Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Harris. I shall deal first with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as I can do that quickly. The reference was expunged when the Bill returned to the Commons. She is right in that there was a timing issue, because we dealt with that amendment before we dealt with the amendment on whether the joint inspectorate would continue in being. As a result of the amendments that we made at that time, when we came back to the next stage of the Bill we did things very hurriedly. We have cleared it up, and I assure the noble Baroness that no inaccurate reference remains. I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I hope I can satisfy her. I do not have a bad record in so doing, so I hope I do not get bowled out on this one. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is the principal source of professional advice to the Home Secretary on policing matters. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the provision of an efficient and effective police service in England and Wales. That means that HMIC’s reports are presented to the Secretary of State so that he has an informed picture of the conditions of the police service in England and Wales and any issues facing it. He has the final responsibility, not HMIC. It follows, therefore, that the Secretary of State should then have the duty to publish those reports to ensure that Parliament and the public have a full picture as well, and to inform the debate in both this House and the other place. The Police Act 1996 placed the Secretary of State under the duty to publish HMIC’s reports, and we do not see any reason why we should depart from that custom when considering the intervention provisions in the Bill. I assure the noble Baroness that the report would still be published even if there were great disagreement or conflict over its contents. For these intervention provisions, the government amendment makes it quite clear that the Secretary of State is under a duty to publish the HMIC report even if he disagrees with its contents. As a result, the process for making any decision on possible intervention is open and transparent. It also means that Parliament and the public have a balanced picture of the situation in a force area where performance has been a concern. If there were a conflict or a difference, as the noble Baroness fears, we would all know what that was and the basis upon which it was formed. I hope that fully satisfies the noble Baroness. I will add the caveat, ““for now””, as I understand that she will for ever be vigilant; indeed, I would accept that she did not sleep without thinking of police authorities and their powers, and how they could be kept better in check and do their job well. On Question, Motion agreed to. 81: Schedule 14, page 134, line 3, at end insert- ““(j)forum.””;”” The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason- 81A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 82 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones 82: Page 134, line 5, leave out ““19A”””” and insert ““19B”””” The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason- 82A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 81 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones 83: Page 134, line 23, at end insert- ““19BForum (1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 territory. (2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.”””” The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason- 83A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 81 and 82, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones 84: Page 142, line 5, at end insert- ““Bars to extradition (3) Section 79 (bars to extradition) is amended as follows. (4) After paragraph (d) of subsection (1) there is inserted- ““(e)forum.”” (5) In subsection (2), for ““83”” there is substituted ““83A””. (6) After section 83 there is inserted- ““83A Forum (1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 2 territory. (2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.”””” The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason- 84A: Because the Lords Amendment could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones