Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 257, in page 29, line 4, at end insert—

'(1A) After subsection (2) of section 9E of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted—

''(2AA) Where representations are made under this section, the Metropolitan Police Authority shall, where it proposes to exercise the power mentioned in subsection (1), appoint one or more persons (one at least of whom shall be a person who is not an officer of police or of a government department) to hold an inquiry into the reasons

for the exercise of the power and report to it and shall consider any report made under this subsection.''.'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 258, in page 29, line 14, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (3) of section 11 of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted—

''(3AA) Where representations are made under this section, the police authority shall, where it proposes to exercise the power mentioned in subsection (2), appoint one or more persons (one at least of whom shall be a person who is not an officer of police or of a government department) to hold an inquiry into the reasons for the exercise of the power and report to it and shall consider any report made under this subsection.''.'.

No. 252, in clause 30, page 29, line 39, at end insert—

'(1A) After subsection (2) of section 9E of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted—

''(2B) Where the Metropolitan Police Authority has exercised its power under paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis may make representations to the members appointed under subsection (2AA) concerning the continuance or cessation of that suspension and the members shall have a duty to consider those representations and to make recommendations concerning its continuance or cessation to the police authority which shall consider the recommendations made.''.'.

No. 255, in clause 30, page 30, line 15, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (3) of section 11 of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted—

''(3B) Where the police authority has exercised its power under subsection (a) the Chief Constable may make representations to the members appointed under subsection (3AA) concerning the continuance or cessation of that suspension and the members shall have a duty to consider those representations and to make recommendations concerning its continuance or cessation to the police authority which shall consider the recommendations made.''.'.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who is on parliamentary business elsewhere this afternoon. Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 seek to insert into clause 29 an overtly independent element with regard to considerations of whether it is appropriate to take action to remove a senior officer.

As the Minister will be aware, the wording of those amendments closely mirrors section 42 of the Police Act 1996, which relates to the Secretary of State's powers. These amendments relate to the police authority's powers, but it seems appropriate to us that these provisions should be explicitly set out here.

I am sure that the Minister recognises that the removal of senior officers is not a step to be taken lightly. It is also a step that must be seen to be fair and just, so that—hopefully—it commands support not only within the police force, but within the police authority, the wider public and the media.

It is unhelpful and damaging if the removal of an officer is surrounded by controversy, as was the case with regard to the removal of the previous chief constable of Sussex. That was unhelpful to the Government and the police force in Sussex, as well as to the holder of the post, Mr. Paul Whitehouse. To be seen to be fair, it is important to write into the Bill the safeguard—as I would describe it—which was present in relation to the Secretary of State's powers in

the 1996 Act, for the presence of at least one person who is not an officer of police or a Government Department to be party to an inquiry into the reasons for the removal of an officer.

We have inserted an extra phrase:

''the reasons for the exercise of the power''.

That is not intended to make it more difficult to remove an officer who is not acting with efficiency or effectiveness, or in the interests of the force. It is intended to ensure that the process is seen to be fair and just, because if that is the case, if the conclusion is that that officer should go, that is more likely to command public support. Amendments Nos. 252 and 255 are largely consequential on those amendments.

The Minister may be able to give me an assurance, or point to somewhere in the Bill that I have not found that provides the safeguards that I am trying to insert. However, I hope that he takes on board that it is important to have that independent element, for the sake of justice and the public perception with regard to such matters.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Opposition support the spirit of the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes, and we will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

In the next group of amendments, which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will be dealing with, we have raised the same kind of issue about the making of representations. Perhaps we will have a slightly wider debate when we address them. It is fair to say that, when the Bill was first drafted, my hon. Friend tried to find ways of incorporating this concept into amendments. We were advised that the type of amendments that we were considering would not be in order, because of existing legislation in the 1996 Act.

The hon. Member for Lewes has found another way of introducing precisely the type of concepts that interest us, and we will listen with interest for the assurances offered by the Minister. These matters are serious because of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Lewes and recent controversies in Sussex and other forces. Whenever such serious steps are contemplated, an inquiry would be helpful. Certainly, representations would need to be made. Something along the lines of—if not precisely—the amendment should be in the Bill, given that so much of it amends the 1996 Act. When that Act is being amended, something along the lines of the amendment should be included in the Bill.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I can understand the Opposition's arguments. Indeed, I have discussed such issues with the Chief Police Officers Staff Association, which has been active in pushing them. However, I ask the Committee to resist the amendments.

By way of broad background—I stress that I do not refer to any named case—over a 20-year period, chief officers have occasionally ended their careers earlier than might have been expected, but without the use of the provisions laid down in law for their retirement. They have retired from their posts in some other way.

That is not necessarily a satisfactory state of affairs. We should have ways of dealing with such matters properly. Those ways should be seen to be fair to everyone involved, but not present the sort of difficulties in the practical use of the powers that another route has used to the same end. One danger of requiring in the Bill the establishment of an inquiry is that it makes the existing powers, which have been in force since 1964, more difficult to use at local level.

It is important to stress to the Committee that the powers available to the police authority are not new or being introduced by the legislation, except for the change about resignation rather than retirement that we discussed earlier. They are powers that have been in primary legislation since 1964. Despite the many occasions on which the legislation has been examined since then, nobody has previously thought it necessary to include the requirement to hold an inquiry in the Bill.

In framing the legislation, we have looked for improvements that we think have been omitted in the past and put them in. Such things may have been past practice, but have not been included in Bills. In contrast to what has been done previously, for example, in clause 29 we have placed a new responsibility on the police authority, should it wish to take action, to set out fully its reasons for so doing. It must give reasons as well as consider any representations—as under existing law. There is another new requirement: the officer must have a chance to make representations in person.

The two new provisions relating to representation and the giving of reasons have not existed in the law since 1964—we have built them in. It is worth remembering that we have retained the existing constitutional safeguard, which is that the action of the police authority continues to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, as it has been since the 1964 Act.

I judge that there are sufficient existing safeguards. Police authorities must consider representations and secure the Secretary of State's approval. The new requirements that we have introduced are for authorities to give grounds for their actions and for officers concerned to be offered a personal hearing. Put together, they provide reasonable additional safeguards in the Bill since the original drafting in 1964, but do not overload the procedures with specific requirements that would make the power difficult to use in practice.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Two issues arise from what the Minister said. I am not clear why the inquiry process is appropriate for the Secretary of State's initiative but not that of the police authority. If officers have retired earlier than they might have otherwise—or another gentle phrase that the Minister used—surely putting in place a system in which officers have more confidence suggests that they will stay and go through the process rather than taking the action that the Minister wishes to avoid.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

On the latter point, the difficulty has been that people on the employer side have been

unwilling to initiate procedures, rather than people dropping out as the procedure progresses.

The difference is very clear on the hon. Gentleman's first point. If the Secretary of State, rather than the police authority, required action to be taken, he would not have a person to oversee his decision. It would be necessary for the Secretary of State to be advised by an inquiry. If the police authority decides to initiate action, the Secretary of State will provide the second look at the facts of the matter. In a case initiated by the police authority, the Secretary of State is the long stop or second opinion. If the Secretary of State initiates the process, it is right that he needs a process set down for he or she to be advised through an inquiry.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I understand the distinction that the Minister is drawing between the two circumstances. However, there could be a case in which the perception of a police authority was that it was dominated by representatives of a political party that happened to be the same party that formed the Government and was, therefore, the Secretary of State's party. Does the Minister accept that there might be worries if it were thought that political issues—with a small ''p'' and capital ''P''—were involved in the departure of a chief police officer? It might be wiser to have an independent inquiry into what had gone on in such circumstances because, otherwise, one political party would dominate both arms of the second look?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

We need to keep a sense of perspective on the whole procedure. A case in which anyone envisages it necessary to remove a chief constable will be rare. I referred to a few examples over the past 20 years when chief constables have finished their careers earlier than might be expected, but there are not a huge number of cases and we cannot be entirely certain about what happened in each case. Saying that we must build in an inquiry procedure in case of the exceptional circumstances or concurrence of events that the hon. Gentleman suggests has the danger of overloading the procedure and making it too bureaucratic.

I met the chief constable of Gloucestershire police last week and discussed these issues. The Government have agreed to develop guidance with CPOSA on the way in which police authorities should conduct the procedure. That is a better way forward. It allows us flexibility and the ability to set out further detail than we would want to include in the Bill. I cannot speak for CPOSA, but I am sure that it would prefer such statutory provision. It welcomes that approach and we should develop fuller guidance that police authorities would find useful through discussion with CPOSA. The range of circumstances that might confront a police authority will vary from rare circumstance to rare circumstance.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding fully to my initial points and to interventions from me and from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I am pleased that he has discussed the matter with the chief constable of Gloucestershire and that he recognises that there is an

issue, even if he feels that the amendment is not the appropriate way in which to deal with it. Guidance would be better than the absence of guidance, and I hope that the Minister will progress with that and listen carefully to chief officers' views on the important issue. An independent element is appropriate. It seems difficult to argue against that. It would be a safeguard that everyone would understand, and I am sorry that the Minister—

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

In our previous sitting, the hon. Members for Lewes and for Surrey Heath were 1,000 per cent. in favour of devolved decision making to that local leg of the tripartite arrangement. What has changed in the past week?

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Nothing. Independent elements at a local level would obviate the need for the Secretary of State to be a check on what that leg of the tripod was doing.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made a point about the presence of the same political party locally and nationally. Although that may sound far-fetched in many circumstances, it is possible that, when a police authority has acted in an especially provocative and overtly political way, if the Secretary of State is of the same party, he or she might find it difficult to countermand that and risk a series of ''Tory split'' or ''Labour split'' headlines in the newspapers. Although that is unlikely, it cannot be discounted. The presence of an independent element would help preserve us against that.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I apologise for the confusion at the beginning of the debate. It may help the hon. Member for Lewes to know that, in Northern Ireland, when a senior officer is retired by the Policing Board or the Secretary of State, provision is made not only for representations to be made but for a requirement, which is an obligation in such circumstances, for persons appointed to hold an inquiry and report before the person has retired.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for that intervention, as it gave me information that I did not have. I do not know whether the Minister was aware of that. Clearly, from what we have been told, in Northern Ireland, independence in input has been seen to be worth having. I imagine that it is also considered fairer and more just to hold such an inquiry.

I shall not labour the point. The Minister has said that he will pursue the matter in respect of guidance. He recognises that an issue is involved, even if he is not happy with the exact form of the amendments. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 29, line 14, at end insert

'accompanied by a professional adviser if he or she should so wish.'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 92, in clause 31, page 31, line 38, at end insert

'either in person or in writing, or by another person on his behalf'.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths.

The amendments follow the same theme as the previous group inasmuch as they relate to ensuring fairness for a chief officer on whom the powers in these clauses may be used, whether by the authority or, in the case of amendment No. 92, the Secretary of State. There seems to be an element of inconsistency in relation to not only the inquiry but the form of representation.

I carefully read the copious document that the Minister kindly sent Committee members, which represents the 1996 Act as it would be amended if the Bill were enacted in its original form. I understand that, under section 42 of the 1996 Act as it will be amended, the inquiry remains in place, but the representations that the Secretary of State will need to consider in the amended form will give that officer an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 92 should be made in order to allow such representations to be made in person or in writing. The reference to making representations is not sufficiently explicit.

The Minister may say that an inquiry will be held, and it is clear that the inquiry will take representations, too. However, I argue that the Secretary of State should allow the individual to make representations, either in person or in writing—the choice would probably be to do so in person—before the inquiry stage is reached, because that may circumvent the need for an inquiry and therefore curtail the whole case.

That seems perfectly reasonable, and I am sure that the Minister is right to say that the powers will be used rarely, so I do not think that he can plead that it would be an onerous duty on the Secretary of State to see the chief officer in relation to whom he intends to exercise the powers. Amendment No. 92, which would allow representations to be made in person or in writing, is therefore appropriate.

Amendment No. 91 addresses the question of where the authority uses the powers, and representations in that respect. It is reasonable that, when using the right to make representations, the chief officer should, if he or she wishes, be accompanied by a professional adviser. Having studied the provision again, I realise that the amendment should also apply to line 4 of page 29, but never mind. We can correct that later if the Minister is minded to accept the principle of the proposal, which is straightforward. The chief officer should be able to have professional advice when making representations if the authority plans to exercise the powers given to it in the clause.

These straightforward amendments are designed simply to provide a little more fairness for the chief officer or openness about the procedure. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit behind them, if not the amendments themselves. I stress that this is simply a matter of equity. On amendment No. 92, the need for the inquiry might be short-circuited if the chief officer could make representations in person to the Secretary of State before he decided whether to go

ahead and use the inquiry procedure laid down in section 42(3) of the 1996 Act.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I rise simply to add my support to the amendments. On amendment No. 91, it is important for a chief officer in the position described to have a fair hearing. They will be under pressure and, as a result, may not react in terms of representations as cleanly or effectively as they would usually. Therefore the presence of a professional adviser would be only fair. Indeed, it is not unusual in trade union or other management disputes for such a person to be present, so the proposal seems reasonably uncontroversial, but perhaps the Minister will persuade me otherwise. The flexibility that amendment No. 92 would provide also seems only fair and reasonable, so I hope that he will look favourably on the amendments.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I shall deal first with amendment No. 91. Obviously I have some sympathy with the view that, in practice, someone might well wish to be represented or accompanied by a representative from their staff association, for example. However, we are not keen on putting a right to that representation in the Bill, because we do not want to create a legal framework so rigid that it becomes a mechanism for delaying hearings through one device or another or for making hearings overly legalistic.

As I said, we understand the argument that someone might well wish to be represented, but rather than make that an explicit requirement in the Bill, we are happy to discuss it with the CPOSA, as I said previously, and if necessary make regulations under clause 33. We will certainly ensure that there is adequate and appropriate guidance.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister appears to be saying that he accepts the spirit of the amendment, but will not accept the amendment. With respect, it is not mechanistic. It includes the phrase

''if he or she should so wish.''

That gives the flexibility to which the Minister refers.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

We need to avoid the creation of a right that legal advisers or others could use to make themselves unavailable to attend an inquiry as a representative in order to drag out the proceedings and make them unduly legalistic. We are building on provisions that are unchanged since 1964, and we should recognise that the right to representation is being included for the first time. It may be possible to include in regulations under clause 33 the question of someone being accompanied by their staff association representative or adviser through the discussions that we promised with the CPOSA. It is not uncommon for Ministers to acknowledge the spirit of an amendment, but to advise the Committee to resist it, and this may be one of those occasions.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister appears to imply that if the professional adviser, who may be a solicitor, is unavailable, the authority could say, ''Tough, we're still going ahead, and you can make a representation without your adviser.'' I understand that we do not want to delay the procedure, but the reverse is that the authority can proceed willy-nilly. I am even more tempted about the need to include that in the Bill, not

that I have any doubts about the CPOSA or its enthusiasm for an alternative approach.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we do not want the procedure to work in a way that is an abuse of the proper rights of a chief officer who, after all, faces serious consequences for his career. Equally, however, we do not want to set down a rigid legal framework that can be exploited by those who want to conduct affairs in a way that has nothing to do with a proper hearing and everything to do with delaying and frustrating the process. There has never been a demand for this change before, which is why my approach is appropriate.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

In Northern Ireland, it was good enough for the chief constable or a senior officer to be given an opportunity to make representations under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Section 35(4) contains the words:

''the Secretary of State shall . . . give the officer concerned an opportunity to make, either personally or otherwise, representations to him''.

If that is good enough to have appeared in legislation in Northern Ireland, why is it unduly burdensome in the rest of the UK?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I am not an expert on all aspects of the legislation, and would not pretend to be, especially to the hon. Lady who represents the constituency that she does. We all understand that things are done differently in Northern Ireland from the way in which they are done here. The Committee should remember that we are considering building new rights on top of procedures that have been laid down since 1964. Opposition Members did not seek to amend the 1994 or the 1996 legislation when they had the opportunity to do so and when the same issues came up for discussion. It is a matter of getting the balance of procedures right. The right way to deal with the more detailed handling of such matters by the police authority is to take advantage of guidance to police authorities and, if necessary, the provision for regulations. That is important as although these issues are rare, when they arise they attract immense attention and publicity, and they affect other officers and the morale of the force. The procedure should be seen to be fair to the officer involved and sufficiently rapid and flexible to deal with the important issue of efficiency or effectiveness in the force. In updating the legislation, we are trying to offer some comfort about the safeguards, none of which exist at present, without proposing a system that renders itself unusable by being overly dominated by procedures, with some of the consequences that have resulted in the past.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am slightly unclear what the Minister proposes. He clearly objects to the amendment but he used the term ''regulation'' a couple of times in his response. If he thinks that the matter could be covered in regulation it becomes part of legislation and in that respect is no different from it being in the Bill. If he is planning to include it in a code of guidance it is not legislation, but neither is it regulation. I am slightly unclear exactly what the Minister is saying. Of course, he is right to say that we do not want a matter to be

delayed because procedures are used in a legalistic way, but at the same time the rights of the individual must be protected, as he said. I am not sure that a code of guidance would be adequate. I am not clear about the Minister's use of the word ''regulation''.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I talked about regulation on each occasion in the context of ''if appropriate''. In many cases, guidance will be better than formal, legal regulations but the Bill is not the place to address procedural matters as it would make the measure unnecessarily restrictive or inflexible. It is a matter that we need to consider either for guidance or for regulations in future discussions.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

Government Members will want reassurance that there will be an opportunity for representation. However, we are equally concerned that there should be nothing in the Bill that could lead to delay, because that would destroy public confidence in the process. The proposal is a step forward, therefore we do not want to put obstacles in its way, but we seek the Minister's assurance that some representation will be available.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

There certainly will be; there is an explicit right to make representation in person, which did not previously exist until addressing the police authority initiated the procedure. My hon. Friend is also right about the procedures striking the right balance. There is a value in having better guidance than is available at present. From my background work as a Minister on one or two cases, it is clear that police authorities that confront the situation often feel that they are starting from scratch in terms of having any idea about how they should proceed.

Amendment No. 92 relates to the procedure in which the Secretary of State initiates action rather than the police authority.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Before the Minister moves on, I want to raise a matter in the light of his response to interventions on the first amendment. He is aware that since the incorporation into our law of the Human Rights Act 1998 and with the existing powers with which Secretaries of State must comply in respect of judicial review, there are extra concerns. The Secretary of State has to certify, as he has done, that all the Bill's provisions comply with the Human Rights Act. Does the Minister not recognise that there might well be a concern about this measure bringing in new procedures if he does not allow a very informal new right to have professional advisers if the person involved should so wish. What we are proposing is hardly rigid or mechanistic; it might be easier for the Secretary of State to be defended against judicial review and make it much clearer if it was on the face of the Bill that it complies with the Human Rights Act.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I obviously discussed similar issues with my advisers in the early drafting of the Bill. I am assured that the Bill is perfectly compatible with the Human Rights Act. I cannot remember whether the Home Secretary or I signed the necessary declaration. It is worth noting that the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both Houses also concluded that it was unlikely that the provisions of part 3 of the Bill would

be held to engage rights under article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights. Although I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point and, indeed, I have raised it myself in the past, we seem to be on safe ground here.

Amendment No. 92 addresses the situation where the Secretary of State initiates the process. Let us remember that clause 31 introduces a new requirement that the Secretary of State must give notice of his intentions with his reasons. Under existing legislation the chief officer must be given an opportunity to make representations, so that remains. If the Secretary of State proceeds he must, as at present, appoint an inquiry. When there is an inquiry the officer has a new right to make representations in person to that inquiry.

The central issue that is raised by the hon. Gentleman's amendment is whether, when the Secretary of State is deciding whether to proceed to an inquiry, he should hold an oral hearing with the chief officer rather than receive representations either in person or in writing. I can understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but we are in danger of duplicating oral hearings, one of which would have to happen in front of the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State decides to proceed to an inquiry—having got as far as saying that issues need to be looked at, that is likely although not certain—the inquiry would have to go through the whole procedure too. If there is sufficient to dissuade the Secretary of State from proceeding and going to inquiries, it should be possible to set that out in the written representations to him, rather than having to have two oral inquiries. Therefore again, in the interests of not overcomplicating matters, I must reject the amendment as inappropriate.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I follow the Minister's reasoning, but I am now slightly puzzled. The terminology used in the legislation, as it will be, is identical for the Secretary of State and the inquiry. Under the futuristic and amended version of the 1996 Act, before requiring the exercise of these powers the Secretary of State shall:

''give the officer concerned an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State''.

It later states:

''The Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him under subsection (2)''.

Then—this is unchanged from the original legislation and I recognise the correctness of the Minister's argument that we are on to fresh ground anyway—it states that at an inquiry held under subsection (3) the officer in question

''shall be entitled to make representations to the inquiry''.

We still have the phrase ''make representations''. The Minister clearly referred to the inquiry being an oral hearing. I am not sure why the phrase ''make representations'' in one context is an oral hearing, yet not in another.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I think that it is explained in new subsection (3B) of the updated section 42, which states:

''The entitlement . . . to make representations shall include the entitlement to make them in person''.

That must presuppose an oral hearing. That is the part that was missing.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am more than happy to have things explained to me, and if the hon. and learned Lady is right, I am happy to accept her interpretation. The Minister will probably endorse what she has just said, but I still question the need to go down the road of a full-blown inquiry. I hope that any such inquiry will be a comprehensive investigation, not a few minutes of an oral hearing. The opportunity for the chief officer, in the rare event of this happening, to have half an hour with the Secretary of State would be perfectly reasonable.

I do not know whether the Minister wants to intervene, but otherwise I shall have to do something.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking this spontaneous intervention and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who is entirely forgiven for being a lawyer because she is correct. The entitlement for the chief officer to make representations in person to the Secretary of State is included. That is new, which is the difference.

The sequence of events that could emerge from amendment No. 92 is that the Secretary of State has an oral hearing and then goes to inquiry, which itself then has an oral hearing. The Secretary of State would then receive the report of both oral hearings, which would not be best for decision making. Such a process would include duplication, and it should be possible for the Secretary of State to make the judgment about whether there is sufficient reason to go ahead with an inquiry on the basis of written representations.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for his intervention and for the information from the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, which put me right on one point. I do not entirely agree with the Minister about the concept of duplication; I see it more as a way of preventing the full sequence of events taking place. However, I shall not overdo the argument, as we have much more to do this evening. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.