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

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 88 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 92 and 106.

§ Mr. Howarth
This group of amendments deals predominantly with the code of ethics: they reinforce the code. Amendment No. 57 strengthens the requirements for police officers to adhere to the code of ethics. Not unreasonably, it changes "have regard to" to "be guided by".
Amendment No. 90 requires the board to review the steps taken by the Chief Constable to ensure that the code of ethics is brought to the attention of officers. Amendment No. 91 adjusts the wording of clause 50 to require the Secretary of State to reflect the code of ethics in discipline regulations so far as is practicable. Amendment No. 88 makes two changes. The first is to meet more closely the recommendation in Patten that the code should integrate the European convention on human rights in police practice; paragraph 4.8 of the Patten report refers to that. The second change was made in response to concerns that, in drawing up the code of ethics, the Chief Constable and the board should have regard to the wording of the new declaration attested by constables under clause 38.
Amendment No. 89 makes the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland a consultee on the code of ethics. Amendment No. 92 is technical; it refers to conduct and discipline—not pensions, as suggested by the previous wording.
Amendment No. 106 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the principle of impartiality in carrying out his general duties under clause 66. That fulfils a commitment made in Committee in this place. I commend the amendments to the House.
Amendment (a) proposed by my hon. Friends would require that the code of ethics be used to make police officers aware of the contents of specified international instruments set out in the amendment. The current form of clause 50(1) makes the purpose of the code of ethics in relation to human rights as close as possible to Patten's recommendation 4. Amendment (a) would move the Bill away from Patten's recommendations.
As we have said, the problem with international human rights standards is lack of clarity, even with the documents mentioned. For example, the United Nations code of conduct for law enforcement officials refers to many other international instruments. I understand that none of the three instruments referred to has been formally ratified by the United Kingdom, or is legally binding in international law in the same way as a treaty would be. The documents constitute aspirational statements.
If particular, specific measures in those or other instruments would add value to the code of ethics. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will, no 253 doubt, comment on them when it is consulted on the code of ethics. In view of that information, I ask my hon. Friends not to press amendment (a) to a Division.

§ Mr. Öpik
I had hoped to speak after the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), because I am interested to hear what he has to say. However, I shall make a few brief comments in anticipation of what he might say.
Lords amendment No. 57 goes some way to allaying one of our key concerns. We had strongly pressed the Government to ensure that police officers comply with the code of ethics in carrying out their functions, rather than simply having regard to it, as originally stated in the Bill. The Government have changed the words "have regard to" to "be guided by"—a stronger form of words. That goes some way to reassuring us that the code of ethics will be properly heeded.
The protection of an individual's human rights is essential to the well-being of a democratic society. Indeed, that is the reason why we were sympathetic to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 26, which would have brought human rights considerations explicitly into the police training plan. People clearly want the police to protect their human rights from infringement by others and to respect their human rights in the exercise of the duties that they are paid to undertake. We have seen how the bad application or indiscriminate use of powers to limit a person's human rights has damaged and undermined the credibility of the police in some parts of the community. Stop and search, arrests, and house searches can lead to bad police relations with certain sections of the community, thereby making the effective policing of certain areas impossible.
With the best will in the world, the RUC has had problems winning credibility in some parts of the community. We have established many times in the Chamber that that is no reflection on the overwhelming majority of police officers who do a dangerous job extremely well in difficult circumstances. That is why we are pleased that the Government have chosen slightly to strengthen the phraseology by means of Lords amendment No. 57. The police must therefore be seen to follow and uphold the highest standards of international human rights. The fact that they are to be "guided by" those, rather than simply "having regard" to them, is an important step forward, and we thank Ministers for having listened.
Lords amendment No. 88 is consistent with the benefits of Lords amendment No. 57, because it will make police officers aware of their rights and obligations, under the Human Rights Act 1998, in relation to the provisions of the code of ethics. In drafting the code, the Chief Constable and the board must also have regard to the terms of the oath. We are pleased that Ministers have taken that important step forward.
On Lords amendment No. 89, it is good that the Equality Commission has been included among the bodies that will be consulted when preparing the code. The Equality Commission is made up of a tremendously professional and insightful group of individuals who do their job more because of their passion for the cause of equality than for payment or their salaries. For that reason, the Government have been wise to include their counsel in consultations.
I shall wait to hear what the hon. Member for Hull, North has to say about amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 88. While we were sympathetic to 254 amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 26, which was a simple reaffirmation of a strategic commitment to the human rights legislation that is now part of British law, we have some concern that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 88 goes a little further, and we remain to be convinced that the changes that the hon. Gentleman wants do not go a little too far.
My understanding is that, if the circumstances permit, the codes of conduct included in amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 88 would probably be included in the work anyway, without such an explicit stipulation. We await what the hon. Member for Hull, North has to say, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. McNamara
Let me put at ease the minds and stomachs of colleagues in the House and outside. My colleagues and I have no intention of forcing a Division on my amendment. That, however, does not take away from the seriousness with which we regard it.
Certain phrases in the Human Rights Commission report that I quoted at length earlier stand out. They include: The tutor's knowledge about human rights appeared to be weak. That was in paragraph 22. Paragraph 25 said: The training appeared to be done in a vacuum. Paragraph 31 said: The Commission found little evidence of training in international standards other than those in the ECHR or of benchmarking of progress through the training to that date. The European convention on human rights is in many ways aspirational, as I am sure that the Minister would agree. All law that we pass is aspirational; if it were not so, our prisons would not be full.

§ Dr. Godman
May I raise a minor point? My hon. Friend might think it trivial, in which case I apologise. Do not the RUC officers serving with the United Nations international police force in Kosovo have to adhere to the UN code of conduct for law enforcement officials and the UN basic principles on the use of force and firearms?

§ Mr. McNamara
That is probably right. It is not a point that I have considered. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention and that of the Minister to that point. No doubt the Minister will get a letter from the Box shortly saying who was right.

§ Dr. Godman
Or wrong.

§ Mr. McNamara
Or wrong, or both. Factually wrong, but morally right, or vice versa—I am not certain.
Patten said that we should also look to the European convention, which was drawn from the international convention. The Council of Europe has made its own declaration on the police. In fact, it is being revised by the Council of Ministers at the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is working closely on the matter.
The European declaration on the police was originally the work of the rapporteur of the Council of Europe, a member of the British Labour delegation in the 1970s, Mr. Watkinson. So there is a lot of basis for the code of ethics. The main point is that we do not have to see the European conventions in isolation from all other 255 international standards, particularly United Nations standards. People and policemen must be aware in their training that there is a broad idea of the natural law of justice in relation to policing that spreads beyond Europe and encompasses the whole world. Many nations in the world are prepared to accept it both for its morality and for the standards that it sets for good policing. I hope that when we have a revision—as we are bound to, after this report—of the contents of the curriculum and the teaching methods, the board will look outside what we have had so far, and outside the European convention, and realise that there is a world where a lot of people adopt policies some of which are at a higher level than those in the European convention, and that we should be aware of them and see how they operate.

§ Mr. George Howarth
I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for his support on the amendments, some of which were inspired by a debate that we had in Committee and elsewhere. I echo the praise that he voiced of the work of the Equality Commission. Last night, I met the chairman and other people associated with the commission. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the work that they are doing is very useful and gives us hope for the future that the important issue of equality, which is central to the Good Friday agreement, is receiving proper attention. No doubt when the occasion arises for the commission to be consulted, it will have something to say.
I am grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said that he does not intend to press his amendment to a Division. I assure him that, despite the concerns that he has voiced tonight and repeated in this debate, the Human Rights Commission will, quite properly, not be backward in coming forward when it comes to being consulted on the cede of ethics. I know that my hon. Friend is familiar with some of the commissioners, and with Brice Dickson, the chief commissioner. It is clear that they are not people who would stand blushing on the sidelines; they ensure that when they are consulted, they have their say. I am sure that if they have any concerns, they will let us know about them.
I believe that my hon. Friend discussed the role of the RUC in Kosovo and whether it is caught by international human rights standards. We do not believe that those standards apply, but that is a very provisional view. As my hon. Friend correctly predicted, although I say no, there may well be a yes to follow, and if I am incorrect in giving him those assurances, I shall write to him.
I hope that my assurances will reassure my hon. Friend. I confirm that there will be provision in the future code of ethics to allow any alteration or change if it proves necessary.