Police and Justice Bill

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 51, line 29, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert- ““(b) the Association of Police Authorities, (c) the Association of Chief Police Officers, and”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of both the government amendment and the amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is to reinforce the tripartite framework which governs policing. We attach considerable importance to the tripartite framework and have sought to reinforce it through the recent creation of the National Policing Board, a development which has been welcomed both by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. The board underpins the position of the Home Secretary, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, as well as the collective leadership of the police service. The noble Baroness tabled an amendment in Committee which would have named the Association of Chief Police Officers in the Bill in relation to a duty to consult in respect of the National Policing Improvement Agency. In responding, I indicated that we were sympathetic in principle but that a number of questions needed to be resolved in relation to that amendment. We undertook to explore the options of putting both the ACPO and the APA on a statutory footing, together with relevant stakeholders. ACPO has put to us that the Police Act 1996 does not properly recognise the position of the association within the tripartite framework. There are many references to the Secretary of State but where the legislation refers to ACPO officers as the professional leaders of the service it does so only indirectly. At present, the 1996 Act and other legislation place a number of duties on the Home Secretary to consult persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police and persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities. The amendments will make it plain that such consultation should be with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. As such, they will accord appropriate recognition to the two associations and their place in the tripartite framework. While both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities are long-established organisations, we need to guard against the possibility that they might at some stage consider changing their title. To accommodate such a possibility, Amendment No. 55 includes an order-making power which will enable the Government to change the statutory references to either association to reflect any new nomenclature. For the record, I emphasise that on any matters which affect the terms and conditions of employment of chief officers, we will continue to consult the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association rather than the Association of Chief Police Officers, which represents chief officers on such matters. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her part in drawing our attention to this issue. I beg to move.