Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Once again, I wish to refer to some points about which the Police Federation of England and Wales contacted my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me. They apply to clauses 73 and 74. The federation is pleased that the Government have responded to its wish for regulations. It has argued that regulations governing the terms and conditions of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad terms should be identical to regulations that govern the terms and conditions for forces made under section 50 of the Police Act 1996.

The Police Federation anticipates that the Home Secretary may intend the regulations applicable to NCIS and NCS to be similar in structure to those that will apply to forces as a consequence of the recent police negotiating board agreement on pay and conditions of service. That is, it anticipates that the regulations will provide the structure and appropriate

safeguards, and that the details will be set out in determinations made by the Secretary of State, which will be informed by police negotiating board agreements.

The Police Federation says that if that is so, the wording of clauses 73(1) and 74(1) would have the following result: three sets of determinations would be made by the Home Secretary, and three sets governing terms and conditions of service would apply separately to the 43 home forces, NCIS and the NCS. The Police Federation says that a simple way of avoiding the additional bureaucracy of legislating separately would be to bring NCIS and the NCS within the scope of section 50 of the Police Act 1996. It has suggested various ways in which that could be done by amending and combining clauses 73(1) and 74(1).

I am sure at the Minister and those who advise him have considered the matter, and have also looked at clauses 73(2) and 74(2), with which the Police Federation do not agree. That is because those subsections enable the Independent Police Complaints Commission to bring and conduct disciplinary proceedings. The Police Federation says that it is far from ideal to give a body powers both to investigate and prosecute disciplinary matters. The Minister will remember that I raised a similar point under another clause.

The royal commission on criminal procedure reported in 1981 that it is unsatisfactory for the person who has investigated the case to be the person responsible for the decision to prosecute. As I told the Minister in an earlier debate, that is a fundamental principle of criminal justice.

Clauses 73(2) and 74(2) confer

''a right to participate in, or to be present at, disciplinary proceedings on such persons as may be specified''.

The federation is concerned that the proceedings might be made open to the public. We raised that issue earlier, and I remember that the Minister said that there could be exceptional cases in which that might be considered, but that that would not be the norm. For the sake of clarification, it would be helpful if he would say on record that he believes that that also applies to the provisions under discussion. His comments could then be referred to if anyone considered our discussion under the ruling of Pepper v. Hart.

Another issue raised by the federation is the withdrawal of the right to silence without adverse inference at disciplinary proceedings. We had quite a debate on that earlier, and I do not think it would be sensible to repeat it. I simply note the issue, as the Police Federation has raised it once again. The Minister will, no doubt, want to say a word or two confirming what he said on that earlier occasion. Having put that on the record, I shall not detain the Committee further.

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

The hon. Gentleman raises two main issues: one is whether we should automatically align the regulations for NCIS and NCS employees with those for the wider police service in England and Wales, and the second is about the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point on the first issue; certainly, we want to avoid bureaucracy. The service authorities will be the employers of police officers working for NCIS and NCS. It would be sensible to allow some discussion with them on the way in which regulations should be shaped before committing ourselves absolutely. I anticipate that a similar general approach will be taken to the regulations applied to Home Office police forces in England and Wales. We should be sensible and ensure that regulations are properly tailored to specific requirements of, and specific circumstances experienced by, the organisations, if they would not arise elsewhere. Powers exist to consolidate the regulations should we decide to do that.

I know that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), led for the Government during the sitting in which we considered the IPCC. There are issues of principle about the IPCC's ability to pursue a disciplinary case if it has worries about the way in which it might otherwise be conducted. We discussed exceptional circumstances relating to opening things up to the public. I should expect the approach taken on NCIS and the NCS to reflect the same approach that we take with regard to the IPCC. During discussions, it was decided that the sheer complexity of drafting primary legislation for every different part of every police service for which we want an IPCC approach would be an enormous job, which is why some will be addressed through regulations. However, we want the approach to be the same for all police officers, wherever they are.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 74 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.