Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend’s time on his allotment was well spent and he should not fret about that. I agree with him that scrutiny and accountability are closely related. This is one of those replies when one needs to read the detail, which I will of course do, rather than attempt an off-the-cuff response. However, I shall mention one thing that is not apposite but I cannot resist it. When Section 36, ““General duty of Secretary of State””, of the Police Act 1996 was enacted, the Secretary of State was a man. Therefore, it reads: "““The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers … to such extent as appears to him to be best calculated””," and so on. The drafter of this Bill finds it difficult to accept that the Secretary of State might not be a man. Although the word ““her”” appears sometimes, the wording is not precisely the same and does not change ““him”” to ““her””. It changes ““him”” to ““the Secretary of State””, which is rather sad. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 93 withdrawn. Clause 14 agreed. Clause 15 : Supply of goods and services Clause 15 : Supply of goods and services Amendment 94 not moved. Clause 15 agreed. Clause 16 : Appointment of persons not employed by elected local policing bodies Clause 16 : Appointment of persons not employed by elected local policing bodies Amendment 95 not moved. Clause 16 agreed. Clause 17 : Duties when carrying out functions Clause 17 : Duties when carrying out functions Amendment 96 not moved. Clause 17 agreed. Clause 18 : Delegation of functions by police and crime commissioners Clause 18 : Delegation of functions by police and crime commissioners Amendments 97 to 100 not moved.