BELFAST (No. 2)

HC Deb 26 March 2003 vol 402 cc375-403

'(1) Schedule [Belfast (No. 2)] makes provision in relation to Belfast.

(2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new schedule 2—' Belfast No. 2' —'and amendment (a) thereto.

Government amendment No. 37.

Jane Kennedy

New clause 14 and new schedule 2 deal with the arrangements for the sub-groups of the district policing partnerships in Belfast. They replace section 21 of the 2000 Act, and make a series of supplementary consequential amendments. Amendment No. 37 is consequential upon new schedule 2. Although these provisions look, on the face of it, very complex, they cover much familiar ground. I recognise that hon. Members will have some concerns about what is proposed—indeed, the Select Committee raised some of those concerns—but I hope to be able to deal with them in due course. It might be helpful, however, if I first outline what the various changes mean and what their effect will be.

Hon. Members will be aware that there is a police district for every district council area in Northern Ireland except Belfast. The area covered by Belfast city council's jurisdiction is split into four police districts: north, south, east and west, for simplicity's sake. This reflects a Patten recommendation to take account of the significantly greater size of the population and therefore of the policing task—in Belfast. Each of the four police districts in the city covers a population that is very nearly the size of the next largest district outside Belfast. It is already a requirement, under section 21 of the 2000 Act, for Belfast city council to establish a subgroup of its DPP for each of the four police districts in Belfast. Amendment (a) seeks to change that, by making it optional for the council to establish sub-groups. I shall not be supporting that amendment, and I shall give my reasons a little later when I explain the importance that we attach to the requirement to establish the sub-groups.

At present, the sub-groups' only function is to provide views on any matter concerning the policing of a police district to the district commander of the relevant police district and to the DPP itself. That is in contrast to the functions of a full DPP as set out in section 16 of the 2000 Act.

5.45 pm

In the August 2001 revised implementation plan, we undertook to consider, in the context of a review of policing arrangements, whether those limited powers remained appropriate for the Belfast sub-groups. That we have done, but given the scale of the policing task in each Belfast police district and the size of population involved in those areas, we consider that there is merit in the sub-groups for the four Belfast police districts having extended functions covering the majority of functions enjoyed by full DPPs.

The functions that we propose for the sub-groups mirror those in section 16(1)(a) to (d) of the Act. That should help to strengthen the relationship between the local community and the police service of its area in Belfast.

Mr. Trimble

The Minister said a few moments ago that the functions of the sub-groups mirror the majority of functions for the group for Belfast as a whole, yet she has also referred to them being identical to those set out in section 16. Will she identify what functions will remain solely in the purview of the Belfast DPP rather than being devolved or transferred to the sub-groups?

Jane Kennedy

The functions of the sub-groups will not be identical to those of the Belfast DPP, which will retain a particular role. I shall explain that in a few moments, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, and perhaps he will intervene again if I am not sufficiently clear.

What I want to make clear—this perhaps responds in some way to that point—is that we do not propose to create four new DPPs, nor did the Patten report recommend that. It specifically referred to those being sub-groups or sub-committees. So, unlike the full DPPs, the sub-groups will not be accountable to the Policing Board or the local council. That function will remain a role of the Belfast DPP itself; the sub-groups will remain accountable to it.

The Belfast DPP will retain an important city-wide role, so we have included in the new clause provisions requiring the sub-groups to provide annual reports to the DPP, which will enable it, in turn, to provide its own annual report to Belfast city council. The powers and duties of the Belfast DPP will change in only three respects. First, we will give it the power to require a subgroup to produce a report on any matter concerned with the exercise of that sub-group's functions. That may be for the DPP's own benefit or it may be to enable the DPP to respond to a request from the board for a report covering the whole of Belfast.

Secondly, the Belfast DPP will be given slightly longer than other DPPs to submit its annual report to the council or ad hoc reports to the board. That is to allow sufficient time for the Belfast DPP to commission and receive the relevant reports from its sub-groups before producing its own report.

Finally, we wish to avoid unnecessary duplication between the DPP and its sub-groups. The DPP will retain the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the functions of consultation with the local community are adequately fulfilled, but if the DPP is satisfied that a function is already being adequately carried out by a sub-group, the DPP is exempt from the obligation to duplicate the work in respect of that particular area of Belfast.

Limbit Öpik

I have a more general point to make later, but I shall focus on the immediate point now. It sounds to me that there could be a danger of internecine rivalry between the sub-groups.

Mr. John Taylor

In Northern Ireland?

Lembit Öpik

Even in Northern Ireland. How will the structure that the Minister proposes adequately ensure that there is a complementary rather than an aggressive and factional approach among those various groups?

Jane Kennedy

The sub-groups will be responsible for working with and through the district commanders of their areas. Their focus will be very much geographical. The Belfast DPP may wish to report on certain issues to the Policing Board, or submit proposals to it. Those issues may affect the whole of Belfast, or just parts of it. It may then commission work from one of the subgroups. I envisage a working relationship between the sub-groups and the DPP, rather than rivalry between the sub-groups. I am not sure what rivalry would arise, although no doubt it will always be possible.

Lembit Öpik

I was really thinking of rivalry between sub-groups and the DPP. There might be differences between the two about the implementation of police policy in a certain area. I fear that the DPP could find itself at loggerheads with the sub-groups.

Jane Kennedy

If that happened, the DPP would retain responsibility for determining the outcome.

Apart from the flexibilities I have mentioned, the functions, powers and role of the Belfast DPP remain in line with those applying to other DPPs. Its membership remains the same size, and with the same political balance. However, to ensure an effective link with the sub-groups, four of the political seats on the DPP will be held by the chairs of the sub-groups. The offices will be rotated between the four largest political parties on the council, so there will be a slight change in DPP membership—although not in its representativeness—each year.

Having concluded that the sub-groups should take on additional functions, the Government looked again at the arrangements for regulating sub-groups' procedures. At present, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 says that each sub-group shall consist of at least six members of the partnership. There is no maximum size, there is no specified balance between political and independent members, and there is no arrangement for rotating the chairmanship between the four largest parties, as is the case with DPPs. I am well aware that at present, even with sub-groups of the minimum size, DPP members would have to sit on both the DPP and at least one sub-group. That is already a daunting workload, especially for councillors who have many other calls on their time.

Given the additional functions that the sub-groups have taken on, we see benefit in both increasing the size of the sub-groups—because of the increasing workload—and being more specific about the arrangements applying to membership. Paragraph 13 of new schedule 2 inserts a new schedule 3A in the 2000 Act, which mirrors in almost every respect the provisions of schedule 3 in relation to DPPs. I shall concentrate on the respects in which the new schedule differs from the arrangements in schedule 3.

We propose that each sub-group should consist of 11 members, six political members appointed from among the members of the council and five independent members appointed by the board. That is similar to the balance on DPPs, but the size is smaller to reflect the lesser role of the sub-groups. In appointing political members, the council is charged with seeking to ensure that the sum of the political members of all sub-groups reflects the balance of the parties in the council. In appointing independent members of a sub-group, the board is required to ensure that, taken together, they are representative of the community in the relevant policing district.

Mr. Trimble

The Minister said that members should as a whole be representative. Does that mean that there is no requirement for representativeness in the case of individual sub-groups?

Jane Kennedy

The groups will be representative of the area covered by that sub-group, but there will be political balance, in that there will be representatives of the political parties on the sub-group.

Mr. Trimble

The Minister is going further than the provision that she is discussing, which says that the membership of the sub-groups, taken as a whole, is to be representative. Will she confirm that she is saying that the membership of the sub-group is to be representative of the area that it comes from?

Jane Kennedy

The concepts are not difficult, but the detail can be. The members of the sub-group—singular—taken together, would be representative of the community in the relevant police district. Indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is not in his place, raised this issue in the Select Committee. In addition, the schedule provides that the council should also notify the board as to whether applicants are interested in being considered for appointments to only one sub-group, or whether there is a degree of flexibility.

There is a slight difference in the rules for appointing and rotating sub-group chairmen and vice-chairmen. As with DPPs, those will be appointed by the council, which will be required to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the offices of chairman and vice-chairman—or chairwoman and vice-chairwoman—in each sub-group are at all times held by members of different political parties, and that the office of chairman is held in turn by each of the four largest parties represented on Belfast city council.

In addition to those provisions, which also apply to DPPs, the council will be required to ensure that no one party holds more than one sub-group chairmanship at any point in time. So it is clear that Belfast city council and the district policing partnership will need to do a good deal of work to ensure that the arrangements are right and representative.

Lady Hermon

Will the Minister address the question of proposed new schedule 3A and political members of the sub-groups, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? She will well remember the warning that Chris Patten gave against the balkanisation of policing, on the morning in September 1999 when he published his report. My concern relates to the provision's stating that the political members of all the sub-groups, taken together should reflect the balance of the parties in the council. What failsafe mechanism protects against west Belfast, for example, having only Sinn Fein councillors as political members of that sub-group?

Mr. Trimble

There isn't one.

Jane Kennedy

The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no such mechanism, but to respond to the hon. Lady's question, I should point out that there is indeed a safeguard, in that the chairmanship of the sub-group—

Mr. Trimble

It is not in here.

Jane Kennedy

Well, Belfast city council and the DPP will be required to make that work, and so far as is reasonably practical, and so long as councillors are willing to participate in DPPs, it should be within the bounds of possibility to make that happen. Although it is clear that that will be possible, it will not be the easiest chairmanship in the world. However, there should be representatives within each of the sub-groups of the main parties, and that should be guaranteed at least through the role that the chairman and vice-chairman will play.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry)

The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that last night., a Social Democratic and Labour party councillor who is a member of a district policing partnership in Strabane, County Tyrone, suffered an attack on the property of her daughter. Given that the likelihood of such incidents will increase in the immediate future, what plans do the Government have to give redress if SDLP members unfortunately pull out as a result of such intimidation?

6 pm

Jane Kennedy

Clearly, such intimidation is anathema to people involved in democratic politics. I do not accept that there will necessarily be an increase in intimidation. That it is happening at all is deplorable, but I expect that the people who participate in the DPPs and in the subgroups will no longer fear intimidation when the proposals that we are discussing take effect. That is because the people associated with those perpetrating the intimidation will no longer be pushing for it to happen.

Mr. Mallon

I assure the House that the SDLP representatives will not be pulled out because of intimidation. We have not done that for the past 30 years. We are not going to start now.

Jane Kennedy

I very much welcome that reassurance. There is no question but that those SDLP representatives who have participated in the new policing arrangements have faced much greater risk to themselves than have others. We owe them a great deal for enabling the new start to policing in Northern Ireland, and for their commitment to this new beginning, which the proposals under discussion merely serve to embed.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Minister also wears a security hat in Northern Ireland. She will be aware that this is an intense and serious matter in localities. She will also recall that a recruit to the new police service was attacked in my constituency. Such hostility is being encouraged by a literature campaign being conducted in places of employment, where we never had trouble before. That campaign says that people should treat former members of the RUC the way they treated them before, even though those former officers are now in other jobs. Another campaign states that the new police service should be treated as though it was the old RUC. If that is going to be allowed to percolate through the areas in question, there could be serious trouble.

Everyone in public life in Northern Ireland does the job that they have been elected to do—I do not include those who advocate violence—but all of us are threatened with intimidation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away, well beyond an intervention.

Jane Kennedy

I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but in the earlier debate the question arose as to what was meant by the phrase "acts of completion". How do we define that, and what do we intend should happen before we would enable the clauses to take effect? That is at the heart of the issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr Mallon) put his finger on it when he made his contribution to the earlier debate.

When Sinn Fein embraces the new beginning to policing that is under way—and I say "when" and not "if"—and when it participates in the policing arrangements that we are discussing in detail now, the environment in which policing is carried out in Northern Ireland will be transformed. No longer will it be acceptable for those who espouse republican traditions to attack members of the police service, because that service will be directly accountable—through the policing structures, the DPPs and the Policing Board—to those who espouse the republican tradition.

At present, the Policing Board works on a cross-community basis. Any new arrangements arising out of what the House is discussing today could take effect only in exactly similar circumstances. So my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh is absolutely right—once we have done this business today, it really will be up to those who espouse the republican tradition to rise to the challenge being presented to them.

Mr. Trimble

The Minister rightly says that one of the great successes of the past year or so has been the way in which the Policing Board has operated on a genuine cross-community basis. Why, then, are the Government introducing provisions that will in practice ensure that for at least half of Belfast there will be no requirement for the sub-groups to have cross-community composition?

Jane Kennedy

There will be representatives of other parties in the sub-groups. As I explained, that will be built into the structure of the sub-groups through the roles of the chairman and the vice-chairman. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says in the sense that potentially a majority of one particular community will be represented in some sub-groups. However, when hon. Members see how the parties involved and the independent members of the sub-groups and the district policing partnerships are genuinely and wholeheartedly engaged in a proper dialogue with the district policing commanders, holding them to account on behalf of their communities in order to deliver to them the best possible policing services, their anxieties about the way in which the sub-groups work will diminish. The system will be tested over time.

Mr. Carmichael

Can the Minister assist me in trying to follow the logic of her argument? Presumably the point of having sub-groups is to ensure better representation of the communities. To take west Belfast as a working example, in accordance with what seems to be the consensus, there will be cross-community involvement in that sub-group only if there is some sort of artificial mechanism to ensure that it is not truly representative. I do not understand how the Minister can have both.

Jane Kennedy

It will of course depend on the make-up of Belfast city council and the political demography at the time. Taking west Belfast as an example, it is likely that there will be representatives of the SDLP and of Sinn Fein—if Sinn Fein participates—and that representatives of other parties will have to come in through other means. That is what we are building in through the roles of the chair and vice-chair. There will be a requirement on Belfast city council to ensure that that political mix is available as the sub-groups are established.

Mr. Trimble

indicated dissent.

Jane Kennedy

Well, that is my understanding of how the new arrangements will work.

The rules for disqualification and for the removal of members from office remain exactly the same as those that apply to membership of DPPs. The same is true of the provisions relating to allowances, indemnities, insurance against accidents and so on.

Limbit Öpik

I am not sure if this is the right time to ask the Minister this, but will she, now or when she reaches the appropriate moment, give me an assurance—grateful as we are that the Secretary of State accepted the benefits of a debate on the Floor of the House and in another place—that the Government will offer the same commitment in this case? They were willing to accept our suggestion in relation to the previous debate, and exactly the same arguments apply here.

Jane Kennedy

I am happy to give the assurance that the same arrangements will apply—the debate will take place on the Floor of the House—because the same commencement provision applies. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

The arrangements relating to the procedure of sub-group meetings closely reflect the provisions for district policing partnerships. The only difference is that the Belfast DPP is given the power to give directions to a sub-group about the regulation of its procedure.

The arrangements for constituting committees are similar to the arrangements that apply to DPPs. A sub-group may set up a committee of its own volition or it may be required to do so by the Belfast DPP. Earlier, I used the example of car crime. The Belfast DPP may wish to examine a cross-cutting issue such as car crime that affects more than one policing district. In that case, the DPP would ask the sub-group to establish a committee to deal with it. The Belfast DPP would need to approve the constitution of any committee set up by the sub-group of its own volition. It would need to approve its membership, the functions to be delegated to it and any directions that the sub-group might choose to give to the committee as to the way in which it carries out its functions.

As the sub-groups will carry out a number of independent functions, we believe that it is appropriate for each one to be designated in its own right for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Hon. Members will note that the latter designation automatically brings sub-groups in their own right within the scope of the statutory equality duties set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The final part of the new schedule deals with transitional arrangements. We believed that it was right to keep disruption to a minimum. I pay tribute to those who came forward to serve on the Belfast DPP. More than 200 people applied in Belfast alone. We propose that, if it believes it necessary in order to create a place for the sub-group chairmen on the main DPP, the council should be able to move one or more political members of the DPP to serve instead on one or more sub-groups.

No equivalent provision is made for independent members because we believe that it would be inappropriate to alter the appointment of members of the public who have applied for appointment to the DPP. However, there is provision to allow the board to consider as potential members of sub-groups individuals who have already been appointed by independent membership of the Belfast DPP. That would obviate the need for those individuals to go through the full application process a second time if, in addition to or instead of their membership of the Belfast DPP, they wanted to serve on a sub-group. Hon. Members will forgive me for going into some detail, hut I felt it necessary because the House has not previously had the opportunity to consider these issues closely.

Before I conclude I want to draw Members' attention to two notable changes to the text as compared with the original that was published for consideration in November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained in speaking to amendments Nos. 34 and 35 that the provisions relating to Belfast will be commenced separately by order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses and considered on the Floor of this House.

New schedule 2(9) provides that, in relation to Belfast districts, before issuing or revising a local policing plan under section 22 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the district commander shall consult the relevant sub-group, in addition to the main DPP, and take account of any views expressed. That is a practical requirement. Having given the sub-groups a role in consulting their district, it would be odd if the district commander were denied their views when it came to the police's drawing up the annual plan for the district. I assure hon. Members that each commander will also be required during the development of the plan to seek the views of the main Belfast DPP. We are not seeking to circumvent that.

David Burnside

Will the Minister outline in her proposals for the four sub-groups the views, to her knowledge, of all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Who has told her that they are in favour, against or neutral?

Jane Kennedy

In the consultation that I took forward in the fall of last year, there were differences of opinion. Very few political parties supported the text that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman's party objected to the proposals. Indeed, concerns were expressed by members of the Policing Board about how they would work. I hope that in some way clarifying our intention in introducing the proposals will reassure those who have concerns.

Mr. Mallon

Will the Minister help me to understand why a commencement order will be required for sub-groups?

Jane Kennedy

That was one of the issues—I think I am being as honest as I can be with the House—that we undertook in response to the Weston Park talks. My hon. Friend's party did not press us on the issue, but Sinn Fein certainly did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I did not believe that there was any doubt about that. That is why the commencement clause is in the Bill. We believe that the sub-groups will work as they are constituted. Having considered the ideas that we are discussing today—notwithstanding the difficulties that may arise in the constitutions of different sub-groups, rather than in their representativeness—I think that our proposals make a lot of sense I have fewer anxieties than other hon. Members may have.

6.15 pm

What is proposed in this group of Government amendments is broadly practical. Having given the subg-roups a role in consulting the DPP, it seems sensible to give the commanders—who will be drawing the district policing plans together and working with the sub-groups and the DPP—the opportunity to consider and take account of their views.

The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) relates to this point. I draw hon. Members' attention to new schedule 2(2). Hon. Members will be aware that section 15 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 provides for a situation in which a district council fails to set up a DPP in accordance with the statutory provisions. We wanted to ensure that there was a similar provision to deal with the situation if Belfast city council failed to set up sub-groups in accordance with the new requirements that we have discussed. As hon. Members will know, when the DPPs were being developed, some local authorities were more enthusiastic than others. However, I did not believe it right that any local authority, if it contained a majority from a party that disagreed with the establishment of a DPP, should be able to block it. The same notion should apply to the sub-groups in Belfast, and the proposed new section 15A seeks to ensure that that happens. It is simply a consequential change that is consistent with the existing provisions. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Carmichael

There is surely a distinction between the situation that the Minister has outlined and the one that exists. There is already a district policing partnership in Belfast, so there is no question of one not being set up. The Government seem to be imposing their will on Belfast city council in relation to the constitution of the sub-groups. There is merit in allowing the council some flexibility. As far as I can see, the council is starting to work well on a cross-community basis. It has a Sinn Fein mayor, which many would have thought an impossibility a few years ago. Why do we not have confidence in the people of Belfast, as a whole, to work together?

Jane Kennedy

There would have been Belfast sub-groups anyway; we are seeking to enhance the role of those sub-groups. It is appropriate that the Belfast DPP and Belfast city council should be required to establish a sub-group in each of the four policing districts in Belfast. It is worth pointing out that the Belfast DPP retains responsibility for ensuring that those sub-groups function properly. If it has concerns about a particular sub-group, it will be for the DPP, in the first instance, to respond to those concerns, perhaps raising them with the Policing Board and Belfast city council.

I apologise for taking quite a little time to explain those points, but we are dealing with new issues and I felt it important to offer them to the House for debate.

Mr. Quentin Davies

Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was one of the most dramatically revealing half hours that we have had in the course of all the debates that I have attended on Northern Ireland issues in the past 18 months. In the first half of the hon. Lady's remarks, with the mixture of charm and mastery of detail that we have come to associate with her, she endeavoured to lull us into believing that all we were dealing with was a purely functional matter; that because of the size of the population of Belfast, the scale of the city and its relation to other cities and other DPPs, it was necessary for practical reasons to divide its DPP into sub-groups. That is completely spurious. We appear to be in the grip of complete unreality.

Then came the dramatic intervention of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I give the hon. Lady full credit for her response; she said that, in all honesty—we know that she is an honest person—she had to concede that the provision was really a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. We, on the Opposition Benches, have known that all along. All that business about the size and scale of Belfast and the functional attractions of splitting up the DPP is complete eyewash, as it always was. It has all been most revealing. The Government publicity machineöthe people who produce all the junk in the explanatory notes, no doubt Mr. Alastair Campbell or someone like that—tells us that the provision relates to purely functional and practical needs, yet the hon. Lady told us, quite directly, the truth. I do not say that she has let the cat out of the bag, as I do not want to get her into trouble. She told us what we all know to be the truth: the whole thing is a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA.

If there had been functional grounds for sub-groups in Belfast with such extensive powers, provision would have been made for them in the Police (Northern Act) 2000 or they would have been provided for unconditionally in the Bill. The reason the proposals have been introduced now is that, once again, the Government have decided to make concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. Everything that I said earlier about DPP membership applies in this case. The Government's tactics are inappropriate and inept; indeed, they are extremely foolish. Sinn Fein-IRA have done nothing to merit our advancing or preparing these new concessions. Whether the concessions are conditional or otherwise, they send a signal that makes sense only if Sinn Fein-IRA had been doing something, too—if they were a reward for good behaviour. If there had been some good behaviour, we could move a few steps forward; yet there has been no good behaviour and we are taking gigantic steps forward. That is most regrettable and, as I said earlier, it is especially regrettable for the peace process—the point on which we should really be focusing.

I want to make two things plain so that there is no doubt in the minds of hon. Members when we take a decision on the new clause and the new schedule. I challenge the hon. Lady to intervene if I say anything that is not 100 per cent. justified by the facts.

First, the effect of introducing the new clause and the new schedule will be to emasculate the DPP in Belfast.

Jane Kennedy

indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but all the powers of the DPP that were set out in the 2000 Act are now included in paragraph 5 of the new schedule as powers for the sub-group. The powers of DPPs under the 2000 Act are to provide views to the district commander … to monitor the performance of the police in carrying out"— various duties—

to make arrangements for obtaining … the views … and … co-operation of the public … to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation". All those powers are in the Act.

Under the heading "District policing partnership sub-groups for Belfast", paragraph five of new schedule 2 states: The functions of each sub-group shall be"; then quotes verbatim from the 2000 Act. The sub-groups will have the same powers and functions as the DPP. They will have to provide views to the district commander … monitor the performance of the police … make arrangements for obtaining … the views of the public … and … the co-operation of the public … to act as a general forum"— and so on. There is no question but that all the substantive powers of the DPP in Belfast will be devolved to the sub-groups. Now those will become the functions and powers of the sub-groups. They will provide views to the district commander, monitor the performance of the police, make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public and their co-operation and act as a general forum, and so on. So there is no question at all but that all the substantive powers—every one of them—of the DPP in Belfast will be devolved to the sub-groups.

The one function or role in life that I can find that remains with the DPP in Belfast is that of making a report to the Policing Board on behalf of Belfast, depending on the reports that it receives from the individual sub-groups, so heaven knows what the DPP will do when it meets once a month. A meeting once a year to consider the reports from the sub-groups, rubber stamp them and pass them on to the Policing Board would be entirely adequate in practice. The DPP in Belfast exists purely for form; the substance has been handed down to the sub-groups. There is no doubt about that at all.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

The Government's proposal is deplorable and should be rejected by the House. If, however, it is not rejected and if the Minister is so confident that emasculation of the kind that my hon. Friend predicts will not transpire, would she not show confidence in her position if she were to agree to the insertion of a sunset clause that would require the Government to return to justify their position in, perhaps, 12 months' time?

Mr. Davies

Indeed, that is an attractive proposal, but in fact I notice that the hon. Lady, who is always very quick to jump to her feet to intervene when she feels that she may be able to correct something that I have said, is staying spectacularly seated and pretending not even to listen to me, reading her papers, because she knows that I have accurately described the situation. Whereas the original sub-groups had only a very modest role—merely providing views was all that they were supposed to do—now, under the Bill, they will take over all the powers of the DPP itself. That is one thing that we have established.

David Burnside

Does the hon. Gentleman, understanding the reality of the political complexion of West Belfast, agree with my description of the sub-group? Does he agree that, if Sinn Fein comes on to that sub-group, it will be used as a platform to undermine, operationally and symbolically, the performance of the police in west Belfast? It will be used for propaganda against policing from within the sub-group, and it will be divisive of the community not only in Belfast, but across Northern Ireland.

Mr. Davies

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is all too right. I started with the small transgression, the less worrying feature of the Government's proposal: the emasculation of the DPPs. We have established that point. I was coming to the second effect of the new clause and new schedule if they are allowed to pass on to the statute book, which is very serious indeed. It has already been trailed very effectively by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), and it is the politicisation of the police in north Belfast.

Such politicisation of the police would very seriously concern hon. Members wherever in the United Kingdom it was threatened, but it is extremely troubling when it is threatened in a place that has been as troubled as Belfast, with the prospect of Sinn Fein achieving a dominance of the sub-groups in west Belfast and an undue influence over policing, exactly as the hon. Gentleman has just said.

When one hears that that concession is now being made in the absence of any progress by Sinn Fein-IRA and in the very week when Sinn Fein-IRA have apparently been revealed, once again, to be in substantial breach of their obligations under the ceasefire, one has to wonder about the rationality of the people who are charged with the peace process. That is more a criticism of the Prime Minister, who takes the lead and the essential, strategic decisions on such matters, and it would not be fair to make that a direct criticism of the hon. Lady herself.

6.30 pm

Let me move on to the way in which these measures would politicise policing. I have already read out the powers that the sub-groups are now taking over, which are considerable: not merely providing an opinion to the commander but monitoring the performance of the police. That will have a considerable influence on policing right away: the reins will be held by the sub-groups to a considerable degree. Under the new schedule, the sub-groups can make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public … and the co-operation of the public", which is quite sinister. With paramilitary organisations such as Sinn Fein-IRA already embedded in parts of Belfast, the community is frightened of them. They have an effective structure of authority in many parts of the city where there has always been great resistance to the writ of the Government or of the police force. As they have a majority—probably an overwhelming majority—on some of these sub-groups, they will be responsible for obtaining the views and co-operation of the public.

Those sub-groups are therefore being given, basically, a mandate to orchestrate and deliver so-called public opinion about policing in Belfast. Those are very considerable powers, which we are handing over to people who, in many cases, will have a criminal record, even though, if the Government's proposals go through, they will not have had a conviction in the past five years. Many of those convictions, however, will relate to terrorist activities, and many of them to murder. Anyone who knows the republican organisation in Belfast knows that it is highly disciplined, very hierarchical and, what is more, people have a lifetime relationship with it. They may have had convictions, been to jail, and been released by the Government in 1998, but they are still part of, and known to be part of, the organisation and the structure by local people. They are now being given a status whereby the police are basically reporting to them.

It is an extraordinary state of affairs that we are creating in part of the United Kingdom. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs if it were part and parcel of the peace process, and, as I said, if it really were part and parcel of the completion of the peace process, and of a comprehensive and definitive settlement involving 100 per cent. decommissioning and disbandment, and the permanent setting aside of the gun and explosive as part of public life in Northern Ireland, we might pay a high price for that. The Opposition would not exclude some major moves that, in principle, would appear to be completely out of the question. In such circumstances, however, we might see our way to taking part in them. To propose these measures at the present time, however, and to bring them halfway or three quarters of the way forward, subject only to a completely inadequate statutory instrument arrangement, cannot possibly be justified. It is a bad day for the peace process and for the prospects of good policing in Northern Ireland.

I want to refer briefly to the conditionality, the commencement order and the statutory instrument procedure that the Government have proposed. The Secretary of State left the Chamber a few moments ago, perhaps having convinced himself that he had offered the House a major concession by saying that any discussion of a statutory instrument to bring these powers into effect would take place on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee. Of course, it is desirable that such important matters should be debated on the Floor of the House; I am not suggesting otherwise. All that we are being offered, however, is a debate and a vote, and we have no chance whatever of going back on the substance of what we are agreeing this evening: no amendments or new clauses will be entertained.

The Government have a vast majority, as we know, and they probably feel that they can put through anything that they want, any day of the week. What we are being offered is a farce. We will be told, "Oh well, no decision has been taken, and you can have your discussion on the Floor of the House." When we have that debate on the Floor of the House, some of us may still find many of the concessions entirely unacceptable. Although we may be able to agree certain moves, that depends on what has happened on the other side. In particular, it depends on what Sinn Fein-IRA have done in the meantime. We will have no chance to look at that again. The package will have been wrapped up with sealing wax on its string. We will not be able to unwrap it and the Government, with their vast majority, will simply decide to dispatch it to Sinn Fein-IRA. That is not satisfactory at all. I do not want to leave any doubt in the minds of all hon. Members or those in another place that the substantive decision is regrettably being taken this evening, although it should not be for all the reasons that I mentioned.

If the measure were rejected this evening, we would send a message to Sinn Fein-IRA. They are incredibly well organised and would consider carefully what had been said to explain such a dramatic change of events. They would understand that no hon. Member had rejected the peace process, but that a peace process must be and, perhaps, can only be two-sided and reciprocal. Each side must make corresponding moves. There is no justification for us to move forward unilaterally or for this House to take a different view on the measures than it did in November. If it was considered reasonable to publish them then and to put them on one side, with a view to returning to them after progress had been made on the peace process, it must be right to do that now.

There has been no progress whatsoever on the peace process since November. The Minister might hope for progress soon, and I have no doubt that she has been hoping for progress for the past five years, but in fact there has been regress for much of the time. There is no conceivable justification for why events in Northern Ireland should change the Government's stance on the measures from that in November. We should leave them exactly as they were: published, and on the table to consider after substantial progress has been made in Northern Ireland. However, for the moment, we should decisively reject them.

Mr. Mallon

It would be unfair to take the Minister to task, because Belfast is a difficult city. I appreciate her problem. Part of it lies in the difficulty of devising a relationship and an organisation that will be capable of the takeover that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) described. That is why it would be unfair to blame the Minister in any way—Belfast just happens to be a very difficult place.

There was a difficult situation in a part of Belfast when I was in office. With all the contacts of Government and all the influence of office, we could not deal with it without actually going to visit the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred: members of paramilitary groupings. I shall go a little further if we are going to be honest: we facilitated meetings of members of the republican movement and loyalist paramilitary groupings to try to resolve the matter. If the devolved Administration in the north of Ireland faced such a problem, will it not also be faced by the present Government in the north of Ireland?

If we are going to debate the matter, let us at least be honest. There are parts of Belfast in which no Government, police service or wing of the security services will be able to deliver what is needed. For that reason alone, there is great merit in the proposal to get people involved in a DPP sub-group. Yes, there are substantial risks, but there are risks in everything that we are doing in the peace or political process, whichever we wish to call it. The reality is that Belfast is a difficult place, and continuing demographic changes have made it even more difficult. There is not going to be the nice pat symmetrical arrangement for DPPs that there will be in most other places in the north of Ireland. Hence the difficulty in arriving at proposals that will have substantial built-in protection against takeovers by any paramilitary grouping.

I fully accept that this is, as the Minister would readily admit, a difficult one to explain. However, if we are trying to respond to needs, we must realise that they go beyond the semantics of our self-righteousness, as we speak from the safety of the green Benches.

David Burnside

Is not the demographic shape of Belfast—the fact that west Belfast is Catholic and nationalist-and—the demographic make-up of the greater city of Belfast, with the split between Protestant and Catholic, and Unionist and nationalist communities, the strongest argument for a unitary policing institution covering the whole city? Do not the demography and the breakdown of the community argue for one such institution rather than four?

Mr. Mallon

I am not arguing for either. May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I support the Government on this because I know from experience that there must be involvement on the ground by people who were members of paramilitary groupings if we are to get stability in places like Belfast? That may not be what people want to hear or face up to, but it is the reality. I repeat, I have personal experience of not being able to do anything about a security situation in part of Belfast. That situation was flashed across the world to the discredit of the whole of the north of Ireland, and the only recourse was to enlist the help of both loyalist and republican paramilitaries.

If we start from that basis, some of our attitudes may change a little. It is easy to feel self-righteous here, in the comfort of our own situation. It would not have been easy to be self-righteous in parts of east or north Belfast last year, and those who would put their own sense of self-righteousness before the safety of people in those areas should think again. I know that that is not what is being suggested, but I am trying to explain that experience tells us that there is a difficult problem that is not going to be resolved easily. There is not going to be any nice, neat, little piece of legislation that will achieve that in relation to either DPPs or sub-groups.

Mr. Dodds

From what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it appears that he is advocating the membership by paramilitaries of the sub-groups in Belfast, if not DPPs more widely. Will it not reinforce the fears of many ordinary people who have lived for years under the heel of those paramilitaries in parts of Belfast if they hear an hon. Member saying that it would be a good thing for paramilitaries to serve on a body that is supposed to monitor and oversee the functions of the police?

6.45 pm

Mr. Mallon

In a contradictory way, yes. I want to see those who were involved in paramilitary violence not just on sub-groups, but on DPPs and policing boards. If we do not work towards that, and if we cannot arrange and deliver that in the coming period, we will have a gaping hole in the middle of what we are trying to achieve in the political process. Let us take it a step further, and let us see how harsh the questions are that we have to answer.

There will be proposals, whenever they come, before the House in relation to the devolution of powers and responsibility for policing and justice. They will come before the House. They will be brought forward by a Government, and by and large it is those sitting in the Chamber tonight who will vote on them. What that means, in essence, is that the positions within the devolved Executive and the devolved arrangements are open to those who have paramilitary backgrounds, both loyalist and republican. It is not a nice, easy world that we live in, and there is no nice, easy, pat answer that the Minister or anybody else can give us on the matter tonight.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The hon. Gentleman is correct. We are at stage 1 on the ground, but there are stages 2 and 3 to come. Today's papers tell us what the IRA is. Mr. Adams and his friend say that they will soon be in charge of the courts and the police in the devolved Government—that is right on the front of the newspapers—and they congratulate the Prime Minister. They have every confidence that even though there is a war on in Iraq, he will see them through.

Mr. Mallon

I cannot speak, nor would I purport to speak, on behalf of the Prime Minister, but I know that when matters start to resolve themselves, the issue will come to the Floor of the House, just as it has tonight. There will be no easy way of dealing with it then, any more than there is an easy way of dealing with it tonight. I want to focus on the need that exists in a place like Belfast, but if west Belfast were not west Belfast, I wonder whether there would be the same reaction to the proposal.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked me a question. I ask him to think about what made west Belfast demographically, physically and politically. It might be a question worth asking. If the answer to it is honestly faced, we may start together to face the problems that we have. Yes, there will be people with paramilitary backgrounds sitting on the sub-groups and on the DPPs. There will be people from republican paramilitary groups and people from loyalist paramilitary groupings sitting on those organisations. There will be the colleagues of those in the IRA who killed people in the north of Ireland, and there will be the colleagues of those whom we have seen operating in loyalist parts of Belfast sitting on those groupings.

The answer is not going to lie there, however; it will lie in the courage of people generally in Belfast, who will themselves impose their requirements. There are brave people in the north of Ireland who will not let themselves be pushed about, whether in west Belfast or anywhere else, as is being suggested. That is where the future lies, but let us not fool ourselves that there is some easy way around the situation or that it can be sanitised so as to become entirely different. We cannot do that and the more we try to do so, the more our thinking becomes counterproductive.

Mr. Trimble

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree that there is no easy way of dealing with these matters, but his exposition of the situation as he saw it might have been helped if he had been clearer about using the past tense in referring to people with various backgrounds. The situations that are envisaged will come about only if those with paramilitary backgrounds have clearly given up their activities, if the paramilitaries are no more, if we are operating in a context in which that is clearly in the past and if we have the safeguard of people who will monitor and apply remedies and sanctions should that become necessary.

Mr. Mallon

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Of course, that is the type of world in which we would like to live and which we want. Things would be a lot easier in such a world, but we have yet to get there. We must do so on the basis of a reality that he recognises. I am glad that he recognises it and I praise him for doing so. It is much too easy for all of us to hide behind our own self-righteousness at times, for want of a better word. It is much more difficult to stare reality in the face and see how we can deal with it.

It is for that reason that I shall support the Government new clause. I shall do so not because I think it a work of art—I do not—nor because any work of art is available in dealing with the problem, but because it is an honest attempt to deal with that problem, in a very difficult city, in a way that is inclusive and that holds out a prospect, hope and confidence that, somehow or other, with people on the ground working together, an Administration of Northern Ireland working with them and the proposed structures in between, we can change the face of Belfast and other places.

It is much too easy to say that the difficulties are too great, that there are nasty people out there and that we do not want to have much to do with them. It is the reality for us as politicians and legislators that we must recognise the difficulties and assume the type of courage that is needed to try to deal with them. It is for that reason, not because the new clause is a legislative gem, but because it is an honest way of dealing with the issue, that I shall support the Government on this issue.

Mr. Trimble

Time is getting on and we want to get on to the next group of amendments, so I shall try to confine my comments to a few salient points.

The Minister was remarkably frank and I was glad that one word was absent from her contribution and indeed those of some other hon. Members—the word "Patten". What we are dealing with tonight has no sanction at all in the Patten report. The report referred to four sub-groups in Belfast, but nowhere did it say that those four groups should exercise the entire functions of the district policing partnership. The original provisions in the 2000 Act were a reasonable interpretation of the half sentence in the Patten report that dealt with that issue. The amendments clothe the sub-groups with all the essential functions of district policing partnerships and thereby marginalise the DPP. That has no warrant in Patten. It should go on record that the Government are introducing the new clause at the insistence of Sinn Fein, that they are supported by the SDLP, which claims that it wants the Patten report to be fully implemented, and that there is no such provision in Patten. The new clause is not consistent with Patten. That is the first key point.

The second main point is balkanisation. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) had to leave the Chamber, but I was greatly disappointed by his contribution on the new clause. On other matters, he and his party are great advocates of partnership, which runs through the agreement and the legislation that the Government have introduced in the past few years. However, the Government have abandoned partnership on the subject of our discussion, and that is worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) was right to say that if we want a partnership-based approach in Belfast, there should be a single DPP for the city. It should not be split into four groups.

We have mainly discussed west Belfast, but the same problem will arise in east Belfast, where the demography is overwhelmingly Protestant and Unionist. In a way, west Belfast and east Belfast are mirror images. There should be no "Bantustanisation" of the city. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. They have introduced the new clause purely on Sinn Fein's insistence, because that party wants to dominate the sub-group in west Belfast and thereby control policing in the area. The Government have gone out of their way to assist them through designing the sub-group. The composition provides that the independent members must be representative of the sub-group area. That means that in west Belfast, the independent members will be overwhelmingly nationalist and republican and in east Belfast, overwhelmingly Unionist. The political appointees have to be balanced only on the council as a whole. That opens the door to domination of west Belfast by people from one side of the House and that of east Belfast by those from the other.

The safeguard to which the Minister referred is no safeguard. It applies only in so far as it is practicable. If the Minister considers it, she will realise that there are ways in which Sinn Fein could make matters impracticable—for example, by making life miserable for people. As has been said, it would be a chairmanship from hell for a Unionist in west Belfast, but I do not believe that the converse would be true in east Belfast. A value judgment must be made.

I have outlined the salient points. The new clause is not good in principle. It departs from the spirit of the agreement and the arrangements that the Government support. That has been done at Sinn Fein's insistence to advance its ulterior purpose. I would not be surprised if the Government were back here in a year or two to unscramble the mess that they are creating now.

Mr. Carmichael

I, too, shall try to be brief, but as the term is understood in Upper Bann rather than in Newry.

I am profoundly unhappy and ill at ease with new clause 14. However, I shall not vote against it; the Liberal Democrats will abstain for two reasons. First, we accept that its genesis is in Patten, although I accept that the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have a great deal of force. Secondly, I am persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the practicalities. I hope that the provision will wither on the vine in time. If the normalisation that we keep discussing means anything, Belfast will eventually have a single district policing partnership. It is always best to go with the natural community, which is Belfast in the case that we are considering. One encounters immense difficulties when one starts drawing lines to divvy up a natural community.

7 pm

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Minister, as I think she knows. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said in his typically understated way, however, her speech was very revealing. I ask her to reflect on one of her sentences in particular, of which I took note, which was, "I think I'm being as honest as I can be with the House". I appreciate that it is not always easy for politicians to be honest, but we are all hon. and right hon. Members in the House. The Minister went on to say, quite fairly, that this measure was a concession that was being given to Sinn Fein. I have to say that that adds further to my unease. What is in it for Sinn Fein? It is apparent from our discussions about the situation in west Belfast exactly what is in it for them.

That goes back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about the balkanisation of Belfast. That was an appropriate term in many ways. I see this as a measure that will ultimately lead to the entrenchment of tribalism, instead of getting away from the situation that has pertained in the past. In an earlier intervention on the Minister, I referred to Belfast city council. It is apparent that people are able to work well together there. Why should it be different for the district policing partnership?

I am afraid that I simply do not understand the logic of the Government's position. I can see that there would be an operational benefit for the police to have a divisional structure—that is a given. I do not understand, however, why an entirely pragmatic operational matter should be translated into a much wider aspect of policy, which is properly the reserve of the district policing partnership. They have very different functions. We should be looking for balanced, normal treatment of all the communities in Belfast, and I would ultimately like to see a Belfast-wide board forming the basis for that. I do not understand the logic of having a mechanism for taking consultation and responsibility for policing closer to the community while establishing another artificial mechanism that would result in the DPP not being perfectly—or even substantially—representative. As things stand, the different divisions are not cross-community.

I am impressed with the Conservative amendment. There would be a great deal of benefit in putting some measure of control into the hands of Belfast city council. If, between now and the Bill going to the other place, the Government were able to find a means of achieving that end, I would be minded to recommend these measures rather more warmly to my colleagues in the other place than I am tonight.

Mr. Dodds

I have listened to the Minister attempting to explain how the sub-groups are going to be created, how the chairmen and vice-chairmen are going to be appointed, and how the matrix will be devised to ensure that it all complies with the legal requirements. As a member of Belfast city council—I declare that interest —I have enormous sympathy with the official who is going to have to sit down and work all this out. Towards the end of her speech, the Minister said that she thought that these were very practical proposals, but I have not heard more impractical proposals about setting up bodies such as these in a very long time. It is clear that there is no real logic behind them; they have a political purpose. The Minister let the cat out of the bag by saying that she was being as honest as she could be. In so doing, she admitted that Sinn Fein pushed for the proposals at Weston Park. The SDLP did not push so much, but it certainly supported them.

The fact is that when the proposals were published as part of a text for consideration back in November, my party made it clear that we would oppose them. Other parties made that clear as well, and members of the Policing Board made their position fairly clear. I had the opportunity to speak to members of the Belfast DPP at a meeting in my constituency only last Thursday night, and I have to tell the Minister that they think that the idea of setting up four sub-groups is, to put it mildly, not a sensible or practical way forward. They are worried about the dissipation of energy and focus that the Belfast policing partnership would otherwise have.

Apart from Sinn Fein—the SDLP has gone along with the proposals—who else in Northern Ireland believes them to he either sensible or practical? I cannot understand why the Minister and the Government are not prepared, on that particular issue, to say, "Let the Belfast DPP get up and running for a while to see what it thinks, or let the city council have the final say."

Although the DPP has just been created—it has had only one meeting thus far, I think—here we have the Government immediately stepping in to introduce legislation making it mandatory for the council to set up the sub-groups, which will, more or less, have the powers of DPPs. There is no sense whatever in that. It runs counter to every principle that one would imagine the Government wanting to apply in relation to consultation and taking on board the views of those who have gone through the process of applying and being appointed to the Belfast DPP.

The Minister touched on some Belfast DPP members having to serve on one or perhaps two sub-groups, in addition to being members of the full partnership. Clearly, an onerous burden will be placed on those members, given that they must also attend many community and other meetings throughout the year. Frankly, it will be an onerous task for anyone to undertake that range of duties and carry them out satisfactorily, especially councillors, who have other duties to undertake and other meetings to attend.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) talked about the difficult situation in Belfast. Of course, we all recognise that there are difficulties in the city. Representing Belfast, North, I know that better than most. I acknowledge some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but I do not agree that breaking down the responsibility for overseeing and monitoring policing into four sub-groups is the way to tackle those difficulties. They would be better managed and less exacerbated by keeping things in an overall, city-wide DPP with a balance across council representation and across independent members, rather than breaking them down into local areas.

Clearly, in west Belfast and, on the other side, in east Belfast, one view will be preponderant. Take my area, north Belfast: the proposals could be a recipe for some pretty stormy meetings, to put it mildly.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Will he accept it from south Belfast and other parts of the city that one board for Belfast is ideal? When we raise issues of policing in south Belfast, we are told, "We do not have the manpower because they are all up in north Belfast."

Mr. Dodds

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he is quite right. The same is said to me frequently about the policing resources that are required—unfortunately in some circumstances—to deal with the situation on the ground. Thankfully, in recent times there have not been the same demands.

The hon. Gentleman is right, in that while an argument can be advanced in favour of local accountability, district commanders in Belfast—I often talk to the one in north Belfast—tend to say that the issues involved are not for them, but for the Assistant Chief Constable. If I, as an elected representative, want more resources or want to change policing arrangements, I would do better to consult those whose control relates to the city of Belfast, rather than concentrating on the area in which I have an interest. The same must apply to other Members.

The fact remains that had not Sinn Fein wanted to chalk up another success in terms of their control, or their wish to be seen to be in control, of the west Belfast sub-group, there would have been no question of the proposals that we are discussing.

Limbit Öpik

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but does he accept that for some of us the issue is not so much the possibility of Sinn Fein's seeing this as a victory as the sheer complexity of the Government's proposals? If this were a good idea it would not matter for whom it was intended, but it looks to me like the administrative nightmare that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Mr. Dodds

I have already mentioned the administrative nightmare caused by the practical complexities of this set-up. It cannot have been based on any sound functional argument; it must have been proposed for political reasons.

Mr. Quentin Davies

Is not one of the great advantages of a real, effective Belfast-wide DPP the fact that it would force people from different communities to work together? If they did not, the whole process would be paralysed. Such a DPP would encourage closer, more effective working relationships between communities. The division and fragmentation proposed by the Government, however, are bound to make people feel that, where they have a preponderant majority, they have their own fiefdom—and does not the requirement for representatives of the community in the sub-group's police district to reflect the predominant political group reinforce that unfortunate tendency?

Mr. Dodds

I agree. It would obviously be easier for people to work together in a Belfast-wide group because there will be an overall balance that would not exist in the sub-groups.

Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Gentleman mentioned the discrepancy in new schedule 3A between the provisions relating to political members and those relating to independent members. That makes it impossible in, for example, west Belfast for Sinn Fein and their supporters not to have a massive majority in the sub-group. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule 3A says that it should be ensured that the political members of all the sub-groups, taken together, reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council". Requiring each sub-group to reflect that balance would provide a wider balance of political representation. Paragraph 4 (2), in contrast, states: In appointing independent members of a sub-group the Board shall so far as practicable secure that the members of the sub-group … are representative of the community in the sub-group's police district. In that instance, the requirement applies to only one sub-group.

An inevitable and inexorable outcome of the Government's proposals will be sub-groups—certainly that in west Belfast—with a massive preponderance of republican members. That certainly seems to be the intention of the Bill—and the Minister has said that the reason for it, subject to a commencement order, is that it was one of Sinn Fein's demands at Weston Park.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Does my hon. Friend agree that because of the community groups from which most of these independents are drawn, these sub-groups are controlled by paramilitaries—in both Protestant and Roman Catholic areas? So although such people may not be elected members of a political party, they certainly have a political agenda.

Mr. Dodds

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is true that in certain areas and among a certain type of community, some groups include people with paramilitary backgrounds. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh recognised the situation clearly, and spoke in terms that will reinforce the opposition expressed by many of us on these Benches, and by people in Northern Ireland at large. What will happen if these boards and sub-groups are set up in the way that is planned? The hon. Gentleman pointed out that they will consist of members of loyalist and republican paramilitary organisations. That will send a real shiver of fear down the spines of many decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland who, having witnessed the emasculation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and police numbers decline continuously, are now being told that members of paramilitary organisations will be in charge of monitoring the police and calling them to account. What could be a clearer way of saying to the people of Northern Ireland that the sub-group arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman referred is precisely the road that we should not go down? What he said reflects the reality.

7.15 pm

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that in the new situation, such things will be in the past and people will have changed, but the reality is that such people could be members of these sub-groups within a very short time. We will have to take their word for it that they have changed. We should remember that these same people were in the Government of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein were actually in the Government of Northern Ireland—never mind in the policing partnerships. Yet they were quite prepared to continue importing arms, racketeering, intimidating, carrying out murders, and organising spy-rings at the very heart of government. So how are we supposed suddenly to accept Sinn Fein on the policing partnerships, and to accept that then, everything will be all right, as the result of so-called acts of completion, which, as we know, will amount to more statements and more stunts from the IRA?

I have to say that I find very naïve the Minister's view that if Sinn Fein members join the Policing Board and the policing partnerships, there will be a completely different attitude, and in the community at large there will be no more attacks on the police, and so forth. As I have said, Sinn Fein's joining the Government of Northern Ireland did not prevent its members from trying to undermine the Government from within, or from importing the materiel of terrorist armoury in order to carry out physical attacks on property and lives, and on the people of Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board, his DUP colleagues who are currently members of it will actually leave?

Mr. Dodds

Of course, that is exactly the position and policy of the hon. Lady's party, although she may not agree with it and I should be interested to hear her views. As things stand, if Sinn Fein join the Policing Board and the Ulster Unionist party stands by its policy as set out in a recent UUP council meeting, there will be no Unionists on the Policing Board. One of the paradoxes of this situation is that although so much has been done to bring Sinn Fein-IRA on to the Policing Board and on to district policing partnerships, nothing has been done to take account of the fact that in so doing, the current position could be wrecked. At the moment, according to the Minister and others, there is a good working relationship on the Policing Board, and from what we can tell thus far, a good start has been made to many of the DPPs in local areas.

I end by taking this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of community police liaison committees in Belfast. I attended one such meeting just last week, and earlier this week I was able to bring a delegation from one of the CPLCs in my constituency to meet the Minister. It was a productive and useful meeting.

Over the past three decades, those people have carried out their work dutifully despite intimidation. They have done enormous work in their attempts to create better conditions for local people and the police. They have built good relations between their communities and the police, often at great personal risk to themselves. We should not forget their contribution, which deserves our congratulations. I hope that, in the new environment, there will be a continuing role for CPLCs in Belfast and throughout the Province.

Finally, it seems that former senior and distinguished members of the police—of the RUC and the PSNI—are unable to gain membership of DPPs in Belfast and elsewhere. They are turned down and not considered suitable for appointment, but it appears from today's debate that the Government consider paramilitaries and people with serious convictions—even those convicted of murder—to be more than suitable. If the Bill is passed, the Minister will be opening the gates to allowing that sort of representation on policing boards, and that will go down very badly throughout Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy

Belfast sub-groups were always going to be established. The Bill extends their powers, but section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2000 requires the council to set them up. The Belfast DPP has met twice already. It has made recommendations and begun to consider the work of the sub-groups. We are not debating a choice between a single DPP with no sub-groups, and a DPP with sub-groups. That is not what we are considering today.

Various hon. Members have contributed to the debate, including the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They questioned the politicisation of policing that they fear may take place, and the word "balkanisation" was used several times.

The sub-groups in west Belfast and east Belfast will have at least one representative from each of the four largest political parties on the council. Based on the current electoral strength, that means that there would be at least two unionists. That is not ideal, and neither is it a whole answer to the concerns that have been expressed. However, it means that there will be representation, from across the Belfast community, on each of the sub-groups. I do not accept that that will necessarily politicise policing. It will not, if the sub-group members take their responsibilities seriously.

The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) charges me with naivety when I talk about the transformation of the atmosphere in which the police in Northern Ireland would find themselves if Sinn Fein were to support the new arrangements for policing—as everyone is demanding and requiring it to do. I do not believe that it is naïve to expect republicans to encourage young men and women from their communities to embrace policing as a career. That is something that we should demand from the republican movement. I also believe that we should demand that members of the republican movement encourage their communities to co-operate with police investigations into criminal activity in republican neighbourhoods. It is not naïve to hope that that will happen. We should demand and expect that those changes come about.

On whether the measure would emasculate the DPP in Belfast, that partnership will retain responsibility for oversight of the sub-groups' work. Moreover, it will retain an important strategic city-wide role that cannot be undermined. This creates the right balance between a strategic overview of the largest local council area in Northern Ireland and proper attention to local details within each operational police district.

I draw the House's attention to the real changes that have taken place between the texts as they were first published for our consideration and the form in which they appear before us today. Each new clause contains the guarantee that this will not come into force unless it is by order made by the Secretary of State, and we have talked about the arrangements that we will make in terms of the procedures of this House in order to enable that to happen. That is a significant new addition to the texts, and it underpins our insistence that none of the changes will take place unless and until we consider them in the context of the acts of completion that we are all looking, and expecting, to see.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 126.

Division No.141]	[7:26 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Casale, Roger
Ainger, Nick	Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Challen, Colin
Alexander, Douglas	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Allen, Graham	Clapham, Michael
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)	Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)
	Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary
Atherton, Ms Candy	Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)
Atkins, Charlotte	Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)
Austin, John
Bailey, Adrian	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Baird, Vera	Coaker, Vernon
Barron, rh Kevin	Coffey, Ms Ann
Battle, John	Coleman, Iain
Begg, Miss Anne	Connarty, Michael
Berry, Roger	Cooper, Yvette
Blackman, Liz	Corbyn, Jeremy
Blears, Ms Hazel	Corston, Jean
Blizzard, Bob	Cousins, Jim
Borrow, David	Cranston, Ross
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)	Crausby, David
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Cruddas, Jon
Bradshaw Ben	Cryer, Ann (Keighley)
Brennan, Kevin	Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)
	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)	Davidson, Ian
	Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Bryant, Chris	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Burden, Richard	Davis, rh Terry (B ham Hodge H)
Burgon, Colin	Dawson, Hilton
Burnham, Andy	Dean, Mrs Janet
Burstow, Paul	Dhanda, Parmjit
Byers, rh Stephen	Dismore, Andrew
Caborn, rh Richard	Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Cairns, David	Dobson, rh Frank
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Donohoe, Brian H.
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Doran, Frank

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)
Drew, David (Stroud)
Drown, Ms Julia	Knight Jim (S Dorset)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Edwards, Huw	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Efford, Clive	Lazarowicz, Mark
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Lepper, David
Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)	Leslie, Christopher
Etherington, Bill	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ewing, Annabelle	Liddell, rh Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark	Linton, Martin
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)
Flint, Caroline	Luke, Iain (Dundee E)
Flynn, Paul (Newport W)	Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)
Follett, Barbara	McAvoy, Thomas
Foster, rh Derek	McCabe, Stephen
Foster, Michael (Worcester)	McCafferty, Chris
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)	McCartney, rh Ian
	McDonagh, Siobhain
George, Andrew (St. Ives)	MacDonald, Calum
George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)	McDonnell, John
Gerrard, Neil	MacDougall, John
Gilroy, Linda	McFall, John
Godsiff, Roger	McIsaac, Shona
Goggins, Paul	McKechin, Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McKenna, Rosemary
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McNamara, Kevin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McNulty, Tony
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	MacShane, Denis
Hamilton, David (Midlothian)	McWalter, Tony
Hanson, David	McWilliam, John
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)	Mallaber, Judy
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)	Mallon, Seamus
Healey, John	Mann, John (Bassetlaw)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hendrick, Mark	Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)
Hepburn, Stephen
Heppell, John	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hesford, Stephen	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Heyes, David	Martlew, Eric
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Meale, Alan (Mansfield)
Hinchliffe, David	Merron, Gillian
Hodge, Margaret	Miliband, David
Hope, Phil (Corby)	Miller, Andrew
Hopkins, Kelvin	Moffatt, Laura
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)	Moonie, Dr. Lewis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)	Morgan, Julie
	Morley, Elliot
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)	Morris, rh Estelle
	Mountford, Kali
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Mudie, George
Hurst, Alan (Braintree)	Mullin, Chris
Hutton, rh John	Munn, Ms Meg
Iddon, Dr. Brian	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Illsley, Eric	Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)	Naysmith, Dr. Doug
	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Olner, Bill
Jamieson, David	O'Neill, Martin
Jenkins, Brian	Organ, Diana
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)	Owen, Albert
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)	Palmer, Dr. Nick
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pickthall, Colin
Kaufman, rh Gerald	Pike, Peter (Burnley)
Keeble, Ms Sally	Plaskitt, James
Keen, Alan (Feltham)	Pollard, Kerry
Keen, Ann (Brentford)	Pond, Chris (Gravesham)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)
Kidney, David	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kilfoyle, Peter
King, Andy (Rugby)	Prescott, rh John

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)	Stinchcombe, Paul
	Stoate, Dr. Howard
Primarolo, rh Dawn	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Prosser, Gwyn	Tami, Mark (Alyn)
Purchase, Ken	Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)
Purnell, James	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Quin, rh Joyce	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Quinn, Lawrie	Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)
Raynsford, rh Nick	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Reed, Andy (Loughborough)	Tipping, Paddy
Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)	Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)
	Trickett, Jon
Robertson, ,John (Glasgow Anniesland)	Truswell, Paul
	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)
Rooney, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Roy, Frank (Motherwell)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Ruarie, Chris	Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)
Ruddock, Joan	Vis, Dr. Rudi
Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)	Walley, Ms Joan
Salmond, Alex	Ward, Claire
Salter, Martin	Wareing, Robert N.
Sarwar, Mohammad	Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Savidge, Malcolm	Watts, David
Sawford, Phil	Weir, Michael
Sedgemore. Brian	White, Brian
Shaw, Jonathan	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Sheridan, Jim	Wicks, Malcolm
Shipley, Ms Debra	Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)
Simon, Siôon (B'ham Erdington)	Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Singh, Marsha	Winnick, David
Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)	Wishart, Pete
	Wood, Mike (Batley)
Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Woodward, Shaun
	Woolas, Phil
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)
Soley, Clive
Southworth, Helen	Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Speller, rh John
Squire, Rachel	Wright, David (Telford)
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Steinberg, Gerry
Stevenson, George	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)	Mr. Ivor Caplin and
	Dan Norris
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Djanogly, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Dodds, Nigel
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Donaldson, Jeffrey M.
Bacon, Richard	Duncan, Alan (Rutland)
Barker, Gregory	Duncan, Peter (Galloway)
Baron, John (Billericay)	Fabricant, Michael
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)	Fallon, Michael
Bellingham, Henry	Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)
Boswell, Tim
Brady, Graham	Flight Howard
Brazier, Julian	Flook, Adrian
Browning, Mrs Angela	Forth, rh Eric
Burns, Simon	Fox, Dr. Liam
Burnside, David	George, Andrew (St. Ives)
Burstow, Paul	Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)
Cameron, David	Gillen, Mrs Cheryl
Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)	Gray, James (N Wilts)
Cash, William	Grayling, Chris
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Green, Damian (Ashford)
	Greenway, John
Chope, Christopher	Grieve, Dominic
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Gummer, rh John
Collins, Tim	Hague, rh William
Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)	Hammond, Philip
	Hawkins, Nick
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)	Hayes, John (S Holland)
	Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Hendry, Charles	Pickles, Eric
Hermon, Lady	Prisk, Mark (Hertford)
Hoban, Mark (Fareham)	Robathan, Andrew
Hogg, rh Douglas	Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Horam, John (Orpington)
Hunter, Andrew	Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)
Jack, rh Michael	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Jenkin, Bernard	Roe, Mrs Marion
Johnson, Boris (Henley)	Rosindell, Andrew
Key, Robert (Salisbury)	Ruffley, David
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Sayeed, Jonathan
Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)	Selous, Andrew
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian
Lansley, Andrew	Shepherd, Richard
Laws, David (Yeovil)	Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)
Leigh, Edward	Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)
Letwin, rh Oliver	Soames, Nicholas
Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Liddell-Grainger, Ian	Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Lidington, David	Spring, Richard
Lilley, rh Peter	Swayne, Desmond
Loughton, Tim	Swire, Hugo (E Devon)
Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)	Syms, Robert
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mackay, rh Andrew	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Maclean, rh David	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Maims, Humfrey	Tredinnick, David
Maples, John	Trimble, rh David
Mates, Michael	Tyrie, Andrew
Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian	Watkinson, Angela
Mercer, Patrick	Whittingdale, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)	Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
	Wiggin, Bill
Murrison, Dr. Andrew	Willetts, David
Norman, Archie	Wilshire, David
Osborne, George (Tatton)	Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Ottaway, Richard	Young, rh Sir George
Page, Richard
Paice, James	Tellers for the Noes:
Paisley, Rev. Ian	Mr. Laurence Robertson and
Paterson, Owen	Mr. Mark Francois

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.