come out. I think that I look forward to—I anticipate with some sort of emotion—discussing these issues further with the Minister, because there are a number of points on which we have now teased out some of the Government’s thinking, which I have found helpful to hear, that we will need to address further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51. Amendment 51 withdrawn. Amendments 52 to 59 not moved. Clause 3 agreed. Schedule 3 : Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime Schedule 3 : Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime Amendments 60 to 64 not moved. Schedule 3 agreed. Clause 4 : Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Clause 4 : Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Amendments 64A to 65 not moved. Clause 4 agreed. Schedule 4 : Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Schedule 4 : Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Amendments 66 to 67B not moved. Schedule 4 agreed. Amendment 68 not moved. Clause 5 : Police and crime commissioners to issue police and crime plans Amendment 68ZA Clause 5 : Police and crime commissioners to issue police and crime plans Amendment 68ZA Moved by