Why do we need clause 39? What purpose does it serve? It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State may direct the authority to make the regulations if they are approved. I would have thought that, by definition, the regulations would be made if they were approved.

Non-statutory regulations proposed by the authority will not differ unduly from regulations made under the Police Act 1996. If the authority is unable to reach agreement with the chief constable and the staff associations, the Secretary of State may direct the authority to prepare draft regulations. In those circumstances, clause 38(3), which we have just agreed, would enable the Secretary of State to permit the authority to dispense with obtaining the prior approval of the chief constable and the staff associations. If that is the case—I understand that it is—I have a difficulty with clause 39. I would have thought that it would be better for all concerned to get the approval of the chief constable. Perhaps this is why chief constables in our respective areas move on rather more rapidly than Members of Parliament in the constituencies that they serve.

I have difficulty with this clause, if it is correct that the Secretary of State will have the power to overrule any concerns of the chief constable, but also of the staff associations, including presumably the federation. I argue that the clause gives extensive powers to the Secretary of State. I hate to suggest that that could lead to a police state, but the chief constable and the staff associations may encounter tremendous problems if the Secretary of State is able to overrule them. Can the Minister envisage the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would be minded to overrule the concerns of the chief constable or the staff associations?

The morale and welfare of police officers could be severely dented if the Secretary of State had the power of direction. Can the Minister tell us what the circumstances leading to power of direction would be?