THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (Hansard, 7 May 1998)

§ Mr. Willis
I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 25, line 20, leave out 'a' and insert 'an Independent'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in page 25, line 22, after 'of insert 'Independent'.
No. 43, in page 25, line 23, at end insert— '(2A) The Independent Police Ombudsman shall ensure that he gives due consideration to the fact that he operates, and is seen to operate, independently of the Government and the Northern Ireland Police Service.'. No. 44, in page 25, line 24, after 'the', insert 'Independent'.
Government amendments Nos. 25 and 32.
No. 47, in schedule 3, page 41, line 37, leave out from 'be' to 'and' and insert 'until the appointee reaches retirement age'. No. 48, in page 41, leave out lines 39 and 40.
No. 49, in page 41, leave out lines 41 and 42.
No. 50, in page 42, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 3.
No. 51, in page 42, line 23, leave out from 'may' to 'employ' in line 24.
No. 52, in page 42, line 25, at end insert 'efficiently and effectively'.
No. 53, in page 42, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 49 on page 43.
Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

§ Mr. Willis
Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 all refer to the independence of the police ombudsman and his or her office. In Committee, the role and independence of the ombudsman was considered in depth. Liberal Democrats have misgivings about the new ombudsman's role and functions, particularly the ombudsman's relationship with the Police Authority and the Northern Ireland Office, which we believe will have to be developed if it is to be acceptable.
We accept the conclusion of Dr. Maurice Hayes that there is a lack of confidence in the current complaints system because it is not sufficiently independent, so we broadly support the Government's aims. The Government have accepted that the principle of independence should be specified in the Bill-we hope that the Minister's explanation of Government amendment No. 25 will suffice.
Amendments Nos. 47 to 53 are inevitably linked to the issue of the ombudsman's independence. We agree with what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh 917 (Mr. Mallon) said in Committee—we do not believe that the independence of the ombudsman service should depend on the person who is appointed. Nevertheless, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh would agree, we agree that the right appointment will be extremely important to the success of the new service.
We are pleased that the original term of office, which was to be renewable, has been changed to a seven-year fixed term, although we do not understand why a fixed term is necessary. Government amendment No. 32 was tabled to clarify the position on tenure, so I hope that the Minister will explain why the period of tenure should be specified. Surely it is far better that the right person is appointed and continues in post until he or she no longer feels it necessary—we do not want what happened in respect of the European central bank to be repeated.
Amendment No. 53 was tabled to question the necessity for schedule 3(5). How can the ombudsman be independent if police officers are recruited and then seconded into his office? The ombudsman will have to investigate the police, so to have police officers as part and parcel of his office, for whatever reason, would undermine the office's independence. That is an important issue, on which we ask the Minister to give a considered response.

§ Mr. Ingram
I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 41 to 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), which would add the word "independent" to the title of the ombudsman. I shall then cover Government amendment No. 25, which adds a preamble to part VII of the Bill. After that, I shall speak on amendments Nos. 47 to 50 and Government amendment No. 32, which are related—they deal with the tenure of the ombudsman. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 also deal with the appointment. Finally, I shall deal with amendment No. 53 and Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which cover police service.
Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 would apply the description "independent" to the police ombudsman's post. I do not believe that they would enhance the legislation. Amendment No. 43 places further emphasis on the independence of the ombudsman. By its very nature, the office of ombudsman is independent. The word "independent" is not used in statute to describe any other ombudsmen, so to use it in the Bill could cast doubt on the independence of other ombudsmen—if it is regarded as necessary to define ombudsmen as independent in Northern Ireland, that could give rise to questions about the independence of other ombudsmen. Moreover, there would be a glaring difference in statute.
The powers granted to the ombudsman in the Bill guarantee his or her independence, so it is not necessary to specify the word "independent" in legislation. The parliamentary ombudsman, for example, is not described as independent, but I am sure that hon. Members would agree that his actions demonstrate his independence. Similarly, the police ombudsman will be judged not by the description in the Bill, but by the way in which he or she performs the tasks required by the legislation. I recommend that the House rejects amendments Nos. 41 to 44, as they are unnecessary. Amendment No. 44 also suggests that the ombudsman should operate independently, so I hope that the House will reject it, especially in the light of Government amendment No. 25.
918 Government amendment No. 25 will add a provision to the Bill emphasising that the ombudsman must exercise his or her powers in such a manner and to such an extent as appears to him or her to best secure the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints system and the confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that system. It will, in effect, add a preamble to part VII of the Bill.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) tabled an amendment along similar lines to Government amendment No. 25. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. öpik) tabled an amendment not dissimilar to amendment No. 43. In the event, it was not moved, as the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, although some members of the Committee supported the idea behind it—members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, accepted that the wording could be improved. I accepted the principle and gave an undertaking to table a Government amendment on Report. In the light of that undertaking, the amendment was withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 25 takes into account the essential principles in the Hayes report of the fundamental need for independence and the overriding requisite that the complaints system should command the confidence of both the public and the police. On that basis, I commend that amendment to the House.
I also commend Government amendment No. 32 in preference to amendments Nos. 47 to 50. The Government tabled amendment No. 32 in the light of the comments made by hon. Members on Second Reading and in Committee. Concern was expressed that an ombudsman whose term was subject to renewal might be vulnerable to political pressure, because he or she would want to curry favour with the Government to ensure a second term.
Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 suggest that the ombudsman should be appointed on a tenure until retirement. That was also suggested by Dr. Hayes. I do not consider that appropriate in the light of the Nolan recommendations, and recent legislation has tended to limit the tenure of appointments, but to reassure hon. Members that the appointee will not be vulnerable to political pressure, I propose a provision whereby the ombudsman will be appointed for a non-renewable seven-year term, or until 70, whichever is the shorter.
The total of seven years is within Sir Leonard Peach's recommendation on total period of service of six to eight years. Both Dr. Maurice Hayes and Sir Leonard Peach have been consulted on the proposal and agree with our approach.
A related amendment, No. 50, would remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to call on the ombudsman to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Again, that issue was dealt with in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh tabled an amendment covering the point; after consideration, it was withdrawn.
The success of the ombudsman's office will depend to a large extent on the success of the person who holds the post. It would be wrong to hamper the effectiveness of the ombudsman's office through the inability to remove an ombudsman who is not fulfilling the role required of him or her by the legislation. 919 We all agree that the ombudsman must be, and must be seen to be, independent. That requires that the ombudsman is given a secure appointment, but it does not mean that he or she should be able to continue in post if not performing effectively or efficiently. That is why we have included the provision at paragraph 1(7)(a), stating that the Secretary of State may call upon the ombudsman to retire in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness". The provision is the same as that for the RUC Chief Constable and for chief constables in England and Wales, who are appointed on fixed-term contracts. It is also the same as for the director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The provision is relevant to a single postholder of the importance of the police ombudsman. If he or she is inefficient or ineffective, the Secretary of State should surely act to ensure that the credibility of the office is not lost.
The provision for the ombudsman, as with those other provisions, gives ample scope for an appeal against any call to retire. The power allows for the removal of an individual who is manifestly failing, even if his or her conduct does not include actual criminality. That is in the public interest and protects the office of police ombudsman. I hope that hon. Members will accept Government amendment No. 32, and I hope that amendments Nos. 47 to 50 will not be pressed to a vote.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 would remove the requirement for the ombudsman to gain the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and remuneration, and other terms and conditions of service of employees. Instead, the amended provision would state that the ombudsman should employ such persons as he or she thinks fit to enable the ombudsman's functions to be carried out "efficiently and effectively". I cannot accept the amendments.
The provision that the Secretary of State must approve the staffing numbers, remuneration and terms and conditions of employees is an important one that is standard in legislation establishing independent statutory bodies and is consistent with Treasury guidance on non-departmental public bodies. The justification for the provision is that it will be for the Government to fund the direct running costs of the ombudsman's office, so we have a responsibility to ensure that funds are not used wastefully.
The Government, in consultation with the ombudsman, will ensure that the office is adequately staffed to perform the functions provided for in the legislation. The provision, as drafted, ensures that the Government remain accountable to Parliament for the expenditure voted by Parliament.
7.15 pm
I would also argue that the words "efficiently and effectively" are not required. They do not add to the sense of the provision, which deals with employment of staff, not how the ombudsman's functions should be carried out. I hope that amendments Nos. 51 and 52 will not be pressed to a vote.
920 Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34 and amendment No. 53 deal with RUC service with the ombudsman. Amendment No. 53 would remove the detailed provisions on RUC officers serving on the ombudsman's staff and those providing assistance to meet special demands: for example, those who are called in to make door-to-door inquiries. Those are arrangements that Dr. Hayes recommended, and I will hold consultations with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints on the issue. Amendment No. 53 would clearly create an inconsistency. I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.
The schedule, as drafted, provides that The Ombudsman and the Chief Constable shall enter into arrangements for members of the police force to be engaged for a period of temporary service with the Ombudsman. That provision was interpreted by some, including members of the Standing Committee—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh—as requiring the ombudsman to engage police officers for all time.
That was not our intention in drafting the provision, which is designed to require arrangements to be made in case members of the police are engaged by the ombudsman. Those arrangements would deal with the way in which officers were to be paid, to get leave, and so on. Although I regarded the provision as clear, as did the legislative draftsman, in the light of the concerns expressed, I concluded that there should be a change to make it clearer. That again shows that we benefited from the input from hon. Members in Committee. I hope that hon. Members will agree to Government amendments Nos. 25, 32, 33 and 34, and that the others will not be pressed to a vote.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
This is one part of the Bill that is welcomed by all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That point was well made on Second Reading. For many years, those who represented people in Northern Ireland were anxious that there should be an independent body to deal with complaints against the police. In the appointment of the ombudsman, that is set in place. There are some difficulties re appointment, and those and other matters have been explained by the Minister. I welcome the fact that the ombudsman will be appointed, and that at long last people will know that he is independent of the police.
No matter how acceptably police officers carry out their duty, we cannot ask them to be judge and jury in cases involving their own. Their doing so has always left a doubt in people's minds, and made many reluctant to go along that route. The proposal will benefit all parts of the community, and it will be widely welcomed.

§ Mr. Mallon
I warmly welcome the Government amendments. I notice that the Minister is looking at me in what is almost a state of shock. I understand why he may feel that, but I genuinely welcome them.
It is crucial that changes be made. The essence of an independent ombudsman is that he should make his decisions. Government amendment No. 33 changes the Bill from stating: The Ombudsman and the Chief Constable shall enter into arrangements". 921 That original wording reduced the ombudsman's independent ability to make what arrangements he chose. It is essential to the independence of his office that there is no legislative imperative to enter into arrangements, and no legislative imperative not to enter into arrangements. Under Government amendment No. 33, the ombudsman can decide independently of the Bill, of the Secretary of State and of the police what arrangements he or she will make for use of the police, whether it is the Northern Ireland service—as in this case—or one from abroad. I am especially pleased by that crucial change.
Recent experience suggests that those who hold independent offices in Northern Ireland come under severe pressure at times. One might not believe all the rumours, but those who hold such offices must be strong people. They have to trample on toes and take on vested interests in the Government, the police, the Police Federation and the community. They must have full legislative independence to allow them to do that. I repeat that I warmly welcome the Government amendments, which change the whole complexion of this part of the Bill. Everyone will be pleased by them.
I also welcome what the Minister said about the ombudsman's relationship with the community and the police service. It will not be healthy if there are tensions between the community and the ombudsman, or between the police and the ombudsman. We need a remarkable person for the job, and I believe that the Government's changes are worth while.
When we deal with legislation, we rightly consider all eventualities. Let me pose one that does not come readily to mind in Northern Irish terms, whereby tensions in the community start to dissipate, attitudes towards policing change and relationships in the communities respond to those changes. In those circumstances, it would be right to have the powers of an independent ombudsman. Other hon. Members and I look forward to the day when that person is appointed, and, in the longer term, to the time when he or she becomes just a memory. Change will not come unless we have absolute independence for the right person in the job. Our legislation must not tie the ombudsman down in any way, and must allow for independent decisions. That will affect the way in which police complaints will evolve, even over the next five years.

§ Mr. Willis
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 go a long way to resolving many of the issues that we wanted to raise on Report. We are still concerned about paragraph 5 of schedule 3, but will return to it in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.