8. The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commissioner such sums as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for defraying the expenses of the Commissioner under this Act.
9.—(1) The Commissioner shall—785
- (a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts;
- (b) prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct; and
- (c) send copies of the statement to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the month of August next following the financial year to which the statement relates.
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him under this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.
§ Amendment (a) thereto: leave out paragraph 2.
§ Government amendments Nos. 264 to 266.
Mr. HowarthNew clauses 4 and 5 and new schedule 1, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, honour the commitment, which the Government gave to the Committee during its 11th sitting on 7 July, to put the office of oversight commissioner on a statutory footing. We have done so in a manner that is consistent with, and faithful to, the Patten report.
Patten recommended at chapter 19 of the report that there should be a commissioner to oversee change and to provide assurance to the community about progress. It is worth reminding the House exactly what Patten said. I know that, as ever, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is mindful of the Patten recommendations and how the Bill conforms to them. Paragraphs 19.4 states:
an eminent person, from a country other than the United Kingdom or Ireland, should be appointed as soon as possible as an oversight commissioner with responsibility for supervising the implementation of our recommendations.Paragraph 19.5 states that the Government, police service, Policing Board and direct policing partnerships should provide the oversight commissioner with objectives and timetables covering their responsibilities and should report on their progress in achieving them. It also states that the commissioner should report publicly after each review, giving his observations on the extent to which objectives have been met. Paragraph 19.6 states that the commissioner should be appointed for five years.Government new clause 4, together with Government new schedule 1, will place the post on a proper statutory footing. As we said in Committee, we have introduced those provisions in part to show our commitment to the office and because they will add to the commissioner's status. The commissioner will oversee the implementation of changes to the policing of Northern Ireland as described in his terms of reference.
The terms of reference for the commissioner, who was obviously appointed before any statutory provision was introduced, have been published and are available in the Library. Subject to a renewable appointment for three years, rather than Patten's recommendation of five years, they show that we have been entirely faithful to Patten. Patten suggested that the commissioner should review progress three or four times a year. Government new clause 5 provides for the commissioner to make periodic reports at least three times a year.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)If the commissioner thinks that certain elements of the legislation do not work or impede progress towards the Government's laudable objectives, will he have the right to make that known in one of his periodic reports? For example, if he thought that the colour of the uniform should be changed to blue to make it more compatible with those of neighbouring police forces, could he make such a recommendation?
Mr. HowarthWe are anxious to remain as faithful as possible to Patten, who, as my hon. Friend knows, was clear on the colour of the uniform. Such matters would probably be outwith the commissioner's terms of reference. I do not want to be drawn on my hon. Friend's specific example because, although he might disagree with Patten, we are anxious to implement the broad thrust of his recommendations. In fact, we shall do so as closely as possible. I intend to deal with the general point that my hon. Friend makes later in my opening remarks.
The Government have made provision for the commissioner to report at least three times a year. As hon. Members will see from the terms of reference, the Government, the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and DPPs will provide objectives, with timetables, and report on progress, so he will regularly updated. The commissioner will then report publicly and would be expected to outline progress achieved, identify any obstacle to progress and seek explanations about delays. Again, we have fully met Patten's recommendations in that regard. I would ask the House to accept Government new clauses 4 and 5 and Government new schedule 1.
I want make something clear for the benefit of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who are anxious to receive an answer to a question that informs the amendments that they have tabled. They want to know whether the oversight commissioner can go public if he has any serious concerns about how implementation is proceeding and whether he will be at liberty to say whatever he thinks appropriate about any lack of progress. The answer is yes, and any such reports that he may think appropriate will be published. I believe that my hon. Friends' concerns will be addressed because those powers exist.
Government amendments Nos. 264 to 266 are standard provisions, by which the oversight commissioner will be added to the list of bodies under the House of Commons and Assembly Disqualification Acts. They are straightforward and should not cause the House any difficulty and I therefore ask hon. Members to accept them.
§ Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)I should like to place on record a sincere welcome for the Minister's announcement that the new clause will introduce into statute the office, terms of reference and conditions of the oversight commissioner. That was not the case in Committee, and it represents an important advance in implementing the Patten recommendations.
However, having looked a gift horse in the mouth, as it were, we have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 4 and amendment (a) to new schedule 1. They are designed to ensure that the oversight commissioner enjoys the full role that the Patten commission envisaged for that office. We feel that the implementation of all the Patten recommendations is one of the most important innovations to arise from the independent commission's report on policing in Northern Ireland. The oversight commissioner is the safety net—the catch-all.
Patten said that that office should not simply involve taking stock and that the
review process would provide an important impetus to the process of transformation787 and a new beginning. I welcome the Government amendments as it is vital that the oversight commissioner engages and ensures that all Patten is implemented. However, our problem, which is covered by our amendments, is that the commissioner's terms of reference are limited to overseeing only those changes in policing that the Government decide. That is a restriction. Although we do not want to give the commissioner carte blanche in everything, he should not be unable to comment on the adequacy of the Government's decisions and recommendations.9 pm
Patten himself referred to those
decisions that will be made by Governmentbut the oversight commissioner should not be the only person who cannot comment on Government policy or point out its obvious deficiencies. We have come some way from where we were in Committee, but I would like the Minister to underscore what I think that he said earlier. Can he state unambiguously that the oversight commissioner will be able to comment on Government decisions on police reform when he believes that to be appropriate? If the Minister can give such an undertaking on taking action in reasonable circumstances, I shall happily withdraw our amendments.
§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)I, too, am concerned about the implications of what the Government have done. Patten said that
an eminent person, from a country other than the United Kingdom or Ireland, should be appointed as soon as possible as an oversight commissioner with responsibility for supervising the implementation of our recommendations.However, the new clause says:The Commissioner's general function is to oversee the implementation of changes in the policing of Northern Ireland described in his terms of reference.The terms of reference say that the oversight commissioner will be responsible for overseeing theimplementation of the changes in policing arrangements and structures decided in the context of the Patten reportnot those recommended in the Patten report. That important distinction will limit his role to considering only what the Government do rather than what happens in the context of the Patten report.Therefore, it appears that the oversight commissioner will be a messenger for the Government and the Chief Constable, not a guarantor of Patten, which is how we see his role. The Minister must clear up the apparent discrepancy between Patten and both the new clause and the terms of reference. Under Patten, the oversight commissioner was to consider not only legislation, but all other issues in Patten—for example, the drafting of the code of ethics, the establishment of an independent recruitment agency and so on. Will he have a role in the independent study of an alternative to plastic baton rounds in public order situations?
I welcome the fact that plastic baton rounds have not been used in the recent disturbances. I hope that that practice will be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Minister, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for 788 South Down (Mr. McGrady) and to other members of the steering group researching the use of plastic bullets, said that the object was
To establish whether a less than lethal alternative to baton rounds is available; and to prepare a strategy for the tactical deployment of public order equipment by the police in Northern Ireland.That is not what Patten said. He said:An immediate and substantial investment should be made in a research programme to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round.Patten said that we should get rid of the plastic baton round and find something else, whereas the steering group asked whether there was something else. There is an important distinction between those two, and I should like to know whether the oversight commissioner will be able to look into matters that are not part of the structures of the police or decided on in the context of the Patten report. Will those matters be covered under these new terms of reference? This is an important issue because, judging by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the new clause seems to be a considerable departure from Patten. I hope that, when he replies, he will put my fears, especially about plastic bullets, to rest.I raised the issue of an oversight commissioner on Second Reading and asked for such a position to be put in the statute. I received an undertaking that that would be done in Committee, and I express my thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends for putting the proposal into the legislation. I hope that this very good measure will be made perfect by ending my worries on those two small points.
§ Mr. MaginnisThe amendments are probably unnecessary. The oversight commissioner has been appointed, and the new clause seems like supererogation. Can I persuade the Minister not to listen to the siren voices that say that what goes on in the House does not matter, and that on Northern Ireland issues we must abide by Patten in letter and in spirit to the nth degree? If that were the case, there would be no point coming to the House, because what was happening here would be a charade.
The reality is that the House is responsible for legislation, and the extent to which it takes the advice of Patten and his commission is a matter for the House. I suggest to the Minister that he should not contemplate extending the powers or authority of the oversight commissioner beyond what is contained in legislation—beyond what is lawful.
§ Mr. McDonnellI shall try to be a siren voice.
Amendment No. 23 is so meek and mild that I cannot see how it could pose a threat to anyone. It relates to clause 27, under which
The Board shall make arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order specify to secure continuous improvement in…efficiency and effectiveness.I have suggested—very meekly—thatBefore making an order the Secretary of State must consult the Oversight Commissioner.The amendment takes us back to Patten, and to the role of supervision rather than the mild form of oversight proposed by new clause 4. It would also enable us to build on the expertise that the commissioner could use in preparing for improvements in the police service overall.789 Amendment No. 23 is in the spirit of Patten, and I hope that, if it is not accepted tonight, the Government will give it further consideration.
§ Mr. George HowarthLet me say for the benefit of my friend the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that we are still considering the inclusion of a standard provision relating to the removal of the commissioner, like the provision applying to the Police Authority and, for that matter, the provision in the Bill applying to the district policing partnership board. As things stand, our plan is to table an amendment in another place.
The amendments to new clause 4 and new schedule 1 would give the oversight commissioner responsibility for the process of police reform in Northern Ireland. They would remove the Secretary of State's ability to set terms of reference for the commissioner. Putting aside for a moment any objection in principle, I am bound to point out that the commissioner is in post, and is operating under terms of reference already set by the Secretary of State. It might therefore be difficult to change retrospectively the basis on which he was appointed and, indeed, to change the terms of reference that went alongside that.
§ Mr. TrimbleI merely ask for information. The Minister said that the commissioner had been appointed according to a particular set of terms of reference. I hope that he will forgive me for asking whether those terms of reference are in the public domain. Do we know what they are?
§ Mr. HowarthYes, they are in the public domain. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from them a few moments ago.
§ Mr. McNamaraMy hon. Friend said that because the terms of reference had already been published, they were somehow set in stone. Can they not be altered?
§ Mr. HowarthAny terms of reference can be altered, but we are in a particular situation at this particular time. There is a potential for developments in the future; I shall say more about that shortly. As always, however, we do not wish to create too many blind alleys. Indeed, we are anxious to do the opposite.
Let me now deal with the point of principle. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, which seems to constitute an attempt to get the commissioner to implement changes that the Government have not approved. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made clear in a brief speech, the Bill that emerges from the House of Commons will be the law. It will have been considered in another place and gone through a Committee. In that context, although we aim to stay as true to Patten as is practical and possible, it would be inappropriate to move away from the principle that what comes out of the House will be important in terms of what the oversight commissioner decides should be overseen in implementing the recommendations.
9.15 pm
I make it absolutely clear that the commissioner's role is to oversee the implementation of changes in policing 790 arrangements and the structures decided on by the House and by the Government in the context of the Patten report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North is right to say that the Government's position is not to accept every detail of the 175 recommendations in Patten. Patten himself acknowledged that that was not necessary. He said that much work had to be done on detail. I think that, as a distinguished former Member of the House, he would be the first. to recognise that it would not be possible within terms of reference to produce a report that was a draft Bill, couched in the language and style of something that could be readily transformed into a Bill. To be fair, some sections of it were such that we could do that, but other sections were not so clearly translatable into legislation.
§ Mr. TrimbleI am sorry to come back to what is probably a technical point, for which there is a technical answer. The Minister refers to the oversight commissioner having been appointed, given terms of reference and all the rest of it. An appointment may have been made at a point when there was no legislative basis for doing so. We are now creating a legislative basis for the making of an appointment. I do not see in the new clauses or schedule any transitional provision to provide for the fact that the informal appointment that has already been made is to be the appointment for the purposes of the Act. Without such a transitional provision, there will be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a formal appointment and to provide terms of reference in accordance with the Act.
§ Mr. HowarthThe right hon. Gentleman, eagle-eyed as ever, raises a useful point. I am sure that the answer that he gave to his own question is the answer that he is seeking. Therefore, I am happy to endorse what he said.
§ Mr. TrimbleIn that case, there will be a fresh appointment and fresh terms of reference.
§ Mr. Howarth"Fresh" implies a change of personnel and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not think that that is the intention.
The other point that we have made—it is a serious answer to the right hon. Gentleman—is that the powers involved will now be put on a statutory footing. That makes a difference. It certainly adds to the standing of the commissioner because he will be carrying out functions that are statutory.
The detail of the changes is contained in the Bill and in the comprehensive implementation plan, which will be updated once the Bill receives Royal Assent—so that which is overseen will be changed in accordance with the way in which the Bill finally emerges. What we are doing is entirely consistent with Patten. I hope—perhaps the phrase is more in hope than anticipation—that, on the basis of the assurances I have been able to give, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and his colleagues will not feel it necessary to push the amendments to a vote.
§ Mr. McGradyThe purpose of our amendments is to clarify whether, if the Government do not materially implement a specific Patten recommendation, it would be within the oversight commissioner's power to say, "You have omitted to deal with this substantive matter and to 791 make this substantive change." If the oversight commissioner will have that ability, either within or without his terms of reference, I would be quite happy, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, not to press the amendments.
§ Mr. HowarthI am afraid that my hon. Friend and I will probably have to differ on this point. As we have already made clear, the commissioner is overseeing implementation of the changes arising from Patten and agreed by the Government and the House. The Government have included those changes in the Bill, and the House has approved the principle of the Bill's contents.
I should like now to deal with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North on plastic baton charges. I should say first that the working party which Patten recommended to examine the matter has met recently, and that the research that my hon. Friend mentioned and that Patten recommended is already under way. Although my hon. Friend used that matter as an example, we have taken on board the issue that he has raised. The issue is being addressed along the lines that Patten suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will know that in chapter 9 of the report, in a box on page 52, Patten dealt with some of the weapons used against the police. He specifically mentioned the use—which, sadly, we have seen in the past few days—of
stones, bricks…bottles…knives, spears and hatchets…firearms of all kinds, including automatic assault rifles and hand grenades.Patten went on to outline some of the most lethal weapons being used, including:Blast or pipe bombs…Coffee jar bombs…Petrol bombs…Chinese mortars…Explosive darts…Catapults used to fire steel ball bearings.Patten interviewed police personnel in the United States and in Holland—which is known for having one of the most liberal policing and criminal justice systems—and concluded that the police cannot be left improperly protected until the research to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North referred has been concluded and a satisfactory alternative to plastic baton charges has been found.As I said a week or so ago in Committee, the implicit deal between society and the police is that the police act for us in many situations in which we are not capable or legally empowered to act for ourselves. Consequently—as we see far too often in Northern Ireland—the police are often placed in dangerous situations. I therefore think that Patten reached the right conclusion on the matter.
Additionally, we should appreciate the fact that, in different parts of the world, in comparable public order situations, police use not plastic baton charges, but live ammunition. Therefore, in that sense, the restraint that has been shown by the RUC—and that, in the short term, until research provides a viable alternative we expect to continue to be shown by the new police service—is the best option available.
§ Mr. McNamaraI do not find that recommendation in the summary. Recommendation 69 is that we should find
an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round (PBR).Patten is therefore saying that we have to find an effective alternative. The terms of reference start by asking whether there is an alternative. That distinction is important because it begins by begging the question that Patten has raised. Patten also stated, in recommendation 70, thatThe police should be equipped with a broader range of public order equipment.The report continues:The use of PBRs should be subject to the same procedures for deployment, use and reporting as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.It also recommends that their use should be treated in the same way as the use of firearms and that training should be confined to a small group. Have those recommendations been carried out?
§ Mr. HowarthMy hon. Friend quotes at length from Patten, but I can tell him that we are trying to move forward as quickly as possible on all those areas. I do not seek to have an argument with my hon. Friend—
§ Mr. McNamaraNo, I am seeking information.
§ Mr. HowarthI am seeking to explain to my hon. Friend that, until such a time as a viable and effective alternative arises from research, that is what will happen. Of course, firearms training of any kind and training in all the equipment is a standard part of the way in which any police force, including the police force in Northern Ireland, operates. I know that the Chief Constable is mindful of those concerns and I also know that police officers in Northern Ireland have had much training in such areas in previous months.
§ Dr. GodmanMy hon. Friend the Minister may recall that I was present in Committee when we had an almost identical debate, and I have much sympathy for what he says about baton rounds. Police officers must have comprehensive protection. On the issue of research, which institute is carrying it out? Given the comprehensive nature of the research, I presume that the programme of research is extensive.
§ Mr. HowarthYes, it is extensive. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am anxious to make some progress—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should not keep interrupting the proceedings.
§ Mr. HowarthAs for the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) seeks, I will get in touch with him on that point.
Amendment No. 23 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). Before addressing the amendment, and in response to arguments in Committee, I want to record that the Government have accepted that there will be a shift in emphasis in the best value area of the Bill. That will be 793 addressed in the other place and will give the board the lead role in best value, with the Secretary of State simply having a default power.
The provisions in clause 27 are about securing continuous improvement in the way in which the board exercises its functions. It is not Patten. It is an issue to be addressed by the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable. The commissioner's role is clear under his terms of reference and we do not believe it necessary or appropriate to include the functions provided for in that clause. I commend Government new clause 4 to the Committee.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.