---

Coroners and Justice Bill

I am grateful. I was just about to move on to ACPO and what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, told us. He said in July: "““However, my recent discussions privately with senior ACPO figures, including those most closely involved with issues of this nature, reveal two facts critical to our debate today: first, not only has ACPO not declared an official stance but it has not given an unofficial view in any quarter; secondly, it would much prefer to see the defeat of Clause 61 and the continuation of the Waddington amendment””.—[Official Report, 9/7/09; col. 803.]" Stephen Otter, the ACPO lead on race and diversity, was so concerned about that statement that he wrote to the Government before we contacted him on the issue. He wanted to clarify that ACPO, "““would not enter into this debate on either side””." He clearly believed that the views of his organisation had been misrepresented. He said that, "““individual chief officers … may or may not have expressed a variety of view … but it is vital these conversations are not taken as representing the view of ACPO in its role of representing the police forces of England and Wales””." Consequently, it is simply wrong to suggest that ACPO is for, or indeed against, the retention of Section 29JA of the Public Order Act. I am entitled to ask from this Dispatch Box why we heard, not just in Committee but tonight, the view that stated, ““Hush, hush; secret, secret; police officers are for the Waddington amendment””. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say that ACPO does not have an official policy on this, but I have spoken—