HC Deb 07 May 1998 vol 311 cc891-906 5.23 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'civilian' and insert 'police service'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'Service' and insert 'Department'.

No. 40, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Service' and insert 'Department'.

Government amendments Nos. 4 and 28 to 31.

Mr. Ingram

For ease of reference I propose to deal first with Government amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 28 to 31, then I shall deal with amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).

The House will be aware that the word civilian is used to describe staff who are employed in support of the police. The term currently used in the Bill is correct, and it is used for the same purpose in the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1980, but in view of the particular significance of language in Northern Ireland I accept that further clarification might be desirable.

The matter was raised on 12 February 1998, Official Report, Standing Committee B, column 52, by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who pointed out that the clause as drafted implies that members of the police force and traffic wardens are not civilians. That is clearly not the case. Although I believe that most people in Northern Ireland will recognise the distinction that use of the term civilian seeks to make, there is scope for further clarification.

Having considered the hon. Gentleman's comments in Committee and consulted the parliamentary draftsman, I have concluded that the phrase "police service staff' more accurately reflects the situation. It is important that everyone realises that all those who work in the Northern Ireland police service, both Royal Ulster Constabulary officers and the staff who assist them, are civilians. The amendments that I have tabled simply seek to reinforce that point, and I commend them to the House.

Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 would change the name of the new single service that the Bill creates to the Northern Ireland Police Department. The amendments were originally tabled for consideration in Committee by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who usually speaks for his party on Northern Ireland issues. We send our best wishes to him after his rather serious accident. We know that he is doing his best to get well enough to return to the House and make his contribution and that he regrets having missed the debate, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will do full justice to the argument that he would have advanced.

Although the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, his amendments were moved and fully discussed on 12 February 1998, Official Report, Standing Committee B, columns 90-100. They were rejected when the Committee divided.

When I addressed the Committee on the matter, I reported that I had received strong representations from many quarters in Northern Ireland about the importance of introducing a service ethos into the police. I remind the House that the Police Authority and the police staff associations were particularly keen to see the word service appear in the Bill.

I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will appreciate that the detail of language is particularly important in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will understand, therefore, when I again say that I am not prepared to accept the amendments. Perhaps that is a little presumptuous as I have not yet heard his eloquent argument in support of them, but the matter was fully considered in Committee. I emphasise that the Police Authority and the bodies that represent police interests in Northern Ireland were keen for the concept of service to be written into the Bill.

To recap, both sets of amendments deal with details of language. The time that we have spent on them in the House and in Committee testifies to the importance of the terms used in policing in Northern Ireland. The aim of the Government in introducing the changes that I have just described in amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 28 to 31 and in resisting amendments Nos. 39 and 40 is to emphasise that the RUC and those who work alongside it together constitute a civilian organisation, which continues to serve the community in Northern Ireland efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is remarkable to hear the response to the amendments before the argument in support of them has been presented. Many right hon. and hon. Members want to be on their planes and trains fairly early tonight, so I shall be as brief as I can in speaking to the amendments in my name.

I thank the Minister for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who I can report is making a slow and painful recovery. I shall pass on the Minister's remarks.

Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 may seem cosmetic to many people—particularly those on mainland Britain. I take the Minister's point about the use of language in Northern Ireland: it is very important. It is difficult for people who do not have Northern Ireland connections to understand how important a single word can be when relaying a particular message.

5.30 pm

This Bill establishes a new era of policing in Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrats and their sister party in Northern Ireland believe that every attempt should be made to get the substance and the symbolism right. Symbolism is often as important as substance in terms of conveying the correct message. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said that a large section of the community has little faith in the current policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that that was not a criticism of RUC officers or police personnel, but a statement of fact. In reality, every police force in the United Kingdom—I do not care whether it is the Metropolitan police or the police force in North Yorkshire—has some concerns and some officers who do not attain the expected standards.

My hon. Friend said that merely changing the name of, or reforming, or even revolutionising the RUC would not lead those who have no faith in that organisation suddenly to change their view. The Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan, made that point very effectively in an important article that appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 30 April. He said:

To be properly effective it must be conducted as a truly collaborative effort between police and the communities they exist to serve rather than being simplistically considered as something which a provider 'delivers' to a consumer. The argument about the use of the word service is summed up by Ronnie Flanagan's comments: the police do not simply provide a service to the consumer but are integral to the future of Northern Ireland.

It will be a small, but we believe significant, step to change the name from service to department. The Bill contains several vital steps, but that is important also. The new title for the police service in Northern Ireland is one of the most important symbolic steps that we can take. That is why we hope the Minister will reconsider, even at this late stage.

We believe that the Northern Ireland Police Service—which will be known as NIPS—is the wrong title and will send the wrong message. The assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), laughs about that. The Minister must recognise that that abbreviation is asking for trouble. NIPS has dubious overtones which will cause, at best, mirth and derision and, at worst, offence. The abbreviation is also the same as that of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, which—rightly or wrongly—has a negative association with the past troubles in Northern Ireland.

We propose to create an inclusive Northern Ireland police department, the NIPD. That title has no negative connotations, a very modern ring and perhaps a cross-Atlantic theme. The Government have done much to create a new agenda for Northern Ireland and policing is at its heart; they must not, for the sake of such a small concession, give the new police arrangements a title that may be the object of derogatory comment and association. We ask the Minister to reconsider.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Government's amendments. It is crucial that the term civilian is defined properly—especially in view of what has happened in the north of Ireland in the past and what we hope may happen there in the future.

A certain ethos underlines the new agreement that is now known as the Good Friday agreement. That ethos is based on agreement and does not derive in any sense from force, whether legitimate or paramilitary. For that reason, I believed in Committee—as I do now—that it is right to make that distinction and to define the police service as being part of civilian life.

I suppose that one could be churlish and argue about the name. I am particularly attracted to the title Northern Ireland Police Service. I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life and I have never heard the Northern Ireland Prison Service referred to as NIPS—although I have heard it called many things, some of which I would not repeat in the Chamber. I believe that the effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments would be rather confusing. They would create a Northern Ireland Police Department, so the Bill would refer to that as well as a Northern Ireland Police Service and a Northern Ireland police force. I believe that we should try to ensure that the term service and its meaning are the overriding factors not just in the ethos of policing but in the way in which the police service reflects what I believe will be a new attitude in all sections of the Northern Ireland community.

The Bill does not go as far as I would like—but I did not think it would. With some confidence, I anticipate that, as we proceed down the road to agreement, which is what we shall do, and to peace, which is what we shall certainly achieve, the attitude within the community, the police service and the administration of the police service will move inexorably and consistently towards the concept of service as opposed to the concept of force. For that reason, I believe that the Government's amendments are very welcome.

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has noticed that the term police force is used in the Bill. Shall we argue about mere names or shall we go to the heart of the issue: the attempt in this Bill to do away with the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? That is the real push behind the Bill and that is why it is before the House.

We have an agreement the hon. Gentleman says will bring peace. I do not know how releasing, after 24 months, people who were sentenced to two, three or four life sentences and allowing them to keep their arms will bring peace. That seems a strange way of achieving it. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think that the Government are being dishonest. They are not telling the people that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is being axed and will be replaced by the Northern Ireland Police Service. That is the thrust of the Bill, and that view was expressed from these Benches last time we discussed the matter.

Unlike other hon. Members, I do not have to catch a plane tonight. I was told that consideration would continue all night, so I made the consequent arrangements. I must apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who served on the Committee. He had to take an early flight back to Northern Ireland as every later flight is booked—and I can understand why. Many people have asked me why I am here today. I am doing what I was sent to do: to oppose the Bill. I shall do that tonight.

Mr. Ingram

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) uses the word oppose, but that is nothing new. Many people believe that that is the way he approaches any elements of progress that appear on the horizon and on which the majority are agreed. That is his democratic right, but there is nothing new in his advising that that is his function this evening.

The hon. Gentleman referred in passing to the use of the term police force. All of us who are associated with a police service would like the word force to be removed, but it occurs throughout a range of legislation and removing it would require much primary legislation. The import of the Bill is that throughout the United Kingdom what in the past has been known as a police force has now become accepted as a police service. The amendments ensure that the Bill goes a little further in recognising the concept of the civilian element of the police service in its totality, including those who serve as constables and those who act in support of them.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues about the Government's intention about the future of the RUC.I hope that he will accept it when I say that the RUC will remain. It will not be abolished. As recently as yesterday, the Prime Minister made that commitment yet again. The RUC will continue to serve all the people of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley

What will the commission do? Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to comment, but he is trying to extend the debate. He may have an opportunity to speak again on later groups of amendments. We can have a reasoned debate, but I shall not respond to shouted interventions. That may be how the hon. Gentleman wishes to operate as a democrat in Northern Ireland, but it is not the custom or the best manners that are expected in this House.

The remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) were welcome. I recognise his acceptance of the Government amendments although he does not believe that they go far enough. However, I am used to that from the hon. Gentleman. When I hear him say that he totally accepts everything that has been said, it will be a major achievement. Perhaps we are only a short way from that on this occasion.

That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 seek to change service to department. In Scotland, a nip is a whisky. It does not have a pejorative sense there and, because of the Scots-Irish connection, in some parts of Northern Ireland it may be used in the same way, so the acronym NIPS would not be viewed so critically.

The essential point is that it is wrong that those who serve as constables and those who work in support of RUC officers are seen to be different from a department. That is why we have included the word service in the generic title for all those who work in the RUC and in support of it. As I said in my opening remarks, it is because of representations received from those who represent the interests of the RUC, and because the Police Authority wants the word service and the concept of it in the Bill, that we developed the matter in this way. On that basis, I hope that it will be a success.

The matter was debated extensively in Committee. There was a Division and the amendment was comprehensively defeated. If it goes to a Division tonight I expect that it will be comprehensively defeated again.

Rev. Ian Paisley

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time on one group of amendments on Report.

Amendment agreed to

5.45 pm
Mr. Willis

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 20, after 'is', insert impartial.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 15.

Amendment No. 57, in clause 17, page 9, line 24, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 26 and insert

'may consult the Secretary of State over the plan and consider such amendments to that plan as the Secretary of State may suggest.'. Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

Amendment No. 60, in clause 19, page 10, line 45 at end insert

'and shall consult with the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan.'. Government amendments Nos. 20 to 24.

Mr. Willis

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not fully understanding the rules of the House on Report. I shall take the matter up with my Chief Whip.

I also apologise to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) for referring to him as the assistant Whip, when in fact he is the Deputy Chief Whip. No doubt he will be able to buy me a nip on the way home.

Amendment No. 54 and the string of amendments taken with it are perhaps the most significant of those tabled today. It was interesting to read the Committee's proceedings during the first couple of days, when the need for the term "impartiality" was stressed by virtually every hon. Member. In fact, it became the key word in the Committee's early deliberations.

There was, too, a consensus that we must never return to the abuses of the earlier Stormont regime, particularly the politicised policing. Again, the Committee appeared united on that. That is why impartiality must be the prime criterion for building confidence and judging the success or failure of the Bill.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) moved the amendment in Committee, and, to a degree, the Minister accepted the principle of impartiality. However, the Minister's response was that it would be difficult to test impartiality in the courts. He made exactly that point at column 46 of Hansard on 12 February 1998, when he said that the Government were dismissing the issue of impartiality because it would be difficult to enforce in the courts.

That is the point of the amendment. The very basis of the Bill is that impartiality should be seen as its most important element, and that, if necessary, it should be tested in the courts. That, ultimately, is where any Bill is tested. Compared with the words "efficient" and "effective", the word "impartial" has much greater significance. It is possible to test effectiveness and efficiency in the courts, but not impartiality.

The previous Government's White Paper, which was discussed extensively in Committee, went a long way to enshrining the view that legislation should require police officers to uphold the law impartially, and that that should be capable of being challenged, either by the new ombudsman or through the courts. I presume that, before that White Paper was produced, the previous Government sought a legal opinion on enshrining in law the requirement that an officer's conduct be impartial.

The proposal was welcomed by the Police Authority and by almost all members of the Committee, but rejected by the Government on the basis of not principle but its enforceability in law. The Government are wrong. Impartiality may be a difficult term to frame in legislation, but it is surely one worthy of the Government's best efforts.

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 60, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to clause 19, but it is similar to an amendment to the clause which was discussed at length in Committee. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 all deal with financial matters relating to the funding of the police service through grants to the Police Authority, the keeping of proper accounts, and accountability to the Secretary of State and the public for the expenditure.

The original amendment dealt with novel and contentious equipment. The Minister rejected that at the time on the ground of definition. The purchase of equipment, which we shall discuss later, and the reporting of the Chief Constable to the Police Authority are extremely important.

Clause 17 gives the Police Authority responsibility for establishing an annual policing plan. Although the plan is originally provided in draft form by the Chief Constable, it goes to the Police Authority, which can either adopt it in the form in which it is submitted or amend it after consultation with the Chief Constable. Ultimately, however, the Police Authority takes ownership of the policing plan, and it then comes into the public domain and is transparent for the public to witness.

The Committee debated clause 19 for four and a half hours, allowing half an hour's break for a vote. It was an incredibly long debate, mainly on clause stand part and the amendment in question, and throughout the Minister refused to give way.

However, the Police Authority still feels strongly about that matter. Notwithstanding the contingencies that will have been appropriately built into the policing plan so that the Chief Constable's operational independence and ability to act quickly are not placed in jeopardy, the Police Authority feels that, if a Chief Constable seeks to change the plan during the year of its implementation, it is important that he consults the authority. After all, it will have endorsed, published and taken ownership of the plan.

Amendment No. 60 deals with consultation during the plan's implementation. It seeks to insert in the Bill a requirement for the Chief Constable to say to the Police Authority, "Something extremely serious has happened; this is what I am doing." The Police Authority is then not only informed quickly but has the ability to consult. There may be disagreement, but ultimately we back the Chief Constable's right to make the final decision on operational matters. The authority is still concerned that decisions may be taken without reference to it, which places it in an invidious and difficult position in its relations with the public.

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Our consideration of the Bill in Committee was a long and laborious exercise. The Minister probably hopes that we shall not have the same number or length of interchanges this evening.

It would be churlish not to recognise that, despite their apparent intransigence in Committee, the Government have taken on board a considerable number of our proposals. When we contested the Bill in Committee, our intention was to ensure that the role of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland was not diminished. Whatever our experiences before 1970 and subsequently—different people have different perspectives—0we were determined that there should never again be an open-ended arrangement whereby political control or influence could be exercised on the Royal Ulster Constabulary without proper scrutiny. We fought for no more and no less than that.

At times, I may not have been as pleasant to the Minister as I might have been. On this occasion, I make amends—

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South)

Grovelling.

Mr. Maginnis

Grovelling, indeed.

We now have a recognition of the Police Authority's role. This is where my little addendum comes in: I hope that the Minister will see the good sense of completing the job that he undertook in the wake of the Committee stage, and will recognise, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, that there is merit in giving the Police Authority the right to be consulted by the Chief Constable. Clause 19, which says:

In discharging his functions, the Chief Constable has an obligation

to have regard to the annual policing plan issued under section 17", should also say:

and shall consult the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan. The amendment places no great burden on the Chief Constable. He is simply being asked to ensure that those who stand between him and the public at large—those who represent the public but have an interest in the RUC and its welfare—are kept informed. The amendment is small but significant, and would round off the efforts that the Minister and his Department have made to take on board the issues raised in Committee.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

I want to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 60, without making a passing reference to amendment No. 59. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) reminded us that the longest single debate in Committee focused on clause 19. Amendment No. 60 differs from the controversial amendment proposed in Committee, but its underlying purpose is not dissimilar. Like amendment No. 81, it seeks to redress a perceived imbalance in the tripartite structure, and, in so doing, to enhance the role of the Police Authority.

Hon. Members are aware that clause 19 provides, first and foremost, that

The police force shall be under the direction and control of the Chief Constable and that

the Chief Constable shall have regard to the annual policing plan issued under section 17. Conservative Members still have problems with the clause. We believe that the concept "shall have regard" is inadequate. The annual policing plan is the property of the Police Authority. It is one of the means—perhaps the main means—whereby people will judge whether the authority is successfully securing an efficient and effective police service in the Province.

It is the Chief Constable's responsibility to deliver the policing plan. He puts into practice the authority's priorities, and seeks to achieve its performance targets and objectives. He must have operational independence in day-to-day policing, but he is tasked with the responsibility of implementing the authority's annual plan.

In Committee, the Government accepted amendment No. 79, which was tabled by the Opposition. The Under-Secretary said: It recognises that the authority is keen to become more involved in strategic planning and accordingly requires the Chief Constable to take account of the objectives and priorities of the authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 224.] Amendment No. 60 would have a not dissimilar effect. The authority would have a consultative role as the strategy of the annual plan was implemented. The amendment is therefore consistent with the Government's thinking on other aspects of the Bill.

6 pm

Whether or how the Chief Constable implements the annual plan is a matter of concern to the authority, and legitimately so. Without remotely compromising the Chief Constable's operational autonomy, the authority will want to discuss the implementation of its strategy, and any Chief Constable worth his salt will want to discuss with the authority how he is implementing the strategy.

In Committee, we debated amendment No. 81 at great length—it annoyed and irritated Ministers somewhat. It required the Chief Constable to consult the authority if he deviated substantially from the annual policing plan. Ministers argued that, in those circumstances, the operational independence of the Chief Constable would be undermined. Amendment No. 60 would not do that, by any stretch of the imagination. It merely requires that the Chief Constable shall consult with the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan. That is an entirely reasonable proposition.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) expressed our fears when, with some hyperbole, he said: It seems that everything in the Bill is designed to derogate from the responsibility that the Police Authority should have. Its authority is being reduced and its powers handed directly to the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 247.] I emphasise that we are not trying to impinge on the operational independence of the Chief Constable, but operational responsibility must be exercised within parameters set by the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the authority. Each has a proper role to play. We argue that the Bill does not assign them their proper roles. The amendment would achieve a proper role for the authority, which would be consulted by the Chief Constable during the implementation of the annual strategy.

Rev. Ian Paisley

From his reply to my previous speech, the Minister evidently thinks that there is some rule of the House under which English, Welsh or Scottish Members can make sedentary interventions, but that right is refused to Northern Ireland Members.

I draw attention to something that has to do with this and all amendments. The Minister told the House: The proposals in the Bill are not designed to preclude discussion of policing in the talks. Indeed, the Government have given an undertaking that any agreement reached in the talks on the issues covered in the Bill will be taken on board during the passage of the Bill, if that is practicable. If not, they will be implemented at a later stage."—[Official Report, 15 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 46.] The Minister well knows that a commission is recommended to be set in place to consider policing. Does he think that the people of Northern Ireland will listen to him, when he and the Prime Minister state categorically to one side of the community that there will always be a Royal Ulster Constabulary and that it will never be changed, but then say something, tongue in cheek, to the other side of the society, so that they can say, "Yes, there will be great changes, and the RUC will eventually be done away with"?

Who are we to believe? We do not know what the commission will recommend. It may recommend things that are not before us tonight. In respect of the amendment, it will probably want to say something about police impartiality, and we do not know what will happen when it gives its decision.

I agree with those who have said that people have a great fear that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, as civilians considering the police force, will not have proper authority. There have already been changes in the authority, which have set alarm bells off in certain sections of the community. The freedom of the Chief Constable to do his operational duty must not be impinged on, and the authority must be recognised and its place honoured. That is the force of the argument in the amendments.

Mr. Ingram

I shall deal first with amendment No. 54, which was moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and then with Government amendments Nos. 3, 17 and 20. I shall then cover Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7; Government amendment No. 2; Government amendments Nos. 8 to 14; amendment No. 57, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough; Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16; amendment No. 60, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss); Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23; and Government amendment No. 24. I have set out that structure because we are dealing with subsets of the same general issues, and I want to deal with the arguments in what I hope will be a logical manner.

We had seven debates in Committee and discussed at length a number of amendments that were designed to ensure that the policing of Northern Ireland would be required by statute to be conducted impartially, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said. Some were Government amendments; they have been incorporated into the Bill. I rejected an amendment similar to amendment No. 54 because the term "impartiality" does not have meaning in statute and therefore adds no genuine safeguard to the fairness and even-handedness of policing in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 54 sets forth a similar provision: its inclusion could be held to fetter the discretion of a constable—the operational officer on the ground—in performing his duty. I believe that those objections remain valid.

However, it was clear from the tone and the weight of the debate in Committee that there was still concern surrounding the issue, and I promised to reconsider it with a view to introducing further changes. I have considered the matter further and believe that I have found a formula that will avoid problems with the specific legal definition of the word "impartiality", but will ensure that statute clearly states that Northern Ireland be policed impartially. That is why I am introducing an amendment to clause 37—Government amendment No. 20—which will require the statement of policing principles issued by the Secretary of State under that clause to include within it the principle that Northern Ireland be policed impartially. I am also introducing Government amendments Nos. 3 and 17, which will require the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to have regard to that statement of principles.

On 12 February, during the second sitting of the Committee—at columns 37 to 51—Government amendments were introduced, which made the Police Authority and the Chief Constable subject to section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That outlaws discrimination by either on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. I believe that those changes, combined with the Government amendments that I have just described, represent a robust framework for ensuring the impartial policing of Northern Ireland in the future. I commend those amendments to the House and ask hon. Members to reject amendment No. 54.

I shall now deal with Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7. In Committee, there was considerable discussion of clause 10(2)—at column 206 of the seventh sitting. I explained at that time that the purpose of requiring the Chief Constable to send a draft of his estimates to the Secretary of State, as currently required by clause 10(2), was to ensure that the Government received the information necessary to proceed with planning for the next financial year in good time. I was conscious at that time that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland had some concerns that a formal requirement for the Chief Constable to send an estimate to the Secretary of State at such an early stage in the financial cycle, and simultaneously with his dispatch of an estimate to the Police Authority, undermined the Police Authority's role as the body primarily responsible for police finance. I understood that argument.

My view is that the authority's position is effectively safeguarded by clause 10(1), which ensures that it is the authority, and the authority alone, which submits the final estimate to the Secretary of State for the overall funding of policing in Northern Ireland. I believe that the authority's strong representations are based on an unfounded premise, but I have taken them on board, together with the concerns that it has continued to raise in advance of Report stage, that the Bill could be represented by those hostile to it as undermining the authority's position in relation to the overall funding of policing in Northern Ireland. That point was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

I have, therefore, considered the matter further, and held consultations with the Police Authority. We are seeking to put in place other, agreed mechanisms for ensuring that the Secretary of State receives the information required for the Government financial cycle. The Police Authority is co-operating fully with us in constructing those mechanisms. That being the case, I am happy to remove from the Bill the requirement for the Chief Constable to send a copy of his estimates to the Secretary of State. I commend amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to the House.

6.15 pm

I shall now deal with Government amendments No. 2 and 8 to 14. The House will be aware that the objective setting process has, ahead of the introduction of legislation, been operating successfully in Northern Ireland for the past two years. The practice has been that the Secretary of State, in establishing her policing objectives, also sets performance targets commensurate with those objectives. In the drafting of the Bill, the intention is that that practice will continue.

As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), said in Committee—in the fourth sitting on 24 February, at column 113—the practicalities of the process of objective setting are identical in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, the drafting of the legislation is different. That is because, in England and Wales the Home Secretary is dealing with 43 police authorities, and might wish to set different targets for different authorities. The Police Act 1996 allows the Home Secretary to direct police authorities to set performance targets. Because we have only one authority at present, the Northern Ireland legislation simply allows the Secretary of State to set performance targets in relation to her objectives.

We had considerable discussion—

Mr. Maginnis

I do not want to nit-pick with the Minister, but he said that we have one police authority at present. That phrase will be picked up and misunderstood. Will the Minister, at this early stage, clarify exactly what he means, or was that merely a slip of the tongue?

Mr. Ingram

It was not a slip of the tongue. We are consulting on the mechanisms dealing with this matter. I do not envisage there being more than one police authority in Northern Ireland, but if the democratic voice within Northern Ireland wanted a different mechanism, any Government would have to take that on board. I am not predicting that as a possibility or eventuality, because I do not see that.

I was present last evening when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was talking to representatives of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The chairman of the Police Authority was also present. A clear commitment was given that the authority would continue to represent public opinion within Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will know that we are currently consulting on the way in which we should construct that authority and allow local communities to have greater interface with it. It is an important body and it welcomes discussion on those issues. Those are concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I pay tribute to the work done by the Police Authority, and I do not envisage radical change or even a measure of change in that regard in the future.

As I have said, my comment was not a slip of the tongue, but we must consider that the public may demand a different approach. Any democratic body must take that into account.

Mr. Mallon

Like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), I noted the phrase used by the Minister. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Department produced a paper on policing to be considered within the talks process. One of the options was a movement away from a unitary police authority system. That was presented to the talks as an option not by the Social Democratic and Labour party or by the Ulster Unionist party but by the Minister on behalf of the Government. Is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, has pre-empted decisions that might be made on the basis of a paper prepared for the Minister by his own Department?

Mr. Ingram

I can see that the hon. Gentleman will not be fully happy with this debate. The point being made was that the chairman of the Police Authority asked about the future role of the authority, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear the importance of that authority as a body. We did not discuss the consultative document. I have set out my view of what might be the likely response. If that consultative process results in a significant body of opinion saying, "We want this handled in a different way," we must take account of that. It is fair and reasonable to say that, although we have put out a consultative document, that does not mean that every option within the document is likely to become a reality. Clearly, that could not be so. There could be one police authority or there could be some other structure. I have said that I do not believe that there is likely to be more than one structure, but, as a democrat, I believe that if that is what people want, we must respond in a structured way.

We were dealing with a slightly different issue. As I have said, my use of the phrase "at present" was a specific statement, not a slip of the tongue. The fact that hon. Members have questioned me on that shows that they are listening to the debate. That is always helpful. Every word is being listened to and we must be careful what we say.

We were talking about performance targets and the setting of objectives. We had considerable debate on that in Committee, and it would not be appropriate to re-run that debate now. However, in this instance there were subsequent consultations with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and he convinced me and my officials that there would be presentational advantages in having our own legislation in Northern Ireland, reflecting as closely as possible the legislation in England and Wales.

Government amendments Nos. 6 to 15 will clearly demonstrate that our objective setting process and that in England and Wales are very similar. I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for his help in clarifying that specific point. I am convinced that the amendments will clarify the intention of the provisions, so I am sure that they will improve the legislation.

In discussing the changes, I should emphasise that I believe that establishment of key performance targets is a vital tool, which both the authority and the Secretary of State must have at their disposal. I do not think that there is any dissent from that belief, as the principle is good and clear.

I therefore commend Government amendments Nos. 6 to 15 to the House.

I shall deal now with amendment No. 57, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and Government amendments No. 15 and 16, which deal with the Secretary of State's power to require the Police Authority to amend the annual policing plan.

Although I thought that we had addressed every single issue in our debates on the Bill in Committee, we did not touch on that particular issue. However, it was raised by the Police Authority in subsequent discussions. The point was made that, in that regard, the Bill differs markedly from equivalent legislation in England and Wales, and that that could be presented as detracting from the Police Authority's ownership of the annual policing plan.

I should emphasise that there are good reasons for the original drafting of the legislation. The Secretary of State provides all funding for policing in Northern Ireland, and therefore has a crucial interest in the financial matters covered by the plan. Nevertheless, following discussions with the authority, we have agreed arrangements that will safeguard the Secretary of State's position in those matters.

Therefore—that being the case, and accepting the authority's view that there are clear presentational advantages in making the amendments—I am happy to change the clause, to bring it more into line with legislation governing policing plans in England and Wales, while continuing to take into account Northern Ireland's specific situation. I believe that the changes take on board the thrust of amendment No. 57, and therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough not to press it.

I should like now to deal with amendment No. 60, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members. As he said, and as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone repeated, the amendment seeks to place in statute a requirement on the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority during implementation of the policing plan.

I fully agree with the principle behind the amendment, and strongly believe that the Chief Constable and the Police Authority would be failing in their duty to the people of Northern Ireland if they were not to consult closely over the annual policing plan during the year in which it is in operation. However, the mechanisms for ensuring that consultation occurs should be worked out as part of the Bill's implementation, and there is no need for a specific provision in statute on that point.

I should explain that a provision such as that in amendment No. 60 could imply prior discussions—which is how consultation could be interpreted-that could delay vital operational decisions, thereby fettering the Chief Constable's operational independence. I realise that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment do not want that to happen.

Consultation, by its very nature, requires prior discussions. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone mentioned matters of importance that might have to be dealt with by the Chief Constable. If the amendment were passed, the Chief Constable would have to consult on such matters before acting, whereas he might want to act quickly. Furthermore, what would happen if those who were to be consulted said no to the matter under consultation? We discussed the ramifications of such a situation in Committee.

Although it would be wrong to establish arrangements such as those proposed in the amendment, we have to create mechanisms for a consultative process, to deal with the normal raft of changes that may arise. We are therefore seeking to establish working groups to implement the legislation's key aspects. I hope that the working group to consider that specific issue will be established soon.

I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the new arrangements on the policing plan work effectively once the Bill is enacted.

There is another safeguard in ensuring the Chief Constable's accountability. Should the Police Authority feel that the mechanisms are not functioning adequately, under clause 48(3), it can call for a report on any matter from the Chief Constable. The Police Authority will therefore have mechanisms by which it can consult the Chief Constable. If it is still not happy, it will be able to use the report mechanism.

I therefore do not think that including amendment No. 60 in the Bill will be helpful. Moreover, as the provision might in future be wrongly interpreted, it could fetter the Chief Constable's independence—which I am sure that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment would not wish to happen.

Government amendment Nos. 21 to 23 would place a requirement on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult various interested parties before issuing or revising the policing principles under clause 37, the codes of practice under clause 38, or the guidance under clause 39.

When that issue was raised in Committee—in the ninth and 10th sittings, at columns 330 to 340—I assured hon. Members that there is regular consultation on many issues with both the authority and the Chief Constable. My intention, nevertheless, was to consult further on those matters. I was therefore happy to undertake to include amendments to that effect on Report—which I am now doing.

I should like to mention particularly the requirement under clause 39 to consult the Police Association. The guidance issued under that clause is likely to deal with policing equipment and best practice in respect of police procedures and responses, which are matters in which operational police officers will have a direct interest. I believe that it is only right that the Government should take their views into account before issuing guidance under the provision.

I should like, finally, to deal with Government amendment No. 24—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When we debated clause 47 in Committee—in the 1 1 th sitting, at columns 365 to 379—I said that I felt that it was right that the legislation should set a timetable for the Police Authority's annual report. The report is an important document, as it contains an assessment of the Chief Constable's success in achieving the targets set for him under the annual policing plan.

I said at the time that four months seemed to be a reasonable time in which to issue the report, but I should be happy to listen to arguments in favour of other time scales, and to table amendments to alter the period to five or six months, if it is demonstrated to be sensible to do so.

I have considered the representations made in that debate, and in subsequent discussions. Consequently, I am convinced that a six-month period from the end of the financial year is a reasonable and appropriate time scale in which to issue the report. I shall amend the Bill accordingly.

Amendment No. 54 and the amendments grouped with it cover a comprehensive range of matters. Labour Members have demonstrated their recognition of the complexity of this group of amendments, and their willingness to move on in the matter. Although I had planned to summarise this debate, I have decided not to do so—as I know that hon. Members have listened intently to every word that I have said, and understood every word precisely.

Mr. Willis

I thank the Minister for his clarification of the issues, and for introducing amendments to address the issues that we raised in amendments Nos. 54 and 57.

I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out ', and performance targets established,'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 6, at end insert— '( ) the statement of principles issued under section 37;'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Back to
Forward to