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

I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 62, line 47, at end insert—

'and, in a case where the power to make provision with respect to qualification for appointment as a constable or as a special constable, or for membership of a force, Service or Squad, is exercisable by any such regulations as are mentioned in that subsection, the regulations made must impose requirements with respect to all the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

The clause was debated extensively in another place, and the amendment honours a commitment that was made by Lord Rooker. Police forces want to employ the best and most suitable people as police officers. They want to select people on merit and do not want to exclude people because of factors that have no bearing on their ability to do the job. Forces have found that the existing nationality rules hinder the recruitment of good people who may have been living in the United Kingdom for many years, but who do not qualify on account of their nationality.

The current rules allow Irish citizens to become police officers, but exclude people from other member states of the European Union. They also allow people from the Commonwealth who are resident here to be police officers, but exclude other foreign nationals resident here. We believe that the removal of the nationality bar will widen the pool of potential recruits, and so help the police service to improve its diversity and better reflect our society. It will make the police service more inclusive than exclusive, and it will enable us to concentrate on selecting on merit.

The police services of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland support the removal of the nationality restriction, as do the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, the Special constabulary and the Association of Police Authorities.

In the other place, several Lords expressed concern about the fact that Britain could be policed by people who did not speak English, could not be understood by the public, or knew nothing about this country. I think that those fears were misplaced. None the less, the amendment responds to those who expressed such fears. Clearly, the ability to communicate effectively with the public and write plain English is essential for police work. It is also essential that police officers have knowledge of Britain and the society that they police.

The amendment requires the Government to make regulations that will ensure that police officers cannot be appointed unless they are competent in written and oral English. Candidates' skill in oral and written English will be tested, and if they do not reach a satisfactory standard they will be rejected, even if they have all the other skills and competencies needed.

Foreign and European Union nationals—indeed all candidates—will need to satisfy our rigorous vetting requirements. It might, for example, be unlikely that

someone who has lived here for a short time could be vetted; that person would therefore not qualify for appointment. There will also be a provision to reserve posts that are particularly sensitive to national security. That combination of safeguards will be put in place and those requirements will need to be met before a candidate of whatever nationality qualifies for appointment.

We do not intend to change the immigration rules to allow us to recruit people who have no right to work and live in the UK from abroad. To be eligible to serve in the police force, foreign nationals will need to be resident in the UK and have no restrictions attached to their stay. We will not actively recruit from abroad. The intention is to allow those who already live in the UK or have the right to work here, such as EU nationals, to join the police service if they have the right qualities and skills.

The lifting of the nationality bar will not lead to a reduction in the quality of recruits. Robust recruitment standards will maintain the quality of recruits, and all applicants, whether British or not, will have to meet certain criteria before they qualify for appointment, including those specified in the regulations that I discussed earlier. Applicants will need to show that they have the key competencies required for policing. If they do, there is no good reason why they should be excluded from the police service.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

As the Minister rightly said, deeply held concerns were expressed in the other place about opening up the nationality bar. Lord Rooker—recently departed to other pastures—and the Minister sought to allay those concerns. I appreciate the amendment, which also endeavours to do that. I fully recognise the strength of the argument that there are people who have made this country their home and have been here a long while who are debarred on nationality grounds, and that seems unfair. I am not sure how many such recruits there will be; the implication is that there will not be a huge number. We will probably only find out what effect the amendment has on recruitment in due course. I accept the principle of the Minister's argument, although a part of me retains concerns.

First, I am puzzled as to why subsection (4)(c) does not appear in the amendment, which says that

''regulations made must impose requirements with respect to all the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).''

Why not (c) as well? That is a puzzle, and I hope that the Minister will explain. He said in his opening remarks that in some cases, involving particular sensitivities, nationality is significant. I should have thought that that still has to be covered in regulations. It may be difficult to do that, but a framework must be found, or the Commission for Racial Equality, if no one else, will scrupulously examine every appointment for which a bar on nationality grounds seems to have been introduced.

Secondly, the Minister touched on the issue of people who live here, and residency. In the other place,

his former colleague said that that would apply only to people who had made their home in this country or possibly, as the Minister says, other EU nationals. Will he give us some guidance about what is expected to be laid down in guidance or regulations about residency qualifications? That is important. It will be a widespread view among the public that a police officer, who has all the powers that we spent so much time discussing, should have demonstrated total commitment to this country. There may be understandable reasons why they have chosen not to become a British citizen, but that commitment to this country needs to have been shown for a considerable period. Competence in English, important though that is, or knowledge of British life, which can be gained in other ways, are not necessarily adequate.

What are the Minister's thoughts about residency qualifications? Certainly Lord Rooker implied that there would be residency qualifications. I am slightly worried that they have not appeared. I welcome the amendment as a step forward, but I remain puzzled about the exclusion of paragraph (c), and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain.

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

On the first point, about the exclusion of subsection (4)(c) from the requirement to make regulations, the feeling is that that approach is too prescriptive, because it seems to require before the event a list of each rank and position in the police service in order to determine whether it would be covered if we wanted to exclude it. It would be more sensible to retain the power to exclude specific posts as, in the light of experience and focus on particular posts, that becomes necessary.

It would be rather a large-scale exercise to produce for each police service, before anyone had been recruited, a list of every post, rank or position that could or could not be occupied by someone of different nationality. However, there is no difference between us about the intention of the policy, which is that there must be the ability to reserve posts of particular sensitivity.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I take the Minister's point. We have always found that a listing system in legislation inevitably creates problems, because of exclusion. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that in taking that approach he is effectively opening himself up to legal challenge every time such decisions are made and someone who is not a British citizen might be eligible for that post. The issue of racial discrimination legislation will come into play—unless he tells me that the police force is exempt, but I do not believe that it is. Otherwise, I can imagine a legion of such cases being brought every time someone believes that they might have been discriminated against, whether that is true or not.

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

In practice, it would be important for such issues to be dealt with ahead of receiving an individual application from a particular person to a named post. That would present difficulties if the proceedings got that far. I suspect that at some point especially sensitive posts will have to be identified, but I would resist the idea of needing to have a full list before anyone is recruited to any rank of the police service. Also, there is no risk of legal challenge if the

rules clearly provide for the reservation of posts. We would be more vulnerable had there been no provision to make such regulations, and some way down the line someone was told, ''You are not going to become the director of terrorism in the Metropolitan police.'' I believe that we are legally covered.

The second question concerned guidance. The amendment enables the Government to make regulations with regard to immigration status. It is our intention that the regulations that we introduce will include a requirement for applicants to have a settled immigration status in the United Kingdom—they must be eligible to live in this country without any restrictions on their stay. I have examined the drafting, and whether in 15 or 20 years' time somebody would apply the amendment in the same way is something that we will have to leave open. However, the Government intend to introduce regulations to require that foreign nationals must be resident in the UK with no restrictions attached to their stay. I believe that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

It went a bit further than that. I appreciate that applicants must be living here legally and able to stay unhindered, but my question related to the period of residency required prior to making an application—the showing of a commitment to this country. There are plenty of people in the world who can come to the UK and have the necessary immigration status within a matter of weeks or months of arriving. I am more concerned about how long they have been here and been part of British society and so learned how we live.

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

To be honest, that is a matter that we will have to examine in more detail when we draft the regulations. At this stage, we have not set out that there should be a two-year, five-year or 10-year test. In general, the other tests of competence and knowledge that would be part of the recruitment service are probably more focused on identifying whether an individual has sufficient knowledge and understanding of this country to do the job. We can consider whether there should be a further residence test when we come to the detailed drafting of the regulations.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Is it not the case that non-UK citizens are practising and therefore administering the law? It is not necessary to be a UK citizen. My solicitor—an American citizen with permanent residency of 20 years—regularly practises in the courts. In the administration of justice, therefore, non-UK citizens are already part of the process.

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I would draw a distinction between someone practising professionally, albeit as part of the criminal justice system, and someone who would exercise the full powers of a sworn constable—powers of arrest and detention over citizens and other residents of the UK. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the Government believe that becoming a police officer has a significance that sets them apart from other citizens.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Minister is being helpful in his response to the Opposition's points. I respectfully agree with his comments to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). However, when he and his advisers consider what the minimum period of residency should be, he should take into account that the Police Federation has urged us that a minimum of three years' residency in the UK should be a precondition of someone being considered. I agree, and think that, in the end, we may need an even longer requirement. Three-years' residency should be the irreducible minimum.

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

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not want to make any commitment today. There is a logic to his comments, but imagine a situation in which somebody who lived in the UK some time ago—perhaps an American citizen and serving police officer with a distinguished record in America—came to the UK with a British wife and had right of settlement. We might find that we had produced an arbitrarily high barrier to someone who would be welcome in the police service. To be honest, the issue should not be resolved when considering the Bill in Committee, but I undertake on behalf of the Government to examine it seriously when we produce the regulations. Of course, we will consult on those before we lay them before Parliament.

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

I just wonder how far the provisions are compatible with European law. If I were a Greek dentist who wanted to practise in London as a citizen of the European Union under single market legislation and the great treaty of Maastricht, there would be nothing to stop me. Indeed, there is a long tradition of police officers, such as Inspector Clouseau and Poirot, coming to work in this country. I am rather surprised that a restriction appears to be imposed on European Community nationals serving as policemen in this country.

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

As we shall discuss later, Hercule Poirot turns out to have been working without proper insurance cover during all the dramas that we enjoy on television. We shall try to put that right when we discuss later clauses.

Of course, the European Union has not tried to extend provisions on free movement of labour to certain functions, and one of those is national policing. The Bill is entirely compatible with our international treaty obligations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.