I have a number of questions about the schedule. Picking up on the Minister's comments towards the end of our discussion on clause 86, I understand that the central police college will be run by the authority that we are discussing. However, do other proposed provisions such as cluster colleges still form part of the overall picture? The explanatory notes refer to a ``re-organised Police Training Council'', a ``national review team'', the ``improved use of information'' and so on, but seem not to mention cluster colleges. How will the balance between the force's training and central training, which I described at the outset, be affected? Will there be a significant change in that regard?

It appears that appointments, including that of the chairman, will be made by the Secretary of State in the light of advice from the APA and ACPO. The membership will consist of two APA representatives, two ACPO representatives and a civil servant. Why are the police organisations not to be included? I have already said that the Police Federation's two reports ``Project Forward'' and ``Police Training: The Way Forward'' not only helped to initiate the debate, but made good points about the way in which direct learning and modern technology can help officers' training without disrupting the shift system in local police stations. Training officers in that way is attractive because we can get the maximum amount of hours on the street by avoiding taking officers away for lengthy periods on courses that are residential or involve travel.

The key components of the Government's training package come from the Police Federation, which shows that it has a contribution to make. I have occasionally heard police constables say that they are dissatisfied with their preparation for the job, the effectiveness of their mentoring and the encouragement and knowledge that they receive. In some cases they are satisfied, but one occasionally meets police constables who make that complaint. The input of those who represent police constables, sergeants and inspectors in the training process would therefore be useful.

I wonder whether it would be possible to find a role for the Police Superintendents Association and those who represent superintendents. They run the command units, so in a management sense their input is closer to the ground than that of ACPO, which is nevertheless an organisation that I hugely respect. Indeed, one could make the same point about the APA, which is another useful organisation with much knowledge.

My second question about schedule 4 concerns why it is impossible to consult and appoint officers' representatives up to inspector level and superintendents to the authority. Surely a board of seven would be no more unwieldy than a board of five.

Have the posts on the new authority been advertised and filled? In the case of the probation body, that had happened by the time that the Committee sat. It would be useful to know who the successful applicants are if that has occurred.

We should make provision for those who judge training needs to be young enough and close enough to active policing to understand the latest thinking, the latest challenges and the most modern techniques. Some bodies rightly have elderly people on them, but—without wishing to be rude to members of ACPO or the APA, who I am sure are young and sprightly—we ought to ensure an element of youth and activity on a body that trains officers for the modern world.

I also note the proposal to set up committees of the authority. Why is that and what does the Minister have in mind? It seemed reasonable when I examined the beginning of schedule 4, but as I read on, the authority began to sound like a council. I have nothing against local authorities, but does the authority need a labyrinthine structure with committees? It would be a pity if paragraph 15 made it into a bureaucratic body. The authority must be a businesslike operation that provides services rather than something akin to a local authority. Does the Minister get the flavour of an unwieldy organisation being set up?

Finally, I shall ask three questions that the Police Federation raised with me. It states:

``You should note that staff of the authority are appointed on terms and conditions of service approved by the Secretary of State. Such terms may not therefore be based on the Police Regulations and/or Codes of Practice and neither is it necessary to consult with respective Staff Associations...This would seem a rather loose scenario when one considers the terms of appointment for a Police Officer.''

How would the Minister respond to that?

On staff remuneration and pensions, the federation seeks

``clarification if ``Staff'' in this instance''— that is, in paragraph 11—

``includes `Police Officers' as temporary service under Police regulations is determinable under different provisions.''

In respect of the term ``seconded constable'', the federation says:

``we believe there to be a consideration under discrimination law to ensure that appropriate protection is in place to allow both for claims to be made by and against such constables.''

It would like to know what provision has been made in that respect.