I am grateful to the Committee, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for moving the Amendment. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, he stayed here very late—until the end—on the previous day on this. I am sorry that he is not able to be in his place today. He was here to move the amendment when we pulled stumps on Tuesday night at gone 11 pm.

Having said that, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to introduce a new system of independent legal adjudicators with powers to close down investigations. I think I can agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that delays in investigations are in nobody’s interests—of police officers who subsequently are proved innocent, of victims, or of speedy justice for those who have strayed and committed potential offences. Lengthy delays risk impacting the confidence of complainants and the welfare of the police officers involved.

We recognise those impacts, which is why we introduced reforms last year, including a presumption of fast-track hearings for former officers and a broader power for police forces to utilise fast-track hearings. In addition—and I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—we have committed to establish a wider review to address barriers to timeliness in police misconduct cases as part of the police accountability review we are currently undertaking. I agree completely that timeliness must improve, but I argue that this amendment could potentially add bureaucracy, cost and delay to the system, not remove it.

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, will recall that the responsibilities of independent lawyers in the misconduct system were removed under previous Governments, with senior officers replacing them as chairs of misconduct hearings. Lawyers now sit as independent legal advisers on misconduct panels; reintroducing a decision-making role for them would not only blur the lines of independence but come at greater financial cost to policing, which goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, mentioned.

As a Government, we are committed to ensuring that chief constables have the necessary powers to remove those who have no place in policing, but this amendment could have a significant detrimental effect on public confidence. I will give one example to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. A timeline on an investigation into gross misconduct could mean that an investigation could be terminated not because it has been resolved but because of an arbitrary time limit being reached. The time limit proposed here could mean that significantly complex, difficult cases are terminated without a resolution for the victim or, indeed, for the police officer against whom any allegations are made.

There is a point in the general thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. There is a problem that needs to be resolved, but I suggest that the Government can resolve it without the legislative proposal before the Committee. I ask the noble Lord, who nobly volunteered to move the amendment, to now nobly volunteer to withdraw it.