§ Mr. WillisI beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
'(2A) The Chief Constable shall consult the Police Authority before purchasing any novel or contentious equipment.'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 59, in page 3, line 45, at end insert
'and to consultation with the Police Authority if purchases are in addition to those agreed under the annual policing plan under section 17.'.Government amendment No. 5.
§ Mr. WillisAmendment No. 55 does not seek to limit the Chief Constable's power to control the police budget or his powers to allocate resources as he thinks fit and in 907 accordance with the policing plan. It sends the right message to those who may attempt to use the purchase of extra equipment to undermine the work of the police.
Amendment No. 55 makes provision for the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority before purchasing "novel or contentious equipment", such as anti-riot equipment, paramilitary-style police clothing and new weaponry. If the Government cannot accept the wording of the amendment, we hope that they will secure the principle behind it, by making sure that any extraneous equipment purchased by the Chief Constable is reported to the Police Authority.
§ Mr. MossAmendment No. 59, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to clause 5 and inserts the words:
and to consultation with the Police Authority if purchases are in addition to those agreed under the annual policing plan under section 17.A similar amendment to clause 9 was debated in Committee at some length. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 relate to the financing of the Northern Ireland police service. The original amendment covered "novel and contentious" equipment, and its wording is reflected in amendment No. 55, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).In Committee, however, the Minister rejected the amendment on grounds of definition, although he was predisposed to the sentiments behind it. He said:
I have no quarrel with the intention behind the amendment, which makes sense in principle …The Government have made it clear that we intend to require the Chief Constable to consult the authority should he wish to purchase novel or contentious equipment or services. However, 'novel' and 'contentious' are terms without meaning in legislation, and it would be inappropriate to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 197.]The Minister was predisposed to the intention behind the amendment, but felt that the words "novel" and "contentious" would create difficulties.Amendment No. 59 drops the words "novel and contentious". It relates to equipment that the Chief Constable may wish to purchase in addition to that agreed with the Police Authority under the annual policing plan as set out in clause 17.
Clause 17(2) states:
The annual policing plan shall include a statement of the Police Authority's priorities for the year, of the financial resources expected to be available to the Authority and"—the key words in respect of the amendmentof the proposed allocation of those resources by the Authority".As the Chief Constable submits the draft policing plan to the Police Authority, it is likely that he will set out, under the heading of allocation of resources, the funds that he requires to purchase equipment for the ensuing year. That will eventually be agreed by the Police Authority and incorporated in the annual policing plan.Clause 5 covers equipment in its broadest sense, including buildings, so it seemed appropriate to table an amendment to that clause rather than to clause 9.
908 Although at the beginning of a financial year there would be an agreement between the Police Authority and the Chief Constable under the annual policing plan on the allocation of resources to purchase certain equipment, instances might well arise during the year when the Chief Constable wished to make additional purchases. That could result from changed circumstances in regard to terrorism, law and order or any other sector over which the Chief Constable had responsibility and on which he would wish to take operational decisions quickly, in order to face whatever threat might be posed. We are not saying that there should be an indent for the equipment, but if the Chief Constable intended to purchase equipment additional to that which had been agreed, it would be sensible and certainly extremely helpful for the Police Authority to be consulted before such equipment was purchased.
Clause 17 gives the Police Authority tremendous powers. It ensures that what it has agreed vis-a-vis the annual policing plan is transparent, so that the public can see what expenditure has been allocated to various resources. Some of the equipment listed by the Chief Constable in the annual policing plan may well be contentious. If the Chief Constable wished to purchase contentious equipment, however, no doubt the Secretary of State would take a view on that, so no one is arguing that the Chief Constable has complete freedom to buy whatever he or she wants at the time. However, it is right and proper to state in the Bill that the Police Authority—whose policing plan it is, after all—should be consulted on any deviation from the agreed policing plan.
In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that he would somehow work the idea into the financial arrangements. No doubt he will allude to that again in his response, but as yet we have not seen the wording of those financial arrangements, so the House is still in the dark. The amendment sets it out extremely clearly. There is no argument about that; and the previous group of Government amendments was very much based on those that we tabled in Committee, reflecting the views of the Police Authority.
To give them their due, the Government have moved a considerable way towards meeting the requirements of the Opposition in Committee and taking into account their discussions with the Police Authority. However, until there is clarification as to how the problem will be addressed, the Government should consider accepting our amendment, which would set it out clearly in the Bill that any equipment, including that which could be contentious, will be included in the consultation by the Chief Constable with the Police Authority.
§ Mr. HunterI support amendment No. 59 and agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said in support of it. I shall add one more argument in favour of the amendment.
The amendment addresses particular circumstances when the Chief Constable wishes to purchase equipment in addition to what has been agreed under the annual plan. However, it must be borne in mind that the Chief Constable does no purchasing whatsoever under his own authority; he does it on behalf of and in the name of the Police Authority. Therefore, he is exercising the purchasing authority of the Police Authority. It is logical that, if he goes beyond the proposals agreed with the Police Authority, he should consult the Police 909 Authority: he does not have the authority to make the purchase; he is using the authority of the Police Authority and therefore, logically and reasonably, should consult it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington)Government amendment No. 5, which is straightforward, allows the police service in Northern Ireland to take advantage of private finance arrangements in undertaking major capital projects. Such power is already open to police services in Great Britain, so it is only right that it should be available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Amendment No. 55 would require the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority before purchasing any novel or contentious equipment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) for faithfully recounting what I said in Committee. We stand by that. There is no difference between us in wanting discussion between the Chief Constable and the Police Authority if controversial equipment is bought, but the phrase "novel and contentious", presents a difficulty and does not seem appropriate for the Bill.
As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, I intend to include the requirement in the financial instructions, which will set out details of financial management arrangements under the legislation. We give the undertaking that it is perfectly proper for the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to be in discussion whenever the purchase of any controversial equipment is considered. We consider that a better way forward than including a phrase such as "novel and contentious" in the Bill.
§ Mr. WorthingtonPerhaps, before intervening, the hon. Gentleman would like to hear what I have to say about the amendment that he tabled.
I shall ask the House to reject amendment No. 59. The reason is that it refers to the policing plan. If the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire looks at the policing plan, he will see that to insert in the Bill what equipment can be bought would completely change the nature of the plan. It is not that kind of document; it is about performance indicators, objectives, and so on. There is no reference to equipment purchase. As I said on amendment No. 55, which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled, the matter will be picked up in the financial instructions; we cannot write it into the Bill.
There has been a tendency for police authorities, like local authorities, to become obsessed with what kind of equipment should be bought, thus neglecting their central duty, which is about strategic planning and objective setting, and ensuring that the police keep to their targets and meet them.
The same assurance is valuable to both the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We give the undertaking that the issues with which they are concerned will be picked up in the financial instructions, to make it quite clear that the Chief 910 Constable should not go ahead with the purchase of equipment that might have, for example, human rights implications, without it being clear that the Police Authority is involved.
§ Mr. MossWhen will the financial instructions will be written? Could they be made available before the Bill goes to the other place?
§ Mr. WorthingtonI shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. I cannot say whether that will be possible. We want to be completely open on this matter to show that the legitimate points made have been taken into account. As I do not know precisely when the Bill will go to the other place, I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks. His point is taken, and I think that we shall be able to satisfy him on it.
§ Mr. WillisI thank the Minister for that clarification and, indeed, for the fact that the financial instructions will contain an answer to the legitimate concern that we raised. Indeed, we would like the relationship between police authorities and chief constables in Great Britain to be resolved as well, because current legislation is a mess.
§ Mr. MallonThere are two sides to the argument on all these issues, and I should like to raise one relating to the acquisition of property to which the Minister did not refer, through no fault of his own—disposal of police property.
We have inherited, in most places in the north of Ireland, quite massive police stations. They were built in such a way that they are an environmental affront and substantial amounts of land were requisitioned. It always hurts, especially in a rural community, when land is requisitioned in such a way. We are approaching the stage where I believe that it will be incumbent on the Police Authority to shed property, rather than acquire it. It will be very important that that is done constructively and sensitively.
There are already problems. I can quote examples of when I have pleaded with, begged, asked the Police Authority to take certain properties in my constituency because of the danger to people living next to police stations. On financial grounds, the police could not justify doing that. I understand that, in some of those cases, the Police Authority now wishes to requisition the land. That would be grossly unfair to the people who own it and to the people who lived through the trauma of being in danger for so many years. I ask that that be considered very carefully. I specify the case of Newtonhamilton. I should make the Minister aware of the concern there about further requisitioning of land in the centre of the town, which is not required because there is a massive police station.
I seek guidance from the Minister on police stations that were built during the past 25 years, which have a minimum height of about 20 m. Building them to that height was not the decision of the Police Authority—it had no say in the design of the buildings. It was a matter for the Chief Constable. Does it make any sense in a peaceful situation for the police station in the 911 middle of a village or in the middle of a city, such as on the Lisburn road in Belfast, to be encased within a 20 m wall?
I was continually assured that the design was such that undue height could be removed in circumstances where peace pertained. That is one respect in which we could start to show that we have moved into a different era; it would evoke a response from the community, would make policing more amenable to the community and would be good for policing as well as for the environment in which policing occurs. It is not good for either the community or policing to have to—almost—scale the heights, climb over a mountain, to get into the building.
When I go to the police station in my village, I first have to ring a bell. Then I hear a rattling inside, then someone peeps out, and eventually someone opens the gate. I can understand why—that police station has been bombed several times. I still maintain, however, that we must have confidence in what has been done; we must begin a new era. One way of living up to what has been achieved is to start taking down these walls. I was assured that that could be done, when the time was right, without destroying the fabric of the police station. When the police dispose of whatever land is not required, they must do so quickly, and there must be no suggestion of any commercial profit accruing from the requisitioning of land by the Police Authority or anyone else.
I hope that the Minister will keep these points at the forefront of his mind, because, unless we all show our intent in relation to the new beginning, we will be left with the remnants of the past. Let us begin now; the Government amendment would allow us to do that quickly and effectively.
§ Mr. WorthingtonIt is impossible to disagree with the sentiment behind the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). It is always a great shock for people visiting Northern Ireland to see the fortresses that police stations have become. The great prize which may emerge from this agreement is a possible return to some kind of normality—but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been three attempted mortar attacks in the past few weeks, all of which we surmise to have been directed at police stations. In such a climate, it is difficult to declare that this is the moment to withdraw protection from police stations. The hon. Gentleman wants to move in the same direction as we do. I assure him that we shall do so as soon as it is safe.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)When the moment arrives for the disposal of these buildings, I hope that the interests and aspirations of local communities will be genuinely taken into account.
§ Mr. WorthingtonOf course I can give that assurance—it is part of the prize that we all seek.
§ Mr. WillisI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.