GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD (Hansard, 21 November 2000)

§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson)
1 beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 95, 96, 114 and 119.

§ Mr. Mandelson
I am delighted to speak first in the debate on this group of amendments on the Policing Board, which is at the heart of the landmark new beginning that we are making in policing in Northern Ireland. For the first time in Northern Ireland's history, both traditions and every party can take an equal share in the responsibility for and the ownership of policing. As a result, policing will be more effective and will be representative of the community as a whole, with equal recruitment of Protestants and Catholics, which is a truly radical departure.
Patten recommended that an entirely new Policing Board, with the essential element of a majority elected membership, should be created to replace the present Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The Government are implementing the Patten recommendations on composition and the board's powers. Indeed, in relation to the board's best value role, the Government have decided to go beyond Patten and strengthen its powers even more. The board will offer greater accountability and transparency in its role than any comparable police body in the UK, the Irish Republic, Europe or North America.
I have taken steps to set up the board in shadow form by January. The deadline for applications for independent members ïs tomorrow, and I have notified the four main parties in the Executive that I wish to have the nominations for political members of the board by early December. I want a strong, representative board which, in its initial shadow form, will put crucial jigsaw pieces in place during the creation of the new police service.
Patten made clear in recommendation 113 that all community leaders, including political party leaders and local councillors, should encourage members of their side of the community to join the police. I wish to reiterate that recommendation in relation to the board, which should be clear enough encouragement. However, in case it is not, I pray in aid the Good Friday agreement which, in the section on policing and justice, stated that the police arrangements should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community. If political parties take up their seats, they will be in a position to influence the development of the board and the new service from the outset of their work. The lead 202 that they would be giving would contribute powerfully to the new beginning to policing that the whole community deserves and which the Good Friday agreement calls for.
The Ulster Unionist party argued in Committee that the board should be obliged to assess both public satisfaction with district policing partnerships and the effectiveness of those partnerships. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will do that. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 make related changes to clause 55, which deals with the board's obligations to report on its assessments of satisfaction and effectiveness. Amendment No. 114 commences on Royal Assent the provisions enabling the shadow Policing Board to be appointed. Given that that process is under way, the Government think it sensible to amend the Bill in that way, rather than make a separate commencement order shortly after Royal Assent.
The House amended paragraph 4(5) of schedule 1 to make provision for a member of a direct rule board—which would be constituted during a period of direct rule from Westminster—to be removed if, before his appointment, he had failed to disclose to the Secretary of State a conviction, or if he were convicted of a criminal offence committed after the date of his appointment. We wished to make a similar amendment to the removal provision for a board established during devolution, and amendment No. 119 does that. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

§ Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)
Lords amendment No. 119, to which the Secretary of State has just referred, inserts two conditions, the first of which is: in the case of an independent member, he failed, before his appointment, to make to the Secretary of State full disclosure of a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere; and the second is: he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment. In that situation, the Secretary of State may remove that member.
The Ulster Unionists have always argued that there should be no distinction between political and independent members, and that the rules relating to one should refer equally to the other.
The amendment deals only with an independent member, not with a political member. We can see no reason why the same rule should not apply to both. If a political member has committed a criminal offence which he has not acknowledged, or if he commits a criminal offence after the date of his appointment, he should be treated in exactly the same way as an independent member. That is why we tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 119, which seeks to leave out "an independent" and insert "a". The Lords amendment will then apply to all members of the Policing Board, rather than merely to independent members.

§ Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)
With regard to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, obviously it is welcome that the board must now explicitly assess the effectiveness of the district policing partnerships and report back in the annual report. Will the Minister confirm that the assumption therefore is that the board has a strategic 203 responsibility to work with the DPPs to ensure their effectiveness, and will he outline the most important mechanisms in that relationship?

§ Mr. Mandelson
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Policing Board has a strategic responsibility to work with the DPPs, and codes guiding their membership and operation will be issued after consultation in due course. I have in mind a collaborative arrangement between the two, but however much the Policing Board might want to encourage, guide, supervise and engage in a constructive dialogue and relationship with the DPPs, its primary responsibility is to ensure that the DPPs are authentic voices of the local community.
The DPPs' view is the board's overriding responsibility, as is their dedication to effective policing in their districts, and on that basis, it should respect the operational independence of the police locally, and above all, do whatever it can and needs do to enable the police to do their job properly. That, at the end of the day, is what the police service is there to do—to police, not simply to engage in an on-running democratic dialogue with supervisory bodies.

§ Mr. Öpik
I do not want to labour the point, but I am slightly concerned that the implication of the change, which I welcome, is that the board is now in some way strategically connected to the performance of the DPPs. I still have a slight concern that if there is non-co-operation between the DPPs and the board, the board might have to report poor performance, while not necessarily having the tools to improve that performance. Does the Minister feel that there is something to be discussed there?

§ Mr. Mandelson
The board will have, if not powers, extremely strong influence. Of course, residual powers lie with the Secretary of State. I shall want to ensure that the district policing partnerships operate in the way envisaged in the Bill and reflect what Parliament intended when it agreed to the provisions.
5.15 pm
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). We expect and assume that any member of the Policing Board, whether independent or political, will carry the same commitment to democratic, peaceful and non-violent practices and behaviour, as well to effective policing, whatever past or baggage that person takes to the board. The past should be the past, and that should apply to every member of the board, whether independent or political.
It is right to distinguish between independent and political members. Political members are appointed because of their democratic mandate. They derive their mandate, authority and membership of the board from direct election by the public, as do Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Good Friday agreement and the Patten report are about inclusiveness and the involvement of democratically elected politicians. I want board members to assume responsibility and to demonstrate their commitment to the work of the board 204 and to the effectiveness of the police. If the public, with knowledge of their past, have seen fit to elect them, it is not for me to override their appointment.

§ Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)
Is the Minister making a value jud4gment? Is he suggesting that an independent board member who has a criminal record that has been concealed or who has committed a crime after his appointment is worse or more unsuitable than somebody who has a political endorsement but carries the same baggage and vulnerabilities?

§ Mr. Mandelson
I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I have some sympathy with his view, but there is a difference. Elected members have been subject to scrutiny by the electorate, from whom they also receive their endorsement and mandate. As I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Bill contains strong removal provisions. For example, paragraph 9(1)(c) of schedule 1 ensures that the Secretary of State can take action if the political member is convicted after appointment or is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

§ Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)
Those chosen are elected with a mandate to an elected body. They are not elected to be part of the running of the police service. Although people may be brought into the one body from different directions, does not subjecting them to different standards within that body involve a danger? The Secretary of State's argument suggests that the late Bobby Sands, while he was in prison having been found guilty of an act of terrorism, was an elected representative, and would therefore have been eligible for membership of the Policing Board.

§ Mr. Mandelson
The electorate vote for people in the knowledge of where they come from, what they bring from the past and what baggage they carry. The hon. Gentleman and I have views about baggage and about what might and might not be appropriate to bring to office. He says that people are elected to become members of a legislature or a Government but not to be involved in the oversight of policing, but I do not see a profound difference in principle between being a member of a Government who have all sorts of responsibilities, including those for policing and security, and being a member of a Policing Board.
The Patten commission recommended, the Government have accepted and the Bill makes provision for, a mix of elected members—politicians and representatives of political parties—and independents who do not come from a party political background. Given that the basis of that arrangement is that mix in the composition of the Policing Board, it is not unreasonable for us to respect the will of the voters and the mandate that they give to politicians, rather than to seek to override them. However, if a member, having been appointed to the Policing Board, engaged in criminal activities and was convicted after being prosecuted, or if it emerged that he was not committed to genuinely peaceful and democratic means, that would be a different matter.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
Recently, a member of Sinn Fein who is a Member of the Legislative 205 Assembly said that if Sinn Fein did not get its way, it would go back to what it did best—bombing. If that person's name came before the right hon. Gentleman, would it be acceptable? How would that person's treatment compare with that of an independent member, who may have violated the law in the past, but who had not in recent years said that he would return to such practices? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, "If they have made the promise." What would happen if such people, having made that promise, said that they would return to those practices? Would they be discriminated against—rightly so, in my opinion? They might be told, "No, you have not given us a proper undertaking."

§ Mr. Mandelson
I cannot provide contingency arrangements for every piece of rhetoric and hyperbole that every member of a political party—Sinn Fein or otherwise—engages in. Heaven knows, if I severed contact with everyone in Northern Ireland who engaged in such rhetoric and hyperbole, I would be left bonding with very few people. On the other hand, if we put aside the rhetoric and hyperbole and the veiled—or not so veiled—threats, and it emerged that a member of the Policing Board was clearly associating himself with anything other than peaceful and democratic means, I would take a very different view.

§ Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the Good Friday agreement is the recognition that if we attempted to reach agreement exclusively with people who have always been committed to a democratic road, we would not be able to address the problem? Against that background, it would be eccentric to exclude from the boards people who have moved away from violence and towards democracy.

§ Mr. Mandelson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The whole purpose of the Good Friday agreement and the changes that we are making is to make politics work and to persuade those who were formerly associated with violence to turn away from it and to commit themselves to genuinely peaceful and democratic means. If they are to be committed to those means, there must be institutions, channels and vehicles to enable them to demonstrate that commitment. One cannot insist that they should demonstrate their commitment to genuinely peaceful and democratic means and then erect all sorts of hurdles to prevent them from getting involved in those institutions or channelling their energies in that direction. That would make no sense at all.

§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made the obvious point that all members of the Policing Board should be treated according to the same rules. However, through the Bill, the Secretary of State is giving, as it were, a favoured position to political appointees if they fail to disclose past criminal convictions. Will he give us some reassurance on that point? Will he himself make inquiries about the criminal convictions of all those who are nominated as political members, and not rely purely on their disclosure of past criminal offences?

§ Mr. Mandelson
The right hon. Gentleman fails to understand the distinction that I am making, and its 206 practical implications. Independent members of the Policing Board must disclose criminal records as part of the appointments process. The application form requires them to do so. It is therefore entirely logical to provide a means of removal if there is no disclosure. That is the offence that has been created, and the action that flows from it is obvious and appropriate.
Those who are elected, on the other hand, and who are put forward to the policing board on behalf of their parties, are not subject to the application and appointment processes in the same way. Therefore the rules are different: they do not apply on the same basis.
I merely say that one of the whole points of the Good Friday agreement was to provide for political representatives to be involved in those bodies, and to assume responsibility. I want political representatives of all the parties, from both positions, to assume responsibility for policing. For too long, too many people have removed themselves from that—in some cases for understandable political or historical reasons. I will not go into them now, because we have debated them endlessly in the past.
The point now is that, with the new beginning that we are making in policing and under the new political dispensation that we are creating in Northern Ireland, we want everyone to take an equal share of responsibility for policing—and that means taking an equal share of the ownership of the police service. That is what I want.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
What the Secretary of State said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is entirely understandable, but may I posit to him a slightly different scenario? If an individual guilty of precisely the type of rhetoric and hyperbole to which he referred were, in his opinion, unlikely to carry out the threat, but if that individual's words—as a result of inadvertence or advertence—were likely to have the effect of encouraging others to do so, would that, in the Secretary of State's opinion, disqualify the individual concerned from board service?

§ Mr. Mandelson
It would be very difficult for a member of the Policing Board who was exhorting others to resort to violent means to carry conviction as such a member. There would be a fundamental contradiction between that person's language and actions, and his membership of the board. I think that the whole community would question the bona fides of the member, and I think the action that would follow would be fairly obvious.

§ Dr. William McCrea (South Antrim)
Will the Secretary of State give way?

§ Mr. Mandelson
I will, for the very last time.

§ Dr. McCrea
I thank the Secretary of State.
Shortly before Remembrance Sunday this year, a bomb was intercepted on its way—or so it is believed—to a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station. It was intended to blow it up: it was a barrack-buster. The Sinn Fein Member for the area would not condemn the intended attack. Is the Secretary of State going to tell us that that person would be an appropriate member of a policing
207 board—a person who would not condemn the fact that a bomb was on its way to blow up a police station, and the police personnel inside?

§ Mr. Mandelson
I think that if such circumstances arose, a real inconsistency would be revealed between that person's statements and his or her continued membership of the policing board. Such would be the contradiction that I think it would make the person's continued membership of the board impossible—in moral terms, if in no other terms.
The amendments primarily address the relationship between the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships. We have been talking mainly about the Policing Board, but I think that many of the sentiments expressed today apply equally to the partnerships: what goes for one goes for the rest. On that basis, I commend the amendments.