Contribution
My Lords, I entirely share what the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Alton, said. The principle that I think we are all agreed on is the need to have appropriate post-legislative scrutiny at the right time and I will come to that very briefly in a moment. Before I go to that though, I will briefly explain the technical government amendment in this group. The existing provision in the Bill disapplies only the special orders dealing with hybrid instruments for draft affirmative instruments. Government Amendment 138 ensures that
“the de-hybridising provision in Clause 24(12) will apply to all affirmative instruments laid under the Bill”.
Amendment 105, and the amendments on post-legislative scrutiny generally, would require the Secretary of State to publish a review within one year of the Act receiving Royal Assent and publish proposed legislation to address any deficiency. Amendment 107 has a similar intent of a review of the Act within one year, and Amendment 33 would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the Inquiries Act in relation to the requirements under Section 1 of this Act. As I have said, the Government absolutely share the view that when legislation such as this is brought forward, we must assess its effectiveness. All the measures in the Bill will affect a large number of individuals and organisations, and time will be needed for training and implementation. It is highly unlikely that we will be in any position to properly assess the effectiveness of the Act as a whole within a year, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, acknowledged the difficulties of that.
As set out in our impact assessment, the Government are committed to conducting a limited review of the impact of the misconduct in public office measures on those public office holders subject to them. This will be 12 months after the measures come into force. We agree, therefore, that it would be wise to review how the other offences operate, but, more importantly, whether all the measures have operated as we intended and whether any changes are needed. We think this is an appropriate timeframe for the misconduct in public order offences, which are already common-law offences; however, more time is likely needed for brand-new offences and measures.
Amendment 125A from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, explores whether a longer period, including two years, might provide a more appropriate timeframe for review. I can assure the Committee that we are sympathetic to that and that we will actively consider it, along with other suggestions from noble Lords, and work on this point with your Lordships ahead of Report.
Regarding the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which was signed also by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to require an annual independent report, we are exploring all these post-legislative scrutiny suggestions and the best way of achieving what I think this amendment seeks. I will set out proposals in due course, and of course I make the same offer that I always do to discuss this ahead of Report.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 28 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. This amendment raises the important issue of proper management, preservation and accessibility of records relating to policing and police conduct. The Government recognise the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s recommendation to place police records under legislative control and the strength of the concern that important records must not be lost. We have taken tangible action in response.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner referred to an exchange of letters and with his permission I will circulate that correspondence to the Committee, because it deals in some detail with a number of the other points that he made. If he will forgive me, in the interests of time, I will not go through every point in detail, but we will circulate the letter which covers that ground and we can debate it further if necessary.
Any regime must preserve records of enduring value while ensuring personal data is retained only when necessary and justified. The Government believe the right response is to continue strengthening police records and management, to assess the 2023 code and to consider arrangements for new national policing bodies. With those comments, I ask my noble friend Lord Faulkner to withdraw his amendment.