ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

HL Deb 08 November 2000 vol 618 cc1617-76

(" .—(1) The Policing Board shall—

1. (a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and
2. (b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.

(2) The Board may delegate to the Chief Constable, or another body approved by the Secretary of State, responsibility for the functions under subsection (1).

(3) The statement of accounts shall contain such information and shall be in such a form as the Secretary of State may determine.

(4) The Chief Constable or any other body to whom power is delegated under subsection (2), shall submit the statement of accounts to the Board within such period after the end of the financial year to which they relate as the Board may determine.

(5) The Board shall send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such further period as the Secretary of State may determine.

(6) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

1. (a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received by him under this section; and
2. (b) lay copies of the statement of accounts and of his report before each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 stands in my name and those of other noble Lords. I raised this issue in Committee, but it is such an important matter that I feel I must bring it to your Lordships' attention again.

My concern is to ensure that transparency and accountability exist in relation to police expenditure. The Government said that Patten was critical of the existing financial arrangements. Patten was critical—and rightly so—of the authority's role in supplying services directly to the RUC. However, that all changed under the 1998 Act. Since then, the role of the police authority has been the same as that of police authorities in England and Wales.

Under the Government's proposals, the police budget will pass through the police board. However, it seems that the board will not have overall financial responsibility. I should welcome the Government's assurance that under the new arrangements there will be a code of financial management which is as robust as the code which is currently in place. In particular, will the new code recognise, as Patten recommended in paragraph 6.46, the importance of the board having a strong internal audit department? That will be essential if the board is to fulfil a proper scrutiny role in ensuring that money is properly spent and that the force is making the most efficient and effective use of resources.

However, if, as the Government propose, the Chief Constable is responsible for the preparation of accounts, he will surely need his own internal audit function. Will that not lead to duplication? Is that really a good use of public funds?

In Committee, I asked who would enter into contracts, given that the Chief Constable is not a corporate body. If it is to be the policing board—I am not sure what else it could be—should not the board be accountable for that expenditure?

I am convinced that we all want to achieve the same end: to give the Chief Constable responsibility for day-to-day financial management and for the hoard to have a strategic role and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the use of those resources. But if the board is to exercise that important oversight, then, to my mind, it must have responsibility for accounts, along with the Chief Constable, as Patten recommended in paragraph 6.47. I beg to move.

8 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, Amendment No. 12 has been debated before in Committee. Clause 12 addresses the important but detailed issues of police accounting and audit arrangements. We are extremely grateful for the assistance that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has provided to us in discussing the detail of those important arrangements.

Amendment No. 12 requires the board, as the noble Baroness very fairly said, rather than the Chief Constable, to keep proper accounts and records but enables the board to delegate its functions if it chooses to do so. That would continue the present position, whereby the policing board's chief executive is the accounting officer for the police grant as well as the authority's own grant which Patten said should be changed in his 43rd recommendation.

The Government introduced the change recommended by Patten to require the Chief Constable to sign off the accounts in respect of the money he receives from the board. The Government support Patten's recommendation because it contributes to clarifying the role of the Chief Constable as the manager of the police service and the board as regulator.

Clause 12 still requires the Chief Constable to submit his accounts to the board (not the Secretary of State) and Clause 12(2) makes it clear that the function is being exercised by the Chief Constable on behalf of the board. The board is not circumvented; its financial accountability role is not diminished; and it can still scrutinise the police accounts to a level it considers appropriate to discharge its duties. I assure the noble Baroness that there will be a code of financial management as robust as the present one. I assure her also that the Government intend the board to have a strong internal audit role. Indeed, the best value provisions of the Bill will enhance the board's ability to assess whether police expenditure is being made effectively, efficiently and economically.

The board does not need to do the actual detailed record-keeping to exercise its role of financial accountability in respect of the police. The Chief Constable, under Clause 10, will have to submit estimates of police expenditure to the board for its approval. The money, under Clause 9, goes to the board to distribute to the Chief Constable and it will exercise detailed financial controls in doing so as the Police Authority for Northern Ireland does at present. That is not an arrangement which leaves the board without power. On the contrary it gives it control, which is one of the critical issues.

I would also quote the Chief Constable's useful comments in response to Patten's Recommendation 43 which were as follows: No objection, although this recommendation seems to be on the basis that the Commission regards such an arrangement as improving visible accountability. Under current arrangements the Chief Constable already formally signs off final police accounts. These are then consolidated with the Police Authority accounts and signed off by the Chief Executive, as the sub-accounting officer. As the police budget will continue to be delivered through the Police Board and this is the body to whom the Chief Constable is primarily financially accountable, no change is anticipated in the process whereby end of year accounts are submitted through the Board. It is accepted that the proposed arrangements introduce a formal process, through which the Chief Constable might be called before the Public Accounts Committee, although he undoubtedly could be so called under present arrangements". Noble Lords will see from that response that the Chief Constable does not believe that his financial accountability to the board is diminished by this change.

In a moment, I shall deal with the Chief Constable contracting out, or who contracts, which is a question that I must answer in the course of my remarks.

That change, albeit a small one, is part of the new beginning recommended by Patten. We must move forward and not simply stick to current arrangements because that is the way that things have always been done.

As to who will enter into contracts with the Chief Constable, the board will sign contracts for the police as the Police Authority for Northern Ireland does at present.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising those issues and, as I said before, for the genuine assistance which she has given, which we have found very helpful. I hope that she will read the detailed response that I have given in relation to this amendment and that, in the mean time, she will withdraw it.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I shall indeed read with great care the response that he has given. It goes some way towards making sure that the code will be as robust as the present one—he has reassured me on that point—and that there will be an internal audit role for the policing board.

I shall read what the noble and learned Lord said with great care. I thank him for his very kind remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 [Default of council]:

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh moved Amendment No. 13: Clause 15, page 8, line 8, leave out ("section 14(1)") and insert ("any part of Part III of this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 20. Those all concern the district councils and the district policing partnerships. They have a single purpose; namely, to ensure that the councils and the district policing partnerships carry out what they are intended to do and, if they fail to do so, that there is some recourse. In its present form, the Bill does not achieve that to the extent necessary.

Amendment No. 13 is designed to strengthen Clause 15. As it stands, the Secretary of State can compel a district council to rectify a default only if that council has failed to comply with the provisions of Clause 14(1) or Schedule 3. Our amendment seeks to change that.

Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 20 relate to Clause 16 which is concerned with the general functions of the district policing partnerships. Amendment No. 14 is based largely on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I believe that it is positive to have the district policing partnerships obligated to formulate a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder. Surely it is important that that should be done.

Like Amendment No. 14, Amendment No. 16 is drawn from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, applicable in England and Wales. What objections does the Minister have to increasing the role of district policing partnerships in that positive manner?

Amendment No. 15 is a consequence of my objection to policing partnerships in the future acquiring a budget to enlist private security firms for policing functions. That should not happen.

Amendment No. 20 relates to Clause 18 and is, again, in the same vein. If a DPP fails to meet any of its obligations under this clause, the board shall make such an order as it deems necessary to ensure that it complies with its duties in that regard.

The amendments have been tabled for a particular reason. It is known that some of those district councils are within areas where councillors will be representing one side or another, or one paramilitary side or another. They may well wish to carry out those actions which suit them and distort the working of the police in their area. These amendments are tabled simply to ensure that if they do that, they can be brought to book by the police board. I hope that the amendments will be approved by the House and that the Minister will look at them favourably. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, Amendment No. 13 would enable the Secretary of State to act if a council was in default under any part of Part III, instead of the current provision which gives the Secretary of State default powers on appointments.

Amendment No. 20 would enable the board to make an order requiring the DPP to comply with its report-making responsibilities. The amendments seek to place what we regard as undue control in the hands of the Secretary of State or the board. The Government sought to put proportionate safeguards in the Bill, bearing in mind theconsultative and explanatory nature of these bodies, and the amendments would not meet that test. They are overbearing.

For example, proportionate safeguards include the fact that appointments will be properly made or there is a default provision; appointments are to be made by the board, not councils; the board will be required (if government Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are accepted) to issue a code of practice; if DPP members fail to comply with their terms of appointment or are unable or unfit to discharge their functions, the board, or the council with the approval of the board, may remove them under Schedule 3, paragraph 7. As the Government said in Committee, we recognise the concerns raised about DPPs and have therefore put in place safeguards where we believe them to be necessary and justified.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 seek to place a responsibility on DPPs to formulate crime and disorder strategies in their areas. While the Government have sympathy with the need to tackle crime and disorder in a more strategic way, our position is that set out when responding to Patten on 19th January; that is, that DPPs will not be given a wider community safety role until decisions have been taken on the Criminal Justice Review. The Government are still considering the detailed responses to consultation and will make a further announcement in due course.

Amendment No. 15 has not yet been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and therefore I shall not deal with it. Amendment No. 17 would require a DPP to comply with the board's code of practice. DPPs are governed, even if there was no guidance, by their statutory functions. Guidance can only explain the functions. The Government do not think it right that the guidance should be prescriptive. Although a matter for the board, we anticipate that it may well apply differently to different DPPs. So in Belfast or Lisburn, for example, it may comment on the need to have local consultative arrangements involving solely business interests. There may not be such a need in every DPP area.

The other amendments in this group have not yet been moved and I shall therefore not address them at this time. In the light of my remarks, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Laird

My Lords, I listened to the noble and learned Lord with care and am pleased to note that in one instance he will be issuing a statement later. I hope that in due course the Government do not wish they had accepted some of these amendments, because they may have trouble with the DPPs. But that will be their problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 13A not moved.]

Clause 16 [General functions of the Board]:

[Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 not moved.]

Clause 18 [Reports by district policing partnership to Board]:

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Code of practice for district policing partnerships]:

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale)

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 21 I have to inform the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 22.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 21: Clause 19, page 9, line 32, leave out ("may, with the consent of the Secretary of State.") and insert ("shall").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, it may be convenient also for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 22 to 26.

In Committee on 23rd October the Government accepted in principle an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cooke, Lord Rogan, Lord Laird and Lord Molyneaux, placing a requirement on the policing board to issue a code of practice to DPPs. Amendments Nos. 21, 23 and 24 give effect to that change. Amendment No. 24 also seeks to meet concerns about the overpowering role of the Secretary of State in consenting to the code. That has been changed to agreement.

Amendment No. 22 is on the same point as my Amendment No. 21. I will not deal with Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 until they are spoken to later. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend is subsumed in the Government's amendment. We are grateful for that and I do not intend to move it.

Lord Laird

My Lords, noting the Government's Amendments Nos. 21 and 23, we appreciate the consideration given to the arguments that we pressed in Committee and will not be pursuing our Amendment No. 22.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24: Clause 19, page 9, line 33, after ("and") insert ("may"). Clause 19, page 9, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) The Board shall obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before issuing a code of practice, or revised code of practice, under this section.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 26: Clause 19, page 10, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which conflicts with the general duty of police officers under section 32 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, nothing in Clause 19 should require a district commander to answer questions or disclose information that would compromise his general duty as an officer. When one reads the general duties of a police officer in Clause 32, one sees they involve protecting life and property, preserving order and preventing crime.

We cannot at this point be certain that all DPPs will have the desired goal of facilitating community consultation and reducing crime within the district in partnership with the police services. Therefore Amendment No. 26 provides protection to sensitive information of which the district commander may have knowledge and protects against DPPs or members of DPPs who wish to use their position for destructive rather than constructive purposes. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, this amendment seeks to protect the police from being required to answer questions or to disclose information which would breach their general duty in Clause 32.

In Committee I explained that, while I expect the police to work with DPPs—indeed, I am sure they will want to do that—they are not required by the Bill to breach their duty in their dealings with them. The bodies are consultative and explanatory; there are no obligations on officers to answer specific questions. In the light of that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will not feel the need to press the amendment.

Lord Monson

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is there any harm in having a belt and braces safeguard by accepting the amendment?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, it is not necessary under the terms of the Bill.

Lord Laird

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said and will not press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Police districts]:

Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 27: Clause 20, page 10, line 22, leave out (", other than Belfast,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.

As I have said before, there are many aspects of Patten and of the Bill which are positive, particularly those of an operational nature, and I have no difficulty in supporting them. However, there are areas of the Bill which I believe to be fundamentally flawed and which will not produce an effective police force. The proposal that Belfast should be divided into four district policing partnerships falls into that category.

These amendments are designed to rectify that and to ensure that policing the City of Belfast is not balkanised into four sub-divisions, which sadly afflict too many parts of the city of which I am proud to be a citizen.

In mainland terms Belfast is not particularly large; there are no more than 300,000 or so electors. While Belfast may currently be divided by the RUC into four local areas of command, they do not mirror the four parliamentary constituencies and they extend out far beyond the city boundaries.

I have no doubt that 300,000 could be more effectively and efficiently served by one police local area command. I am concerned about the likely consequences which would follow the establishment of four local area commands in Belfast. Those four commands will all be mirrored, monitored, potentially dominated and influenced by district policing partnerships. Four for Belfast is just too many.

At grass-roots level, the police would be put under intolerable sectarian and party-political pressures. If anyone doubts that, let them imagine for a moment just how the recent loyalist paramilitary feud in the Shankhill area and more recently in other parts of north Belfast might have been policed if policing was subject to local policing boards. The political representatives of the UVF and the UDA would have used their positions on the north Belfast subcommittee to bring pressure to bear on the police to take sides in their own internecine feud.

One can scarcely imagine just how keenly the paramilitary front parties would support the police in their attempts to crack down on drug dealing and racketeering. Furthermore, the west Belfast subcommittee of the DPP would be almost exclusively republican nationalists; effectively Sinn Fein/IRA. Just how would that square with police investigations into the recent murders in that area allegedly carried out by their allies and the Provisional IRA?

In a similar vein, the east Belfast DPP sub-committee would be almost exclusively loyalist and unionist; again with a substantial degree of input from the UDA and the UVF. The religious and political mix in the south of the city, an area in which I live, would at least ensure some measure of cross-community representation on the DPP sub-committee for that area, but there is no question that a city-wide committee would provide the best opportunity for diluting the insidiousness of the paramilitaries.

A Belfast-wide district policing partnership would dilute the influence of parties whose support is concentrated in particular areas. While Sinn Fein/IRA might have near 70 per cent support in west Belfast, the figure is much lower across the city. Just as it would be wrong to leave policing in west Belfast in the hands of republicans, so it would be wrong to place policing in east Belfast in the hands of loyalists. The decent law-abiding citizens of these areas should not and cannot be abandoned to their fate—and what a fate it would be if we allowed that to happen.

Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with this thought: the City of Belfast is divided enough as it is. It is scarred by peace lines and sectarian ghettos. Just about the last thing it needs is a police force divided into four and under the control of the malevolent forces which deal in the violence, fear and terror which have cursed its streets for too long. I beg to move.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. I believe that the police district commands, as they were taken on from Great Britain police forces, are defined as being areas which can operate under normal circumstances without outside support. In no way can one consider dividing Belfast, which is a small area, into self-contained units which do not need outside support. Any crime committed in Belfast inevitably impinges on all areas of the city. And as regards terrorism, police commands of that size undoubtedly need outside support.

I therefore believe that Belfast should be one unit and controlled as such. There should not be so many police districts.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are linked and remove the provision that there shall be up to four police districts in Belfast as determined by the Chief Constable.

There are currently four police districts in Belfast and I do not understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, would expect the Chief Constable to have one when that is not what he wants. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I ask him to be aware that the current police forces are not confined merely to the city boundaries of Belfast. They spill well out into south Antrim and north Down. They are not confined only to the City of Belfast.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I shall return to that matter but move on to later amendments. Amendment No. 29 is related to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 in that it reflects an opposition to Belfast subgroups to which the main burden of the speeches related. The Government were pressed on this issue during their consultations on Patten and the Bill and they sought a sensible solution. They take the view that there should be sub-groups, also referred to by Patten as sub-committees, but that these should be based on the police districts under Clause 20, which Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 attack. The sub-groups will match police districts; the members will come from the DPP; there are no special arrangements for appointments to the bodies from elsewhere; and the four are part of and will account to the overall Belfast DPP.

I would further point out that the provision on the sub-groups reflects Patten; is for sub-groups to be in line with police districts; provides for limited functions so as not to detract from the overall DPP; provides for appointment to sub-groups from the DPP: and provides for the board's guidance to cover them.

Under the Bill, for Belfast the boundaries of the police districts must coincide with the district council area, but within that the Government have concluded that it is right that the Chief Constable should have flexibility to determine the number of police districts up to a maximum of four. He has four at present and I do not believe that he has any plans to change them.

We are aware that the sub-divisions are not entirely consistent with the Belfast council area, but there are only a few exceptions. That will not constrain the operational independence of the Chief Constable. In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, we are getting bogged down in geographical niceties. I suggest that the north Belfast police board stretches as far as Aldergrove airport and to Toome, which are hardly within the city boundaries of Belfast. However, I hear what the Minister said and with those assurances beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Clause 21 [District policing partnership sub-groups for Belfast]:

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

8.30 p.m.

Clause 22 [The local policing plan]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 30: Clause 22, page 11, line 15, at end insert ("and shall consult any other bodies established pursuant to section 23(2)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A aim to strengthen the consultative process. In particular, Amendment No. 30 compels consultation with other organic community bodies in the style of community police liaison committees (CPLCs) which can and, it is hoped, will continue to operate. Amendment No. 30 may not be entirely perfect, but I believe that its intention is reasonable and modest. Amendment No. 30A is designed to make it clear that the police will retain the right to initiate any community policing consultation measures that they see fit, in addition to measures put forward by either the board or DPPs. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A. Under Clause 22, before issuing or revising a local policing plan the police district commander must consult the local DPP and take account of any views expressed. Amendment No. 30, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, which is identical to one tabled in Committee, would oblige the police district commander also to consult any local consultative groups set up under Clause 23(2). The majority of such groups, if not all, should be established under subsection (1). It may be that the amendment is intended also to cover that. Notwithstanding that, we do not believe that the police should have to deal with DPPs and all the local bodies set up by the board or DPPs. We believe that the DPPs should co-ordinate the views of the latter; and, as we said in Committee, if the board is convinced that that is the right way forward it can include such an arrangement in its code. The code can cover the arrangements for monitoring the performance of the police in carrying out the local policing plan. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord does not feel it necessary to press Amendment No. 30.

I turn to Amendment No. 30A. I am happy to be able to reassure the noble Lord that the Bill does not prevent police consultation outside DPPs or other arrangements made under Clause 23. The Bill simply seeks to establish a framework for accountability and formal consultation as recommended by Patten. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent police consultation as envisaged by the amendment; otherwise, it would be impossible even for noble Lords to be consulted. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will not pursue that amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those explanations. She has provided considerable help as to the giving of guidance to people involved at different levels. I believe that we should experiment and see how it works. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 30A not moved.]

Clause 24 [The Secretary of State's long term policing objectives]:

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 31: Clause 24, page 12, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for informing me earlier today that the Government intended to concede the points raised in Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. Because I should like to speak later to Amendment No. 60, for the moment I beg to move Amendment No. 31.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships will be assisted if I speak to government Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Government Amendment No. 60 is the same as an amendment which the Government did not move in Committee. It would add the ombudsman to the list of those to be consulted under Clause 53(2) on guidance on the use by police officers of public order equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked the Government in Committee on 25th October (at col. 347) to take more time to consider their amendment. He was concerned about the ombudsman having been involved in the creation of the guidance.

For the record, we have since discussed the matter and looked extremely carefully at the noble Lord's points. In the light of those, the Government have considered their amendment further, taken legal advice and consulted the police ombudsman. Our conclusion is that, although we appreciate the noble Lord's view, the Secretary of State would be bound to consult the ombudsman, because inevitably she would clearly have a great deal of experience (from the investigation of complaints into public order-type incidents) which would help to inform—I stress that word—the guidance. I emphasise that the ombudsman is only consulted. Ultimately, the guidance is a matter for the Secretary of State; it is his guidance, not the board's or the ombudsman's.

It is quite clear that the annual and special reports produced by the ombudsman are in the public arena. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Secretary of State will have regard to the views of the ombudsman and take into account all factors in drawing up guidance, which is ultimately a matter for him. I hope that, in the light of us being convinced by his Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, the noble Lord in turn will be convinced by government Amendment No. 60.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the time that they gave me and my noble friend yesterday. A good deal of time was spent discussing these amendments, for which I am most grateful. I am not convinced by Amendment No. 60. However, I shall consider it further. I doubt that I shall return to this matter at Third Reading, but I do not commit myself to that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [The Board's policing objectives]:

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 32: Clause 25, page 12, line 13, leave out (", The Ombudsman").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 33: Clause 25, page 12, line 18, at end insert— ("( ) The Board shall establish levels of performance (performance targets and indicators) to be aimed at in seeking to achieve—

1. (a) any objectives established by the Secretary of State under section 24; and
2. (b) the objectives determined by the Board for a financial year under this section.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 33 and to speak to Amendment No. 34 in my name and those of other noble Lords. The annual policing plan will, as now, be a key document. It should set out for the community what policing service it car expect. Broadly speaking, it should be a contract between the board and the Chief Constable about the policing service that is to be delivered.

Patten wanted to get rid of labyrinthine provisions, and we all support that. The aim of these amendments is to say clearly and simply on the face of the Bill what must be included in the plan. I am sure we all agree that there is no point in setting objectives as required by Clause 25 if we do not measure whether they have been achieved. Setting indicators and targets is crucial so that both the community and board can judge whether the police achieve them; they are an integral and important part of the planning process.

Equally, there are some fundamentals that any annual plan, whether for the police or any other organisation, should contain. What, for example, is one to do? How does one know whether one has achieved it? What resources can one devote to it? That is all that Amendment No. 34 in my name seeks to establish. Clause 3 sets out the role of the board, while Clause 57 sets out in detail the issues on which the board must report to the community each year. Clearly, any board must address such issues in its annual plan. Recommendation 22 of the Patten report indicated that there was no justification for government to second-guess the board in these matters.

Any government control over the content of the plan through regulations can lead only to the Government second-guessing the board. It reduces community ownership of the plan, diminishes the role and damages the credibility of the new policing board. I believe that the amendment has the support of all the Northern Ireland parties and could be conceded to the Government's advantage. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 have been debated at length. The Government have said that they will include these areas in regulations to achieve Patten's requirement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, we should simplify the legislation, which Patten rightly described as labyrinthine.

In Committee we said that these regulations are available and show that there is little separating the Government in terms of policy from noble Lords who support amendments in the group. The question is one of form. The regulation sets out the detail of what matters should as a minimum be covered in the policing plan—not, I should emphasise, and I hope this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the actual contents of the plan—or in primary legislation. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation looked at precisely this issue and concluded in its recommendation, that the great majority of powers in the Bill are appropriately delegated. The committee went on to suggest some changes which the Government have adopted.

The noble Baroness appears to be confusing the regulations with the policing plan itself. It may be the way in which her points were responded to when the matter was dealt with in Committee. Responsibility for the plan remains in the hands of the board. The regulations prescribe the contents of the policing plan in exactly the same way as Clauses 14 to 17 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The regulations prescribe only the areas which the plan should cover. The actual contents of the plan will continue to be determined by the board after consultation with the community.

I could go through in great detail different aspects of the appropriate primary legislation should the Government accept the principle that primary legislation is the best means of setting out the detail. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who has rightly and helpfully pointed out the importance of tying the best value performance plan under Clause 28 into the overall police planning process. The Government's draft regulations do that.

We believe that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has considered this matter carefully. I hope the noble Baroness feels reassured by my reply. I apologise if earlier answers misled her as to the circumstances in which the government were making these proposals.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her explanation. I am not entirely convinced by it because the Explanatory Notes suggest that the regulations set out only the minimum requirements for the plan. They appear still to give the Secretary of State more control over the police planning process than was envisaged by Patten. I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness says and see whether we need to discuss the matter further before Third Reading and in case there are points that, as she suggests, I have not quite understood or muddled up.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I stress that what I was saying was not that the noble Baroness had not understood points. It may be that they were not expressed clearly enough. I shall write to her if she would find that helpful.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

My Lords, that would be enormously helpful. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me that assurance. I look forward to the dialogue we may have on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 [The Board's policing plan]:

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

Clause 28 [Arrangements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness]:

Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 35: Clause 28, page 13, line 20, after ("functions") insert ("and those of the Chief Constable").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Amendments No. 35 and 38 stand also in the name of other noble Lords. I very much welcome the Government's recognition of the board's primary responsibility for best value. I can see that the Government have listened and tried to respond to the concerns which I and other noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House raised at Committee stage.

I have looked carefully at the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Minister. May I say that I fully understand the reasoning behind the Government's amendments. Therefore, I have tabled Amendment No. 37, which departs from the existing best value model elsewhere, but which seeks to provide the reassurance which may be needed.

I do not believe that anyone in the country, let alone in your Lordships' House, would claim to be an expert on best value. But I have some experience as chairman of a police authority, albeit in England, of the operation. I hope that I can help your Lordships by sharing some of that experience. Best value helps police authorities to focus on corporate priorities and monitor the performance of the police force against them by asking meaningful questions. To do that, the police authority members need to understand the way that the service is structured and how in broad terms departments operate, while at the same time recognising the sensitive role it must play in appreciating the chief constable's operational responsibilities.

That does not mean that police authorities should not question whether the chief constable is carrying out those functions in an effective and efficient way. Mutual co-operation and dialogue are the only way to achieve that and to make progress towards a properly accountable police service in which the whole community can have confidence. I assure your Lordships that best value reviews are not about reviewing or scrutinising decisions in individual cases; nor are they about investigating the chief constable's operational decisions.

Best value reviews involve rigorously examining broad functions such as procurement, estates management, people management and relationships with partner organisations, training, core management and so on. They are about asking questions such as: what does one do; how do we do it; and how can we give the community a better service? That is what best value is all about. Clarity of responsibility is absolutely essential. We must not create the possibility that there is a stalemate where there is no agreement on the way ahead. I fear that that could happen if we adopt the Government's proposed amendments. That could only damage the credibility of both the board and the police service in the eyes of the community.

My amendment adopts the approach and wording used throughout the Bill. Our aim is to achieve a compromise and strike the right balance. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I wish to speak to government Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 to 42. Other noble Lords have put their names to Amendment No. 38, which removes Clause 28(3) of the Bill. The effect of this is to give to the board the primacy for reviewing police functions to achieve "best value". There seems to be broad agreement for this change. I want to put it beyond doubt that the Government see the board as having the lead role in these arrangements, and the Bill will now reflect that.

Government Amendment No. 38 goes hand in hand with Amendment No. 36. This requires the board to act together with the chief constable in striving to achieve best value in respect of police functions. But again I wish to stress that the Government see the primary duty to achieve best value as falling to the board in respect of its own and police functions. In tabling these amendments, we have been influenced by what the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has said to us. My right honourable friend Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, and I have found those discussions extremely valuable. There is now little between us, and the proposed provisions are very close to those in England and Wales.

There are two reasons for Amendment No. 36. The first is management. We want the board and the chief constable to work together to achieve best value on the vast resources it takes to provide policing in Northern Ireland. We want the board to lead in taking forward the best value agenda, including in reviewing police functions. We want the board fully to involve the police. It is simply good management practice that the organisation under scrutiny should be involved in looking at the way it does things rather than have someone come in and tell it how to do things.

The second reason for requiring the chief constable and the board to work together is that we have provided for the board to have very wide powers in this area. We need to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved between the chief constable's operational independence and the board's review power. Clearly, the board's review power should not extend to reviewing a particular arrest or second guessing the chief constable's operational judgment. That is not remotely what the best value provisions are about. I see that the noble Baroness agrees with that. The Government would not wish to leave any doubt that there are sensible limits to what should be reviewed within the context of the board's primacy in this area.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37, which cover the same ground as the Government's Amendments Nos. 36 and 38. I have to say that we have moved a long way on the best value provisions. I think the noble Baroness acknowledges that. As I said earlier, I believe the noble Baroness shares our objective. We both want the chief constable and the board to work together to achieve best value and this will clearly involve the sharing of each other's views. It is our judgment that Amendment No. 36 takes better account of Northern Ireland's unique circumstances than does Amendment No. 35. While our goal is very much a normal security environment, until that position is reached we believe it is prudent to provide the explicit assurance that both parties will act together. That is, after all, an accurate description of how it should work in practice. Amendment No. 35 seeks to reinsert a reference to the chief constable in Clause 28(2). That is unnecessary as Clause 28(2) deals with reviews which are a part of the overall best value arrangements mentioned in Clause 28(1). Subsection (1) already requires the board to make best value arrangements in respect of police functions.

I shall now turn briefly to other government amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 39 to Clause 29(4)(c) requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to assess the reasonableness of the board's performance indicators and standards in relation to its own and police functions. The Bill as drafted caters only for the latter. This responds to a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in Committee. As I indicated at the time, I am grateful to him for highlighting the point. Amendment No. 42 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 31(1)(b) in light of that change.

Amendment 40, to Clause 29(6), requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to publish his audit of the board's performance plan rather than have the board publish it as currently required. Again, that anomaly was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in Committee. Perhaps I may say specifically that his contribution has helped to improve the drafting of the Bill in this area. Amendment No. 41 is a drafting change.

As is apparent, we have made a number of changes to the provisions dealing with best value. From where we are at the moment, we think that this is the right regime. But in the light of the assistance we have had from the noble Baroness, we shall consider carefully what she has said. That is not to give any suggestion that we will move. We think that we have reached the right place but it is only fair that we should consider carefully what she has said. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I think that he has got it right too. I am grateful to him for his remarks about my contribution in this area. I think that he is properly reflecting the special position of Northern Ireland, and particularly of the chief constable, at the present time.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his comments. We have indeed moved a long way. We are all learning about what best value means. I make no criticism whatever in suggesting that any help I might have given has not been understood. We share the same objectives. We may well differ on "act together with" and "have regard to". As the noble and learned Lord suggested, we may discuss the matter a little further to see whether before Third Reading we can agree on a form of words. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I shall read carefully what he has had to say. We shall probably be in dialogue before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 36: Clause 28, page 13, line 21, at end insert— ("( ) The Board shall, in making arrangements which relate to the functions of the Chief Constable, act together with him.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 38: Clause 28, page 13, line 22, leave out subsection (3).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Audit of performance plans]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:

• Clause 29, page 14, line 18, leave out (", so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable,").
• Clause 29, page 14, line 30, leave out ("Board-) and insert ("Comptroller and Auditor General").
• Clause 29, page 14, line 32. leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have all been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 31 [Enforcement of duties under section 28]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 42: Clause 31, page 16, line 7, leave out (", so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Attestation of constables]:

Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 43: Clause 38, page 18, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) Every police officer serving at present shall within three months of the coming into force of this Act, make a declaration in the form prescribed in subsection (1) above before a Justice of the Peace.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these debates have become a constructive dialogue between the Government Front Bench and the various sections of the House. I hope that that process will not be interrupted at this point.

Clause 38 prescribes the oath which every officer will be required to take on appointment. It sets out the standards which we would expect from a good and conscientious officer and it is confidently to be hoped that the police in Northern Ireland would accord us no less. The question then arises: why is it only to be new recruits who are to take the new oath? Surely the Bill is intended to represent a new beginning for everyone. That is what the Belfast agreement was about. So why not a new beginning for existing officers? Surely every member of the force would be happy to pledge himself to observe those standards. That is what the Patten commission recommended. In paragraph 4.7 the report emphasised the importance of human rights as the very purpose of policing. It then formulated the oath, which the Government have adopted in the Bill, and introduced it as, a new oath to be taken individually by all new and existing"— I emphasise "and existing"— police officers". Then, in paragraph 15.15, after emphasising that, to whatever other organisation an officer may belong, his primary loyalty should be to the police service, it states: The new oath we have recommended (in paragraph 4.7) is drafted with this point in mind. All officers"— I emphasise again, "all officers"— should in our view swear to 'accord equal respect to all individuals and to their traditions and beliefs'. This undertaking should have precedence over any other oaths or qualifications associated with other organisations to which an officer may belong". That is what was said by the Patten commission. It is not clear for what reason Patten's "new and existing officers" and "all officers" have now become only "new officers". The change is likely to be seen as part of a process of whittling down Patten, and that is hardly likely to inspire confidence in the new beginning.

I should like to ask my noble and learned friend who, if anyone, objects to taking the new oath? If the answer is "no one", why not enact accordingly? I beg to move.

9 p.m.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I rise to say that I am slightly surprised that this amendment has been tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I do not think that it would in any way be helpful. For that reason, I should tell him that we on these Benches would oppose it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, Amendment No. 43, tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, would require serving police officers to take the new "oath" within three months of this Bill coming into effect.

The primary purpose of the declaration (or oath, as it is commonly called) is to confer constabulary status upon the individual who makes it. To require existing officers to take the oath would, in effect, entail removal of this status and would thereby be in conflict with Patten's clear recommendation that the RUC should not be disbanded.

I can assure my noble and learned friend that the Government have already gone a considerable way in attempting to take account of what, in this instance, are conflicting recommendations from Patten. The provision was amended in another place to require the Chief Constable to bring the terms of the declaration to the attention of serving officers and to ensure that they understand the need to carry out their duties in accordance with it.

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reference to constructive dialogue. I hope that, with this explanation. I have been able to assure my noble and learned friend that such constructive dialogue continues. I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, I was advised by my lawyer that I do not have to answer questions of that kind! I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, although he will forgive me for noting that he announced simply that he would oppose the amendment. He did not give any reasons for so doing. If he opposes the amendment, I suppose that I shall have to bear that with fortitude.

My noble friend has exposed the difficulty here. I am not quite sure that I agree with what she said at the outset but, if that is the case, Patten has made conflicting recommendations. That is rather surprising because, until now, I have not seen that pointed out.

I do not find the explanation given by my noble friend wholly convincing, but I do not think that this is the appropriate time to interrupt what, but for this amendment, would appear to be a constructive dialogue. I propose to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall not give an undertaking for future good behaviour. We have yet to reach Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 [Contracting-out of certain recruitment functions of Chief Constable]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 44: Clause 43 page 21. line 5, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this section affects any other power which the Chief Constable has to enter into arrangements concerning the discharge of functions of his which are not prescribed under subsection (1).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 45. Other amendments have been tabled within this grouping, but I shall speak to them only after they have been spoken to by other noble Lords.

Amendment No. 44 ensures that the Chief Constable can make such arrangements as may be necessary with the recruitment agent for the discharge of functions other than those strictly prescribed by the recruitment regulations. Put simply, it is designed to ensure that the Chief Constable has some room for manoeuvre in the contracting-out of the recruitment process, and is not rigidly bound by the need to have every last detail set out in the regulations.

Amendment No. 45 is a technical drafting amendment to Clause 46(8) to insert a missing reference. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, my colleagues and I have added our names to some of the subsequent amendments which have been tabled in this grouping. However, for the moment, we do not wish to speak to them because some developments have taken place since noble Lords debated this matter in Commit tee. For that reason, we do not propose to move these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 44A to 44C not moved.]

Clause 46 [Discrimination in appointments]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 45: Clause 46, page 23, line 22, after ("(1)") insert (",(4)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 45A not moved.]

Clause 47 [Expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions]:

[Amendment No. 45B not moved.]

Clause 48 [Action plans]:

Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 46: Clause 48, page 24, line 32, after ("women") insert (", members of minority ethnic groups, disabled persons and members of other under-represented groups").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 46 and speaking to Amendment No. 47, we seek to encourage the Government not merely to allow the Chief Constable to devise action plans to try to encourage more women into the police, but also for the action plans to extend to ethnic minority groups, the disabled and other under-represented groups.

In particular as regards the case of the disabled, we see that developments in information technology and so forth in police work enable many people to work appropriately in the service who, in an earlier age, might not have been able so to do.

If the Government were to accept our amendments to this new clause we would be extremely comforted by the Government's realisation that Northern Ireland is an increasingly multicultural society and that there are other groups who feel marginalised in that society apart from the two main communities. There are regularly around 12 per cent of people in Northern Ireland who do not describe themselves as Catholic or Protestant on census forms. In fact, Chinese is the second most commonly spoken language in Northern Ireland. It is time that the Government moved away from their traditional "two communities" thinking and recognised that there are many sections within the Northern Irish community. We are moving towards a more richly diverse society and that should be cherished and valued highly.

There is marked under-representation of women and ethnic minority groups in the police. The current female proportion is 11.1 per cent; it has been estimated that the number of people from minority ethnic communities in the police in Northern Ireland is fewer than 10. The introduction of monitoring and action plans will ensure a focus on equality of opportunity and the introduction of proactive measures to increase the representation of all underrepresented groups within the police. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, similar amendments were tabled in Committee, although they have now been extended to include, in addition to ethnic minorities, disabled people and any other under-represented group.

It is important to bear in mind that the object of the Bill, first and foremost, is to give effect to Patten's recommendations. In the commission's estimation, the imbalance between the number of Catholics … and Protestants … is the most striking problem in the composition of the RUC". It must therefore be right that this should be our central focus in this legislation. Patten's recommendation, which we have accepted, was that other underrepresented groups, such as ethnic minorities, should be targeted by means of an imaginative advertising strategy.

However, notwithstanding that, the Government have already recognised the issue, in equality terms, with the action plan on female representation. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill provides for the immediate application of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to the police. This places a duty on the police and other policing bodies to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity as between various categories of people based on race, gender, religion, disability and other distinctions.

We believe that this provides an appropriate vehicle under which the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 can be taken forward. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdrew his amendment.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We shall wish to look in detail at what she said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Clause 51 [Notifiable memberships]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48: Clause 51, page 26, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not our intention to move Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.

[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 50: Clause 51. page 26, line 15, at end insert— ("( ) The Chief Constable shall publish any guidance issued under subsection (2).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57.

Amendment No. 50 requires the Chief Constable to publish any guidance which he may issue to police officers in connection with notifiable memberships. This responds to points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in Committee. I thank them for their contribution. The theme of this provision—as with so much of Patten—is to enhance transparency and openness within the police service, and this will aid that policy.

Turning to Amendment No. 57, in Committee we undertook to consider some means of qualifying the circumstances in which disclosure of information on notifiable memberships is defensible. This was in response to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, who is not in his place. The amendment makes it clear that the defence is not available if it is shown that the person concerned used his position in some way to obtain the information in question. This is an important safeguard to ensure that those who have access to this sensitive information do not abuse their positions.

On the strength of Amendment No. 57, I invite the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Laird, not to move Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51: Clause 51, page 26. line 16. leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have even better news for the Minister. We do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 51 to 55, nor the Minister's favourite, Amendment No. 56.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 57: Clause 51, page 27, line 16. at end insert— ("( ) But subsection (10) does not provide a defence if it is shown that the person concerned used his position as a person to whom subsection (7) applies in order to obtain the information.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Code of ethics]:

Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 58: Clause 52, page 28, line 8, leave out ("understood the code as currently in force") and insert ("have undertaken to be guided by the code currently in force in the exercise of their general duty under section 32").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned to me yesterday that, unavoidably, he has to be absent. He greatly regrets it. He asked me to add my name to his amendment and to move it. I thought that I had added my name; however, it does not appear on the Marshalled List. However, I understand that that does not preclude me from moving the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was kind enough to write out for me what he would have said had he been present. Perhaps the fairest thing I can do is to try to follow it as closely as I can without being tiresome.

The noble Lord says that in drafting the amendment he has tried to follow as closely as possible the intention and language of the Bill. Clause 32 provides that police officers shall be guided by the code of ethics referred to in Clause 52. The clause states that the Chief Constable shall ensure that all police officers—that is, existing officers and new constables—have read and understood the code. The noble Lord seeks to strengthen this wording by providing that they must not only read the code, but must also undertake to be guided by it in all aspects of their general duty and functions.

There is good reason for this. There are those who suspect that existing officers may read and understand the code but then proceed to forget about it. That is why the noble Lord wishes all officers to undertake freely to be guided in their work by the code. Impartiality and good standards of conduct and practice, mentioned earlier in this clause and in Clause 38, depend on it. Officers must not only be aware of convention rights; they must also be continually guided by the explanation of such rights given in the code. The noble Lord says that he wants to see a police service that is acceptable to all sides of the population.

That is what the noble Lord kindly wrote out for me. I merely add: so do I. I beg to move.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, in responding, perhaps I may speak also to government Amendment No. 59. Amendment No. 59 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. This makes a link to the board's duty to assess the effectiveness of the code under Clause 3(3)(d)(iv), and thereby facilitates that role.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, requires the Chief Constable to ensure that officers undertake to be guided by the code of ethics in carrying out their general duty. Police officers are already required to be guided by the code of ethics in carrying out their functions by virtue of Clause 32(4). So it makes little odds whether or not they undertake to be guided by the code; the fact of the matter is that they must be guided by it.

I believe that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, are at one on the policy; therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on behalf of the noble Lord, to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, I had intended to commend my noble and learned friend's amendment, and I had ventured to hope that he might reciprocate. There are those who will be comforted by the explanation that he has given. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No 59: Clause 52, page 28, line 11, at end insert— ("( ) In order to enable it to carry out its function under section 3(3)(d)(iv), the Board shall keep under review the steps taken by the Chief Constable under subsection (8).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Guidance as to use of equipment for maintaining or restoring public order]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 60: Clause 53, page 28, line 22, after ("Constable;") insert— ("( ) the Ombudsman;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Regulations as to emblems and flags]:

Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 61: Clause 54. page 28, line 26, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 to 66, which all stand in my name. Noble Lords may recall that I had tabled these amendments for debate in Committee but at that time there was a sensitive situation regarding flags so I did not pursue them.

The point is simple and, given the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. The crux of the proposition is in Amendment No. 62. Clause 54 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe the design of an emblem or flag. My amendment says in effect that, in prescribing a design, we should be careful not to hurt the feelings of either community; therefore, we should avoid as far as possible association either with the state of Ireland or with the United Kingdom because either would offend one community or the other. Such a provision would allow the Secretary of State to create a wholly new symbol for a flag or emblem that would unite rather than divide the community. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 67, which has been included in this group. I shall not do so at any great length because I seem to remember making a rather lengthy contribution in Committee. However, what I have to say follows on from what I said earlier when we discussed Amendment No. 5. This is all about building partnerships and trying to get a police force that is acceptable to the whole Province and all the communities within it, yet one which is proud, which has a hat badge that it can wear with pride and which represents all of Ireland and the United Kingdom. For goodness sake, that is what the Good Friday agreement is about.

The three major symbols for Ireland and the United Kingdom are the shamrock—we wear it on St Patrick's Day; the harp, in the national emblems of Ireland and also for Guinness; and, finally, our own Crown. That is what our amendment is about. We do not make any specific requests in this amendment as to what should surround the emblem or what shape it should take; or, indeed, for anything else. However, we say that here is an emblem of which the whole of Ireland can be proud. If the amendment is not accepted, in the light of my last few words when speaking to Amendment No. 5, I shall consider this to be another concession to the republican movement.

Lord Vivian

My Lords, I intervene briefly because I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I can see no useful purpose, or any good reason, for any change to the cap badge and insignia of the RUC. The Patten report states in paragraph 17.4: Many people in Northern Ireland from the Irish nationalist and republican tradition regard the name, badge and symbols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as associating the police with the British constitution and state"— it is a very small minority who support that perception.

The report goes on to say: The agreement about symbols is not an argument about policing, but an argument about the constitution". There is no need to remind your Lordships that Northern Ireland is part of the British constitution. As such, the police force in Northern Ireland should represent the British constitution. It is clear from what has been said that there is a small minority of Irish nationalists and republicans to whom the Government are, once again, making concessions. What about the very large Catholic community and the Protestant community that support the RUC and wish for no change? Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that one of the aims of Sinn Fein/IRA has been to destroy the RUC. In my opinion, this Government are doing exactly that.

In my previous intervention I drew to your Lordships' attention that, for any organisation, the loss of its title will lead to low morale and inefficiency. Therefore, to take away its title and change its insignia would destroy all its ethos. It is that very ethos, built up over so many years, that makes the RUC such an effective force. I do not believe that the Government understand in any way what "ethos" means to a police force or for that matter to military units. However, without it, I can assure the Government that such organisations become totally useless. It is for those reasons that I support the amendment.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I do not believe that the strength of the police in Northern Ireland would be weakened by the proposed changes in the way suggested by the noble Lord. The Government do not intend to destroy the police in Northern Ireland; but rather they wish to build on its strengths and give it a "new beginning", as indicated in the Patten report.

Patten said very clearly that there should be a new badge and a symbol so that one could indicate that there was a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, while respecting the achievements and sacrifices made by the RUC over many years. Surely that is a worthy set of aims. The new beginning will require a new badge, but quite properly the Secretary of State has decided that he will listen to the policing board, among others, and seek its guidance and advice on what it thinks the new badge should comprise. It surely is proper to leave it to people on the policing board from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, from politics and outside politics, to recommend what they consider to be the best way forward with regard to the emblem.

I refer to Amendments Nos. 61A and 63A in which it is suggested that the George Cross, so well deserved and earned by the RUC, should be included in the new emblem. I am not sure that that is a good idea, much as I was pleased when the George Cross was awarded to the RUC for what it had achieved and for the sacrifices of the past. But here we are looking to the future. I should have thought that it would not be appropriate to use the George Cross to symbolise the future but rather as a sign of respect for what has happened in the past. I hope that those amendments will not be taken further.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, I support broadly the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and oppose Amendments Nos. 61A, 63A and 67A. I note that in Committee when discussing the cap badge and emblems of the RUC a number of noble Lords urged their retention. They did so on the grounds that, containing the Crown, harp and shamrock as they do, the existing insignia were neutral, being symbolic of the two communities by reflecting both the British and Irish elements that largely comprise the divided society of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said with passion, it is all the more important to keep the badge and reinforce the continuity between the RUC and the newly named force that the Secretary of State is so keen to maintain".—[Official Report, 25/10/00; col. 349.] But that is precisely the point: no matter that in the abstract the current badge could be seen to reflect the symbols of both communities, the historical fact is—this is the point Patten made—it was seen, and would continue to be seen, in the Catholic community as representing the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, a new beginning requires a new set of emblems to symbolise that a new start is being made. It is an earnest of real intent. A new logo for a new launch is a commonplace in the worlds of industry, commerce and the voluntary sector, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Laird, would confirm in his professional capacity.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also said in Committee at col. 349: There is no evidence that the badge is a deterrent to Catholic recruitment". With great respect, that is somewhat disingenuous. Without appropriate market-testing, we do not know that. It may or may not be a deterrent. As I observed earlier this evening, in my time in Northern Ireland I never came across Catholics who would encourage their co-religionists to join the RUC. Certainly some would be fearful of possible intimidation, but there was an overwhelming sense that a job in the RUC was inconceivable given a history, however recently improved, that included the notorious work of the "B" Specials.

And yet almost every noble Lord wants to see a dramatic increase in Catholics working in the new police service. That will only come about if it is actively endorsed by all sections of the Catholic community—the Church, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. That will not be forthcoming unless they see a truly fresh start, and that means a new set of emblems symbolic of that fresh start. More importantly, it would lead to the development of a police service that could go into the existing "no go" areas, currently the fiefdoms of the Mafia that has grown out of the paramilitary organisations, where they would be welcomed by the majority of decent citizens. That must surely be our overriding goal.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I must admit that I probably move in lower social circles than the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. Perhaps for that reason, and as a Member of Parliament for getting on for 27 years, I have lost count of the number of occasions when I have been approached by young Catholics to provide a supporting reference for their applications to join the RUC. Parents would say, "Eammon wants to join the force. He hasn't time to come and see you. Would you prepare a reference? We'll collect it on Saturday". It was quite a common occurrence. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but I have been a native of too long standing—80 years or so.

Noble Lords who have today proclaimed the virtues of ditching the present all-Ireland emblem remind me of citizens of various parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in that area of London where I reside for four or five days a week, who confess that they have switched their votes to another party, "Because it was time for a change". When asked, "Change to what?" they reply, "We don't get involved in politics and so forth. It's just time for a change".

So this is a change to what? We shall ditch something which should appeal to people in all parts of Ireland and Irish people abroad. Shall we switch, for example, to something as meaningless as a Sainsbury or Texaco logo? Is that the kind of logo to which we shall descend? If that is so, it is far better for us to forget about it altogether.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, urges us to leave the decision on any new emblem to the Secretary of State after consultation with all interested parties. That sounds reasonable in the abstract. In practice we know exactly what will happen. It will not be the views of the 80 per cent or 85 per cent of the population who are either perfectly happy with the existing insignia, indifferent or mildly opposed to it which will prevail, but those of the 15 per cent (at most) hard-line republicans, as has happened so often in the past few years.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I am reminded of the earnest endeavours of British Airways when it got rid of the tail-fin emblem and produced a most interesting collection of colours which meant nothing to anybody and rapidly became extremely unpopular.

I, for one, would be happy for the Secretary of State to have a voice on this. He might well understand that, as we have said, the harp, the crown and the shamrock are hardly to be improved on to represent all the three aspects of society in Northern Ireland. People are happy with it. I cannot believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, that a meaningless logo can do any good. It will probably do a great deal of harm. It seems extraordinary for us to reject something which represents the coming together of all aspects of Northern Ireland.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I cannot agree with Amendment No. 62. I believe that the emblem should stay. Failing that, we should not tie the Secretary of State's hands as does the provision in Amendment No. 62 that any emblem, shall be entirely free of any association with". That seems ludicrous. The Secretary of State already has to consult the board, the Chief Constable, the police association and any other person or body appearing to him to have an interest. If we cannot trust the Secretary of State to consult them, I believe that it is wrong to tie his hands in this way.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, it is right that we should have spent a good deal time considering issues of symbolism. Names, emblems and uniforms are important issues for many organizations, but they are of particular significance and sensitivity for police officers and others who are called on to maintain public tranquillity and enforce the law on behalf of the whole community and who generate a strong collective bond and loyalty to their organisation in the process.

Our starting point has to be the Good Friday agreement, where all the signatories recognise that it provided, the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole". The dilemma which the Patten commission had to face—it is one with which the Government have had to grapple subsequently—is how to deliver that new beginning and achieve the cross-community support that we all seek without in any way diminishing or dishonouring the extraordinary achievements of the RUC, particularly over the past 30 years, when it has come under sustained and wicked attack from ruthless terrorist organisations.

A decent argument has been advanced by several noble Lords that the root cause of the current imbalance in community support for the RUC has little or nothing to do with its name, badge or flag and is due instead to intimidation by republicans. Set against that view are the many representations that have been made to the Government that the existing symbols would continue to be a barrier to the recruitment of many law-abiding Catholics, even if paramilitary intimidation were a thing of the past. Whatever the precise truth, the hard question that we have to face is what will most effectively mark the new beginning that we seek and offer the best chance of securing it and achieving support from across the community.

Painful though it undoubtedly is, the Government's conclusion is that a new beginning requires a new name and that a new name requires a new badge. If it could have been done otherwise without those symbolic changes, we wouldcertainly have done so, as the Secretary of State has said many times. We honour and revere the sacrifices of the past, but we also have to demonstrate the courage to start a new chapter with new symbols designed to command the loyalty and respect of all law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland.

Undoubtedly, the best outcome will be if the new Policing Board can, on a cross-community basis, agree a new emblem and a service flag based on it for the new Northern Ireland Police Service. That is not an impossible hope. In as much as there are any precedents, they point both ways. On the one hand, the Northern Ireland Executive was not able to agree arrangements for flag-flying over government buildings—hence the flags order that the House approved last week. On the other hand, the Northern Ireland Assembly was able to agree an emblem that was acceptable to unionists, nationalists and republicans alike.

It is consistent with our approach to devolution, under which local people attempt to reach their own solutions to problems rather than having them imposed by the Government, that we should be hesitant about prescribing the outcome in advance. I urge the House to exercise great caution over concluding that it ought to predetermine the outcome, particularly as that would inevitably be seen by one side as a partisan decision favouring the other tradition.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, may I suggest that a possible logo might be a crossed gun and ballot box?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I think that it is more appropriate for me to go on with my remarks following that intervention.

Of course we have to recognise that consensus may not be achievable. That is why the Bill provides for regulation-making powers on flags and emblems. Those regulations will now have to come before both Houses of Parliament for approval. That is already a substantial safeguard.

However, I recognise that in taking that power the Government have an obligation to say something about the approach that my right honourable friend intends to adopt if the relevant clause reaches the statute book in its present form. The plan is that the shadow Policing Board will come into being during January and that the new badge and flag will come into use in the autumn, when the first recruits join the new service. However, before that, when the recruitment process starts in April, potential recruits will want to know what has been decided. To allow the necessary preparations to be made, a conclusion on the issues will need to be reached as soon as the board can be formally consulted.

Rather than confronting the shadow board with a blank piece of paper, my right honourable friend will discuss a range of ideas with it, consistent with the objective of securing cross-community support for the new service. It will be open to the board to endorse those ideas or to come forward with alternative proposals.

If the board is able to reach a consensus on an emblem and a flag based on it that is capable of commanding wide support in the new police service and is also acceptable to the Chief Constable, my right honourable friend cannot conceive of circumstances in which he would wish to take a contrary view. That is the simple scenario, which, as I say, is not impossible.

However, matters may not be simple. Therefore, in the absence of a consensus and in the light of comments received, my right honourable friend will need to decide what proposals to lay before Parliament. He has already made it clear that he does not accept that the new symbols must, as a matter of principle, be free of all association with both traditions. Equally, it would be entirely counterproductive to seek to prescribe symbols which have a high probability of being objectionable to one part of the community or another.

So much is obvious. It is not whether we have the right to insist, but rather whether it would deliver the desired new beginning in policing if we were to attempt to impose something that sparked such controversy that it could deter one side of the community from joining or supporting the new police service.

I recognise that what I have said will not be sufficient for those who want absolute clarity before the new board has had the opportunity to consider the options; nor will it be sufficient for those who are determined to hold on to the old symbols for reasons which I well understand. However, I believe that the process that I have outlined provides the best hope for achieving an acceptable and sensitive solution to this most difficult issue. Therefore, I urge the House not to insist on a change to the Bill.

Perhaps I may deal briefly with the specific amendments. I have largely dealt with the points that have been made. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai—Amendments Nos. 61 to 66—would require that the emblem be entirely free of association with both states. As I said, my right honourable friend has made it clear that he does not accept that the new symbols must, as a matter of principle, be free of all association with both traditions.

Amendment No. 67, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would have the effect of requiring that the current emblem remain the emblem of the police service and be included in the flag. For the reasons that I have already advanced, my right honourable friend has concluded that a new badge is required. Amendments Nos. 61A and 63A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others, would require that the design of the emblem and flag reflect the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland and the award of the George Cross to the RUC.

I understand the sensitivity of the amendment and the significance of the award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, I do not believe that it would be right to fetter my right honourable friend's hand in this way in the discretion that he might need in approaching the potential situation that I outlined earlier. Therefore, I invite noble Lords to reject the amendment.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, do the Government still believe that one of the best ways to take politics out of policing is to make responsibility for the design of this emblem one of the first duties of the new board?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I believe that I have set out in some detail what the timetable will be.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate which I sparked off. My purpose was to return to this issue, discussed in Committee, but with perhaps a more constructive approach. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for the detailed answer that he gave.

There appears to be a division between those who believe that all change is bad—I am reminded of what the Marquess of Salisbury said: Change? Why do people want change? Aren't things bad enough as they are?"— and those of us who believe passionately that, if we are to make a new beginning, a change must take place. I am sure that the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should be as free as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 61A to 67 not moved.]

9.45 p.m.

Clause 56 [Co-operation with Garda Siochana]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 67A: Clause 56. page 29, line 6, leave out from ("shall") to ("co-operation") in line 8 and insert ("promote wherever practicable").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same as an amendment which we discussed in Committee, when we got into some slight confusion. Unlike the previous amendment, it does not touch on a highly sensitive matter but on a matter on which there is great agreement.

Lord Alli

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the position on Amendment No. 67. The noble Lord said that it was not moved. Is it, therefore, the property of this House?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, no; it was not moved. That is it. I am dealing with Amendment No. 67A, which concerns a different subject; namely, co-operation with the Garda. The previous amendment was a much more partisan matter and the Government's insistence on dropping the present badge will be regarded as a very highly partisan decision by a large number of people, including myself. But I do not want to become involved in a discussion on that because, at present, I am moving Amendment No. 67A about co-operation with the Garda, which is not a partisan matter.

We all wish that there should be the maximum co-operation. There is a great deal of co-operation now. In chapter 18 of his report, Patten recommended some specific measures for increasing co-operation. The only difference between us is the precise wording in the Bill.

The Bill suggests that the board and the Chief Constable shall implement arrangements in pursuance of agreements between the two governments—the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. However, Patten suggested that there should be agreements between the police forces. He used the analogy of the agreements that the Kent Police Force has with some of the continental forces. There are a large number of agreements and co-operation in different fields between the different forces.

I am all in favour of police forces co-operating and, as a general rule, although it is not Holy Writ, as it were, the lower the level at which that co-operation takes place, the better. It was my observation, when I was responsible for those matters in Northern Ireland, that the co-operation at a low level between Garda individual police stations and the individual police stations of the RUC could be very good, and closer than the government in the South wanted it to be, as far as I could see at that particular time. Such co-operation is extremely good and it is that sort of cooperation which Patten is suggesting in terms of joint training and other such measures.

I want to see not only co-operation with great agreements between the two governments—because there is a place for that; but the co-operation needs to be much wider and deeper than that, as Patten suggested. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with his great experience in these matters, has said. Surely if this amendment is not agreed to, we shall effectively have political interference in the day-to-day or week-to-week operation of the police force. That is totally undesirable in any country. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say on the matter.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Cope, correctly, he said that he thought that there was, on occasion, the need for co-operation between the two governments and yet his amendment seems to preclude such co-operation which is, at present, provided on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have not misinterpreted what he said, but that is certainly what I understood him to say.

Perhaps I may say why I am not happy about the amendment. Certainly, from my time in Northern Ireland, I recall that frequently there was good co-operation between the two governments on a whole range of matters. Indeed, there was also good co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. Such co-operation at both local and governmental levels seemed to me to be desirable in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland.

There may be occasions when it will be appropriate for the two governments to reach an agreement, particularly if, as seems likely, there is a need for legislation in the other jurisdiction. It would be sensible if there was agreement between the two governments so that the legislation in the other jurisdiction fitted in with the arrangements. That could deal with a whole range of matters, such as inter-service secondment, which has been discussed, or possibly pension arrangements. Those items would not concern the operational independence of the Chief Constable. I should have thought that that was a sensible arrangement. It is not helpful to have an amendment which would preclude the possibility of such an arrangement between the two governments.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I do not see why we need on the face of the Bill the possibility or availability of co-operation. I do not see why it cannot be on a much more casual and flexible basis when it comes to the two police forces.

I accept that governments may need legislation to permit them to do certain things between themselves. But the police forces are already beginning to co-operate. There are already RUC officers at the Garda training school. The secondment about which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke, does not need an Act of Parliament to take place. I do not believe that it needs such an Act of Parliament for that to take place between any states in Europe. We are talking about Europe as an open market, about co-operation on crime. Everything we do with the Garda should be taken within that context. I do not want to see such a provision on the face of the Bill. I support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, this clause is designed to implement Patten's recommendations that there should be closer co-operation between the two police forces.

Amendment No. 67A was raised in Committee, when one of the central points of the debate seemed to be a concern, echoed by noble Lords tonight, that the clause would impact on the board's role and the Chief Constable's operational independence. We wrote to noble Lords reassuring them that the Government would not envisage agreeing to protocols without signing the board and the Chief Constable up to them first. So there is no question—I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monson—of undermining the Chief Constable's operational independence in any way.

Another concern, and an effect of Amendment No. 67A, was that the Government need not be involved; that protocols would be sufficient. But the example given by Patten in paragraph 18.6 of co-operation between the Kent Constabulary and neighbours in France and Belgium is backed by legislation made by government.

Furthermore, the Government want to ensure that there is reciprocal agreement on this matter and that can best be achieved at this level. The Irish Government will proceed with arrangements for an intergovernmental agreement and for the appropriate protocols and will take all required measures, including legislative measures if necessary, to implement them. Of course, that is dependent on the final shape of the Bill before the House.

I hope that I have managed to assuage the fears of noble Lords. I pay tribute to the work already being done in certain areas of co-operation. The measures in this clause would enable that work to be strengthened and extended.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, first, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that my amendment would not preclude any agreements between governments. It is not intended to do that and I do not believe it would preclude them in legal terms. The British Government do not need legislation to enter into agreements and treaties. Some people think that it should be required—and quite often legislation is necessary to implement our half of a treaty.

My amendment would not preclude government-level agreements. However, it is intended to extend the provisions of the Bill so as to make clear that we want to see maximum co-operation between the police forces at every level and, for that matter, relevant services such as Customs and Excise.

My experience may be a little different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. When I was Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, the Taoiseach was Charles Haughey, who was perhaps not so sympathetic to agreements between the two governments. Although there were frequent meetings and we constantly pressed them for further and better agreements and co-operation with the police, it was sticky, slow work. I am sure that that is not the situation today and that it is much improved, but that experience may colour my view.

We are all agreed that, as Patten recommended, there should be co-operation at every level. Patten did not recommend that it should be confined to treaties and saw it occurring at all levels and in all ways. That is what we all want and therefore, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 [Annual and other reports by Board to Secretary of State]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67B: Clause 57, page 29. line 44. at end insert— ("( ) the effectiveness of district policing partnerships in the carrying out of their functions; ( ) the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnrships").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, reading the two subsections, I am confirmed in my mind that today and on earlier occasions the ground has effectively been covered. If we have not made headway, we have obtained clarification and we do not propose to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 67B not moved.]

Clause 60 [Inquiry by Board following report by Chief Constable]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67C: Clause 60, page 31, line 21. at end insert— ("(1A) No inquiry shall be caused under subsection (1) if it relates to the conduct of a member of the police force which took more than the prescribed period before the date on which a report under section 59 was submitted to the board. (1B) The prescribed period shall be the prescribed period determined by the Secretary of State under section 64 of the 1998 Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the comments I made in respect of the previous amendment apply to this one. Many of the points which we have put before the House have been met. In the light of that and certain private discussions, we do not propose to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 67C not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 68: Clause 60. page 32, line 15, leave out ("facts") and insert ("information").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 69. At col. 377 of the Official Report of 25th October, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who unfortunately is not in his place, queried the use of the word "facts" in Clause 60. In the light of his concerns, we have looked at the provision again and concluded that the word "information" should be substituted in its place. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. They are intended to remove the connotation that an inquiry can be used to delve into the past to establish pre-commencement facts. Rather, the Government's intention in Clause 60(12) is to make it clear that an inquiry into a current matter can consider relevant information which predates the commencement of Clause 60.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and other noble Lords will accept the change and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 69: Clause 60, page 32, line 16, leave out ("those facts") and insert ("that information").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 70: Clause 60, page 32, line 26, leave out subsection (15) and insert— ("(15) The costs incurred in respect of an inquiry under this section shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I raised the issue in Committee I was heartened by the Minister's signal that the Government would look carefully at any requests the board made for funds to cover the cost of an inquiry. If the board has met all the other stringent criteria for initiating an inquiry, I am sure that no government would lightly refuse to meet the costs, otherwise the board would be unable to exercise the powers which the Bill confers on it.

I would welcome the Government's further assurance that they would be prepared to look at such funding requests as the need for an inquiry arises, rather than wait for the annual budget negotiations. That could significantly delay an inquiry and damage the credibility of the board. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the Government have already said that they believe that resources should rest with those who use them. We shall consider carefully any request by the board for additional funding for an inquiry. The Government have shown that they are prepared to take on difficult inquiries but they cannot give the board a blank cheque. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that short response. Nevertheless, I believe that this is an important amendment to which we may return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 [Supply of information by Ombudsman to Board]:

10 p.m.

Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 71: Clause 64, page 35, line 3, leave out ("as is") and insert ("or other information as might be reasonably").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, like the current police authority, the policing board will have a statutory duty to keep itself informed about the workings of the police complaints and disciplinary system. Amendment No. 71 certainly does not seek to erode the independence of the ombudsman or question the validity or integrity of the new police complaints system in Northern Ireland. The amendment is an attempt to rectify some flaws in the Bill.

The police authority currently has access to a wide range of information, including completed files on cases of complaint, in order to carry out its duty. According to Clause 64, the only information that the ombudsman must supply is statistical. There is no obligation to supply any other material—for example, completed case files. That will create an anomaly whereby Northern Ireland will be treated differently from England and Wales, where police authorities receive information from the forces that they oversee. In Northern Ireland, however, with the change in the complaints system, all police complaints will be dealt with by the police ombudsman, unlike in England and Wales, where only the more serious cases are referred to the Police Complaints Authority. The supply of information will, therefore, be at the discretion of the ombudsman.

Although it is established custom and practice in Great Britain that police authorities are provided with complaints files, I believe it is preferable if the Bill contains a requirement to provide information. If the board is to be a strong independent body in its own right, it is unhelpful if it must rely on the discretion of the ombudsman to provide the information that it needs to do its job effectively.

Furthermore, one of the statutory duties of the new board is to ensure police compliance with the Human Rights Act. It will be unable to perform that function if it is entitled to receive only statistical information about complaints. Access to a broader range of information is, therefore, required. For example, what would happen if the board requested information other than statistics and the ombudsman refused to provide it? Such a turn of events, especially if made public, would hardly help to build confidence in the transparency and accountability of policing in Northern Ireland. For the reasons briefly outlined, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, Amendment No. 71 is on a theme which was also raised in Committee. The Government said then that, looked at from the board's point of view, it appeared to be attractive. But the Government must look at the role and functions of the two bodies, both of which are independent. The use of the word "reasonably" may be an advance on what was debated in Committee. However, the amendment still puts control of general information in the hands of the board, yet it is the ombudsman whom Parliament has decided should be in control of the police complaints system, not the board. The board has a different role, one part of which is to keep itself informed of police complaints. I can assure the noble Lord that the current provisions will enable that to happen.

Patten made it clear that the ombudsman should be responsible for compiling data, and trends and patterns in complaints against the police or accumulations of complaints against individual officers and that the board should use the data it received in developing or reviewing policies and practices; hence the provision requiring the provision of statistical information. Patten did not suggest that the ombudsman should be subservient to the board and said that the ombudsman should have a dynamic co-operative relationship. This is what we expect will be the case.

The board has a different role, one part of which is to keep itself informed of police complaints. The current provision will enable this. I know of no provision in the Police Act 1996 which places a duty on the Police Complaints Authority to provide information in England and Wales. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that I shall check that matter. If I am wrong I shall write to him.

Another important point is that the ombudsman is already required by the Bill to supply information but the decision is rightly hers on what to send. We have no doubt that she will consult the board on what information it will find helpful to receive. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can take into account in preparing the letter to my noble friend that this ombudsman—I am not certain whether we are being politically correct and should refer to ombudsperson—referred to in the legislation is not someone who is isolated like a High Court judge. She—she happens to be an ombudswoman—is already inserting herself into various groupings and committees and sitting in on discussions. The experience and wealth of knowledge that she will acquire in those fields could be of enormous help to the police authority and to the chief constable. We are not talking of classified and confidential information which she will acquire in the way that a normal ombudsman does; it is because she is—I think wisely—involving herself in all manner of discussion groups, in bodies and so forth, that I think she could be a great source of assistance to the bodies we have mentioned.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is right in what he says. It is for that reason that we support Patten in its aim—followed through in the Bill—to ensure that there is constructive dialogue and that that is followed through between the ombudsman and the board.

The noble Lord tempts me into the field of discussing whether we should refer to ombudsperson, ombudsman or ombudswoman. I should tell the noble Lord that during the passage of the Greater London Act we had a constructive dialogue on that Bill which has been referred to tonight. It progressed steadily during the course of the evening until two things happened at the same time: first, someone raised the question of chair or chairwoman; secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—the noble friend of the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Glentoran—appeared in the Chamber and the debate that followed lasted three-quarters of an hour. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, does not want to tempt me into that situation.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, my own preference is to use chairman or chairwoman hut not chair because that conjures up visions of woodworm.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, that was the kind of comment that sparked the lengthy debate. In asking the noble Lord not to press Amendment No. 71, the Government realised, in tabling an amendment in Committee to Clause 65 which adds subparagraph (d) to Section 64(2A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, that it was a little less specific than it wanted to be.

Government Amendment No. 72 seeks to remedy that by making it clear, as the Government said in Committee, that this was intended to cover the ombudsman's relationship with the commissioners and the tribunal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When we reach that amendment, I shall move it. Government Amendment No. 73 is purely a drafting change to alter a reference to the ombudsman in Schedule 1. I shall move that amendment too at the appropriate time.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I may well come back to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 [Limits on complaints and references to Ombudsman]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 72: Clause 65, page 35, line 34, leave out ("a prescribed person or body") and insert ("—

1. (i) the tribunal constituted under section 65(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or
2. (ii) a person appointed under Part IV of that Act").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation]:

Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 72A: Clause 70, page 37, line 6, at end insert— ("( ) The foundation shall—

1. (a) make provision to support the development of the RUC Widow's Association and the RUC Benevolent Fund;
2. (b) make provisions for injured police officers, retired officers and their families.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am conscious that events have moved on with regard to RUC widows. I have brought this issue to your Lordships' notice on many occasions. I had a sympathetic hearing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has been helpful in dealing with the issue. As a result of representations made on behalf of the widows, Mr John Steele, a very distinguished retired Northern Ireland civil servant, was asked to look into what could be done for the two categories of RUC widows: those who were widowed prior to 1982 and those who were widowed after 1982. Mr Steele has produced a report which I shall be looking to the Government to implement in full. In fact, I shall be looking to the Government to enhance what is proposed.

While it seems on the surface that the payments to the widows are generous, I would have to put them into context. I have mentioned in the House on two separate occasions that one RUC widow has been widowed for 30 years. After 30 years' inflation, her pension is £134 a month. That is a shame and a scandal. It is an emotive issue. It has become a major theme of the Belfast Telegraph, a Belfast evening newspaper, and has now been picked up by one of the morning papers, the News Letter. Under Mr Steele's proposals, that widow would receive £1,000 per year for every year since her husband died. That is £30,000. That is £20 a week for the loss of her husband in most cruel and dreadful circumstances.

On a night like this we debate matters of extreme importance. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland sometimes become a little frustrated with noble Lords who do not have the considerable benefit of living in Northern Ireland and therefore have not seen the work of the RUC and have not had their relations and next door neighbours—in my case, my boss at work—shot dead. In some cases they were mistaken for RUC men and in other cases they were RUC men. My next-door neighbour was one of the finest men I have ever met. He was shot by the IRA. Despite what has been said in this Chamber by Liberal noble Lords—I know personally the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and I know that he means well—I must stress that my next-door neighbour's only crime was that he was a member of the Roman Catholic faith.

We owe an awful debt. I owe my life to the RUC, the police service which has looked after me. I feel morally bound to be on the side of the widow and on the side of the injured policemen, of whom there are many, far too many. There are men with no legs, men with only one arm, blind, deafened or mentally impaired. We owe them a debt which no one in this Chamber, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else could adequately express. It makes me emotional to consider just what we owe these people.

I am grateful for the help given to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, through the John Steele review. However, my amendment seeks to take that help one step further. Clause 70 covers the establishment of a foundation to be known as the, Royal Ulster Constabulary [George Cross] Foundation for the purpose of marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary". My amendment seeks to add a subsection which would require that foundation to make provision to support the development of a widows' association and a benevolent fund. It would also make provision for, injured police officers, retired officers and their families".

My colleagues and I happen to be Cross Benchers, but we are also members of the Ulster Unionist Party. We are people who live in Northern Ireland. So far we have received only thin gruel as this Bill has passed through its stages. I should like this amendment to be considered seriously as a method of recognising the good people—the widows and the injured policemen—back home. We should demonstrate the kind of esteem in which this House holds that tragic but gallant section of the population, whose sacrifice cannot be measured. I strongly recommend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.

10.15 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I should like to express my very strong support for this amendment. I have had a good deal to do with the association representing disabled police officers in Northern Ireland. Many officers are tetraplegics or paraplegics. All of them suffer from terrible stress, as do their families. The children have to live with a man who may have no arms or legs. They have to see him living still in danger and still under threat. This group deserves very special recognition.

That is particularly the case since Sir Kenneth Bloomfield looked into the issue of victims. Both his report and the government reached the conclusion that nothing could be done retrospectively over the issue of compensation. Many of those affected received compensation which had been fixed 30 years ago. They received less then than they would ever have received had they suffered from industrial injuries. They were badly advised. Most of them were poor and did not have access to good solicitors. Many ended up with disgracefully low settlements.

Nothing can be done because—I can understand it—no government would be prepared to consider retrospective compensation. However, in view of the splendid gesture towards the Japanese prisoners of war, we ought to think carefully about a special, one-time compensation for those people. I would strongly support a special provision in the Bill specifically for those victims.

A great deal of money has been spent on victims in Northern Ireland during the past three years—government money, EU money and private money—but, necessarily, an awful lot of it has gone not to the RUC and their dependants but to the people who put them in that situation—the children of prisoners. The children, of course, are blameless. Nevertheless, I know, for instance, that the DPOA wanted some computers which were being made available to victims for educational purposes. It was told that its members could not have them because they did not comply with one of the conditions—namely, that they had to have had an uninterrupted education. Most of them became officers at the age of 18 or 19; very often they were blown up when they were 22. They never had much chance to have an education. It is not that they had it interrupted—they just did not have it. But, nevertheless, they were excluded.

Something very special should be done for this not very large and dwindling—because they are dying—group of people. This would be something tangible that people could see and understand.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and the sentiments expressed. I know John Steele. He was, indeed, an excellent civil servant and official in the Northern Ireland office. I have not yet seen his report in full, only a quick summary, but clearly it is important. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House a little more about how the Government have received the report and what they intend to do about it.

I shall not try to gild, as it were, what has been said by my noble friend in support of the amendment, except to say that we all owe a huge debt to the widows and to the injured police officers—particularly, if I may say so in the light of our earlier debates, to the Catholic officers of the RUC. I remember several such officers with whom I became friendly, some in senior positions and some in junior positions. Life was in any case exceptionally difficult in those days if you were a Catholic officer in the RUC.

Among other things, I remember one officer telling me that he could not have a parish life. It was necessary for him to go to a different church to mass each week. If he had gone to the same church with his family there was a possibility of someone seeing him there and then seeing him in his police role, and that would have led to him being targeted. It was exceptionally difficult from that point of view.

It is true, of course, that the casualties and the murders among the Catholic officers of the RUC were much higher than among the Protestant officers. That is why there have been comparatively few Catholics in the RUC over the years. It is not only that someone is killed or wounded in an incident, there is the also the particular horror of knowing that a horrible death or terrible injuries have been deliberately caused by someone targeting the individual concerned. That adds an element to the wounding and death over and above that which might similarly have occurred in a car accident and so on.

As to the details of Amendment No. 72A, I am not exactly clear what the foundation will do, but it seems to me that this might well be one of the elements of its work.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the Government have repeatedly given their support to the sentiments expressed in Amendment No. 72A, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Laird and Lord Molyneaux, and which was so effectively spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Laird.

As we said in Committee, the Government have already fully met Patten's Recommendation 88 with regard to supporting the RUC Widows' Association with funding. This amendment will not add to what the Government are already doing in that respect.

With regard to paragraph (b) of the amendment, I am pleased to refer to an announcement made yesterday by my right honourable friend in response to the Steele report. Steele was asked to review the Patten proposal for a new peace fund. We have placed a copy of his report in the Library. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Rogan, for their effectiveness in pursuing this issue, which led to the setting up of the Steele inquiry.

The Government will now be taking forward implementation of this important report as quickly as possible. I know that that is my right honourable friend's intention. In the announcement that he made about the Steele report, he made it clear that the lump sum payments would be made to the widows of police officers killed by terrorist activity before 25th November 1982 without undue delay. I understand that he hopes to be able to make those payments before the end of the current financial year. He will also move to set up the trust fund proposed by Mr Steele as soon as practicable.

In the interests of getting on with implementation, my right honourable friend has chosen not to have a formal consultation period so that it can be moved forward as quickly as possible. But I know that he and my right honourable friend the Minister of State will be glad to receive the views of any interested parties as to the form and detail of the fund. I am sure that he would welcome any further input and co-operation from the noble Lords who have proposed this amendment.

The Steele report properly recognises the sacrifice of a part of society in Northern Ireland that understandably feels that its concerns have been neglected for too long. I welcome that recognition and I know that the House joins with me in that respect.

Amendment No. 72A seeks to bring together the role of the RUCGC foundation and the trust fund to which I referred. The Government believe that the two bodies—and the interests of those they will serve—are best kept separate. As I have said, the Government intend to press on as soon as reasonably practicable with the implementation of the Steele report.

The RUC GC foundation on the other hand will inevitably take a little longer to set up. A working group has been set up by my right honourable friend to come up with proposals. Clause 70 of the Bill sets out its general thrust, which is towards the professional development of police officers and innovations in policing. Representatives of the Police Federation and of the superintendents' and the chief police officers' staff associations have been invited to sit on this group and the Government look forward to hearing its views. There will certainly be a research element in its work.

To conclude, the Government appreciate and share the sentiments that underlie the amendment. What divides us is the means rather than the end. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he aware that there is a body of opinion that has put forward a proposal that the foundation shall be supported by Royal Charter? I realise that he will not be in a position to give an answer to this specific point tonight. However, will he recognise that those whom the foundation is intended to benefit would receive considerable comfort if a Royal Charter were to represent the kind of support for the foundation that can uniquely be given by those means?

In the light of the failure to carry an earlier resolution about the name of the RUC, it would be seen as of great importance if that could be achieved. I realise that the noble and learned Lord cannot give a specific answer, but will he kindly take note that there is this feeling?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I do take note of that. I am aware of that feeling. It is not a matter for the Government; however, I hope that the Government will be able to respond and indicate their views in the near future.

Lord Laird

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I also thank the Minister for his remarks. I appreciate what he has said and I am very pleased. That is in no way complicated by my amendment. My amendment seeks to, make provision to support the development of the RUC Widows' Association and the RUC Benevolent Fund". It is a process of linking those sections of our community who have made sacrifices to the fund outlined in Clause 70. Everyone recognises that RUC widows and those who have been injured and disabled have made sacrifices. We wish to link the association and the benevolent fund to the foundation established in the Bill, for the purpose of marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary". If we must have things in black and white and written in tablets of stone as regards the relationship between the Northern Ireland police force and the Garda Siochana, surely it is a very small request to ask that the sacrifice of those people back home, who were initially grievously hurt and injured physically and then mentally by the release, in many instances, of the murderers and the attackers—the terrorists—should be reflected in the clause. Is it too much to ask—it is a very small price—that this amendment be accepted so that we may form a link in some way with the organisation called the "The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation" for the purpose of marking the sacrifice and honouring the achievements of the RUC?

I do not believe that I am making an unreasonable request. It would be well received by the community from which I come in Northern Ireland, who have not gained much else from the past few days' activities in this House. Indeed, it would be received very well. I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.

10.32 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Attlee, E.	Lyell, L.
Blatch, B.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Brigstocke, B.	Monson, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Montrose, D.
Burnham, L.	Moynihan, L.
Byford, B.	Northbrook, L.
Cooke of Islandreagh, L.	Northesk, E.
Cope of Berkeley, L.	Norton of Louth, L.
Craigavon, V.	Palmer, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Dundee, E.	Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Rogan, L.
Flather, B.	Saatchi, L.
Fookes, B.	Seccombe, B.
Glenarthur, L.	Selborne, E.
Glentoran, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Henley, L. [Teller]	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Kingsland, L.	Tebbit, L.
Kirkham, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Laird, L. [Teller]	Vivian, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.	Wakeham, L.
Luke, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Brookman, L.
Addington, L.	Burlison, L.
Ahmed, L.	Carter, L. [Teller]
Amos, B.	Castle of Blackburn, B.
Andrews, B.	Chandos, V.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.	Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Bach, L.	Crawley, B.
Barker, B.	Currie of Marylebone, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Davies of Coity, L.
Berkeley, L.	Davies of Oldham, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.	Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Billingham, B.	Desai, L.
Birt, L.	Dixon, L.
Blackstone, B.	Dubs, L.
Borrie, L.	Elder, L.
Bragg, L.	Elis-Thomas, L.
Brennan, L.	Evans of Parkside, L.
Brett, L.	Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Maddock, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Filkin, L.	Methuen, L.
Gale, B.	Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.	Mitchell, L.
Gilbert, L.	Morgan, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Goldsmith, L.	Nicol, B.
Goudie, B.	Northover, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Orme, L.
Grabiner, L.	Parekh, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Peston, L.
Greengross, B.	Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Grenfell, L.	Puttnam, L.
Hamwee, B.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Rea, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.	Renwick of Clifton, L.
Harrison, L.	Russell, E.
Haskel, L.	Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Hayman, B.	Sawyer, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Scotland of Asthal, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.	Sewel, L.
Hoyle, L.	Sharp of Guildford, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.	Shutt of Greetland, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Simon, V.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)	Smith of Clifton, L.
	Smith of Leigh, L.
Islwyn, L.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Judd, L.	Thornton, B.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.	Tomlinson, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Layard, L.	Wakefield, Bp.
Lea of Crondall, L.	Warner, L.
	Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Lipsey, L.	Whitaker, B.
Lockwood, B.	Whitty, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.	Wilkins, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]	Williams of Mostyn, L.
	Winston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.	Woolmer of Leeds, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.	Young of Dartington, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

10.41 p.m.

Schedule 1 [The Northern Ireland Policing Board:]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 73: Schedule page 43, line 2, leave out ("office as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland") and insert ("the office of Ombudsman").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 74: Schedule 1, page 46, line 27, leave out ("after the date of his appointment").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 relate to the removal of members from office on the police board. Amendment No. 76 relates to disqualification for membership of the police board.

The amendments are clear. They follow through our determination to ensure in the Bill that we cannot have our police force run by people with criminal records. As the Bill is drafted, that is not clear. If Amendment No. 74 is not agreed to, one could assume that if a member had committed some heinous crime, had been in the Maze, or whatever, before becoming a political member (or whatever) of the police board, that would be all right. That cannot be so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, clarified that if individuals have a conviction of any kind they are disqualified from being members of a council or the Assembly for the full term of their sentence, assuming that they were released before the end of their sentence, plus five years. I do not think that that is good enough. We do not want people who have terrorist records on our police board—ever.

Amendment No. 76 lays down reasonable conditions for disqualification from membership. They are very similar. If a person has been convicted in any one of a number of ways listed in the amendment, he has a criminal record, and clearly has no right to sit on a board in charge of a police force.

It is late in the evening and I shall not repeat the arguments that we have made before. The bottom line is that we do not want any slip of the pen in the wording of the Bill to leave a gap that could ever enable convicted terrorists to be in charge of our police force. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I support the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has spoken to them with great restraint. Had he known when he drafted them that a so-called loyalist multiple murderer would be wined and dined in this building today, he might have used rather stronger language. I admire his moderation. That incident makes one wonder whether there is any limit to what can happen in the United Kingdom Parliament. I have been here for 30 years and I am beginning to wonder.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I hope that he will not take no for an answer on the amendments. I have to point out that there appears to be a drafting defect in Amendment No. 74. It should include the word "committed". However, that is no reason for him not to press the amendment, because drafting defects can always be cleared up at Third Reading.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I support the amendments. What the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are being asked to put up with is unbelievable. The police are prepared in the course of their day-to-day duty to get injured in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, described or to lay down their lives for the safety of the people of Northern Ireland or of any one of us who travels there. We are asking them to accept that their rules and regulations can be laid down not just by people who have committed a normal crime, but by those who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes. That beggars belief. I cannot imagine what we are up to. It is staggering.

The Government say that they want participation from both sides of the community, but do they honestly believe that they have to go into the criminal sectors on both sides to get it? If they believe that, they should go to Northern Ireland and see. Are they saying that they cannot find a decent Protestant or a decent Roman Catholic without picking up one of those who have been involved in the criminal activities of the past 30 years? We are talking about the type of person who killed one of my soldiers, hitting him in the front of a school bus full of children, chasing him to the back and blowing his brains out over the children—and he went away down the road cheering. We may know who he was but we cannot convict him. He cannot be said to have suffered battlefield stress from being in a so-called war. He went away and celebrated with his friends all night.

I cannot imagine which way we are going. The Government have taken away the police's badge, their uniform, everything, and now they are prepared to put hardened criminals into decision-making positions. They insult the Roman Catholic population. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is not here, because he could say I his 10,000 times better than I can. He is proud of being a Roman Catholic and I am very proud to have known and served with some excellent Roman Catholic police officers who have done their best and sacrificed their family life and their whole social being. It might be argued that it is fair enough that we have let these criminals out, but we cannot put them on the Policing Board. I wholly support the amendments and I am horrified by the way in which it looks as if we are going.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, there have been consistent attempts to add provisions that would restrict membership of the board in a way that neither Patten nor the Good Friday agreement envisaged. The issue is one of inclusivity. The Government believe that those appointed to the Assembly should automatically be eligible for the board. Noble Lords disagree with that. We believe that the Good Friday agreement should be implemented in all its aspects, including policing reform and decommissioning. With regard to the latter, we believe Out the IRA needs to re-engage with the commission to show that further progress will be made. However, this Bill stands on its own merits.

I believe that the removal provisions in the Bill provide a strong safeguard. Unlike the police authority of Northern Ireland at present but as under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, members of the board must be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

The Government have listened to the points raised by noble Lords. We hear their concerns. However, having listened, we believe that the Bill meets the test of inclusivity in the Good Friday agreement while containing appropriate safeguards. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I do not know whether I have to employ that strategy more than I am allowed at I his point in order to make a speech—does he consider that the concept of inclusivity properly extends to including the confidence of those who serve in the police service of Northern Ireland? If he does, can he imagine the consequence for officers who expose themselves daily to the risks that have been recited so often in this House? Can he imagine the effect on their confidence of having as participants in the board people who have committed the type of scheduled offence with which we are concerned?

It sounds clinical and almost consoling to speak of the offence as "scheduled". I know that it is rather bad form to recite incidents that have occurred. However, I believe that in order to inject a sense of realism it is necessary to recite one or two such incidents from people's experience. I recognise that my own experience is minuscule compared with that of many people who have lived in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may take one example from either side of the community.

I was present at the Heights Bar in Loughinisland a few hours after a terrible massacre had taken place of people who were watching a football match. It was perpetrated by so-called loyalists. They sprayed the bar and killed seven people, including Mr Barney Green, aged 82. The floor was covered with what appeared to be treacle, but of course it was not; it was the blood of Mr Barney Green and various other people.

I take an episode from the other side. An RUC officer, PC Paul Slane, had both legs removed and an arm seriously injured by an IRA rocket installed in the roadside. The female police officer next to him was killed. That man survived and continues to serve in the RUC.

How can members of the RUC be expected to have confidence in arrangements which include on the board people who have perpetrated, no matter how long ago, that type of outrage? That is what I ask the Government to consider. It really is necessary to move away from the nice, clinical language of scheduled offences into the reality of life and death.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place made clear that those who are considered for appointment as independent members of the board will, as applies to the police authority at present, be subject to character checks. Such checks will include an obligation to disclose criminal records. On a large number of occasions we have also discussed removal criteria for both political and independent members who commit criminal offences after their appointment.

However, the Government take the view that those who have been elected to the Assembly have a right to serve on the board. That is consistent with the way in which they may hold ministerial office. As I have already made clear, if they or independent members do not remain committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, they may be removed. I believe that, as noble Lords know in relation to the Assembly, that is at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, we are talking about the police board.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I would remind noble Lords that we are on Report. The Minister had replied when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, stood up to make his intervention. Noble Lords should not speak after the Minister has replied.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, may I continue? How is it possible to equate the statements that, for example, Mr Gerry Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness have made that they are committed to non-violence with the fact that when the bodies were recently supposed to be being returned by the IRA, Gerry Adams, leader of the West Belfast Brigade, went round and told the people who might be getting the bodies back that they must receive them quietly and bury them quietly?

Whatever those people have said in political terms, they are surely not fit to be in charge of the police and legal proceedings of the country, particularly since Gerry Adams has said that he does not recognise British justice. I can see that as a member of the Assembly he may have a valuable contribution to make. But that is surely absolutely different from being responsible for the policing of the country.

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)

My Lords, it would be helpful for the purposes of debate, and I hope it would be helpful for the noble Baroness, if I were to repeat what it says in the Companion about Report. It says that only the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of the Bill should speak after the Minister on Report, except for short questions of elucidation to the Minister or where the Minister speaks early in order to assist the House in debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps he would like to rise and make his point.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

My Lords, this is an extremely serious matter. My noble friend is very well-informed and should be allowed to make her point.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, the noble Baroness, who is very well-informed and has made many serious and sensible contributions to the debate, has made her point. I am reminding the House about procedure.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will forgive me, I believe that that little intervention rather lowered the tone of the debate that we have been having.

I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment. I listened to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and other noble Lords who have had great experience of Northern Ireland. How many noble Lords on the government side of the House are thinking through this for themselves?

I understand parliamentary democracy. But I ask you all, when you go home tonight, to think about the truths that you have heard about the happenings in our country. And then I ask you to ask yourselves privately, with peace of mind, whether you would like to have one of those released terrorists in charge of your police force.

I do not believe that the removal clauses are strong enough. But they are certainly better than the provisions in relation to disqualification. I shall seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 76.

[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

11 p.m.

Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 75A: Schedule 1, page 46, line 43. at end insert—

1. ("(v) a Minister in the Government of Ireland;
2. (vi) a Junior Minister in the Government of Ireland;
3. (vii) a chairman or deputy chairman of—
1. (a) a committee of the Dail Eireann (House of Representatives of Ireland);
2. (b) a committee of the Seanad Eireann (Senate of Ireland); or
3. (c) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75A stems from the Disqualifications Bill Committee stage on Monday 6th November. During that debate it was established that, via the Disqualifications Bill, a Minister of the Government of Ireland could sit on the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of their being a member of the Assembly they would have the possibility of receiving a party selection for the police board via the operation of the d'Hondt system. Yet Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive are expressly excluded from being on the police board. This simple amendment aims to address that anomaly. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 75A is to add to the list of offices which, if held, would disqualify the postholder from appointment to the board. It was raised on Monday night when we discussed the Disqualifications Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that we will look at this issue and talk to him about it before reaching the issue on Report in the Disqualification Bill. In the light of that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, in the light of those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 76: Schedule 1, page 46, line 49, at end insert—

1. ("(d) he has at any time been convicted of a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Northern Ireland (Emergency 1669 Provisions) Act 1991, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 or Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000;
2. (e) he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not);
3. (f) the political party of which he is a member is linked to any organisation which has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997;
4. (g) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or
5. (h) the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to satisfy any of the four factors set out in section 3(9)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

11.3 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Attlee, E.	Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Blatch, B.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Molyneaux of Killead, L.
	Monson, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Northbrook, L.
Burnham. L. [Teller]	Northesk, E.
Cooke of Islandreagh, L.	Norton of Louth, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.	Palmer, L.
Craigavon, V.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Rogan, L.
Dundee, E.	Shrewsbury, E.
Eden of Winton, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Glentoran, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Henley, L. [Teller]	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Kirkham, L.	Vivian, L.
Laird, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Addington, L.	Crawley, B.
Amos, B.	Davies of Coity, L.
Andrews, B.	Davies of Oldham, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B
Ashton of Upholland, B.	Desai, L.
Bach, L.	Dixon, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Dubs, L.
Berkeley, L.	Elder, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.	Evans of Parkside, L.
Billingham, B.	Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Birt, L.	Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Blackstone, B.	Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Bragg, L.	Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Brennan, L.	Filkin, L.
Brett, L.	Gale, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Brookman, L.	Gilbert, L.
Burlison, L.	Gladwin of Clee, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]	Goldsmith, L.
Chandos, V.	Goudie, B.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Gould of Potternewton, B.
Cocks of Hartclifle, L.	Grabiner, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.	Morgan, L.
Greengross, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Grenfell, L.	Nicol, B.
Hamwee, B.	Orme, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Parekh, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Peston, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.	Puttnam, L.
Harrison, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Haskel, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hayman, B.	Russell, E.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.	Sawyer, L.
Hoyle, L.	Scotland of Asthal, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Sewel, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)	Shutt of Greetland, L.
	Simon, V.
Islwyn, L.	Smith of Clifton, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)	Smith of Leigh, L.
	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Judd, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.	Thornton, B.
Layard, L.	Tomlinson, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Lipsey, L.	Wakefield, Bp.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.	Warner, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]	Whitaker, B.
	Whitty, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.	Wilkins, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L	Winston, L.
Methuen, L.	Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B	Young of Dartington, L.
Mitchell, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

11.13 p.m.

Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 77: Schedule 1, page 49, line 28, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 77, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 78. These amendments are of a pragmatic nature. Together, they would remove the detailed provisions that dictate the procedure for calling a meeting to discuss the possibility of initiating an inquiry. Surely, the details should be related to the meeting at which the decision to initiate an inquiry is taken. The current elaborate procedures in the Bill are totally impractical and place an unnecessary fetter on the ability of the board to call for reports and inquiries. It is the power to call for reports and inquiries which enables the board to hold others to account and thus creates transparency in policing.

I suggest that a safeguard is already provided, in that a substantial number of board members must approve an inquiry before it is initiated. What is the value of that unnecessary and bureaucratic red tape? I urge noble Lords to embrace a pragmatic approach to the procedures by adopting the two amendments and creating a situation in which it is feasible for the board, where necessary, to call for that report or inquiry. I beg to move.

11.15 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to remove the provision requiring the chairman of the board to notify members of a meeting to consider a request for an inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, tabled similar amendments in Committee.

The Government's view is that the provisions in the Bill, Schedule 1, paragraph 18, which are based on arrangements already in place in local government legislation in Northern Ireland—the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972—are unexceptional. The use of the inquiry power itself would only arise in grave or exceptional circumstances. It seems to the Government that a mechanism should be in place to ensure that all members are aware of meetings to discuss such important issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to the safeguards that are in place at a subsequent meeting at which a decision would be taken as to whether or not to proceed with the inquiry. We believe it is important that all members of the board should be aware of a meeting that is to discuss that possibility. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, not to press the amendment.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]

Schedule 3 [District policing partnerships:]

Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 79: Schedule 3, page 55, line 39, leave out ("in the case of an independent member.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 79. It is not equitable or fair that there should be a distinction made between those people who are political members or independent members of a district policing partnership. The amendment would mean that a political or independent member could be removed from the district policing partnership prior to appointment for failing to disclose a criminal conviction. I think that is important. We think that is important. It is difficult to see why there should be that distinction. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, in this grouping I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83 and 83A. Several of these amendments stand in my name and the names of my noble friends. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, has said, the amendments concern the members of district policing partnerships. There are two kinds of member. There are so-called independent members and so-called political members. Some of the restrictions on membership apply only to the independent members. There is no reason why they should not apply also to the political members.

The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 79, which proposes that a political member should not be allowed to continue on the board—by contrast with an independent member—if he has failed to disclose a conviction. I shall not go into the detail of the amendments because they are similar.

However, I should draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 82. Under paragraph 8(2) a person is disqualified from membership of a district policing partnership if he has at any time been convicted of an offence and has had a sentence of imprisonment passed upon him. But that applies only to the independent members. So some of these terrorists and other criminals could be appointed to the district policing partnerships. This was discussed earlier in connection with similar appointments at a higher level. Therefore I will not labour the point. Given the horrific crimes for which some of them have been responsible I do not think that they are suitable to serve on district policing partnerships.

One needs to remember in considering this that it is not just a question of helping to manage the police force as it might be in some part of England, Wales or Scotland. There are parts of Northern Ireland where the rackets are intense and exceptionally vicious. Many of the beatings and murders now taking place in Northern Ireland are connected with those rackets. They are entrenched in the community. They will have to be eliminated if Northern Ireland is to have a peaceful life in the future. If we allow criminals at that level to sit on the district policing partnerships, they simply will not work. What is more, they will help to undermine the police in all that they are doing and in their attempts to get on top of the rackets.

Ten years ago I was making speeches in Northern Ireland in which I said that part of the momentum of terrorism was the politics of the situation but that another part of the momentum of the terrorism—that was the case even then but it is more so now—was the rackets and the finances. The Mafia started as a political organisation. It has not been a political organisation for a long time but it has had a serious effect on the life of Sicily and other parts of Italy and it has spread out to many other parts of the world over the past century. The paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide are of exactly the same character. They try to control different sections of Belfast. It is those people that it is suggested could remain members of district policing partnerships. It is quite wrong and very dangerous for the future of Northern Ireland.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I believe that the independent members are being discriminated against. I shall not talk about the criminal activities—I made myself clear during the previous debate about the board. The DPPs will replace police liaison committees. Are the same indiscretions permitted on those committees? The liaison committees have been particularly instrumental in bringing the two communities together in a forum where they have been able to discuss policing and local crime. It is intended that community co-operation should be improved. If we discriminate against the independent members and the political members, that will not be conducive to such co-operation.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, as under Schedule 1 in relation to the police board, Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 seek to tighten the disqualification and removal provisions for district policing partnership members and particularly for political appointments. Similar arguments apply in relation to these amendments as applied on the group of amendments which we recently discussed. The latter is particularly relevant for DPPs where the powers are so much more limited in relation to the police boards.

We must look at the safeguards which are in place and are in the Bill. For councillors, who represent the pool from which the political members are taken, there are already criminal record disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, adverted to those earlier. In summary, individuals would be disqualified if imprisoned for three months or more, whether suspended or not, until their sentence and then a period of five years had elapsed. There are disqualification provisions for independents too—a sentence of imprisonment, whether suspended or not. Both independents and councillors are subject to removal provisions under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3; for example, if they are convicted or fail to comply with their terms of appointment or fail to disclose convictions. It is also relevant that the board makes appointments, and the Secretary of State will issue a code on how this should be done. There is also the default provision in Clause 15 which we have already debated.

As we said in Committee and earlier tonight, the Government believe that the Bill has an appropriate balance between inclusivity and safeguards. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to the CPLCs. These bodies are established by the police authorities. As far as I am aware, those CPLCs involve councillors being appointed without checks beyond those which apply when they are seeking appointment as councillors. Thus, in relation to the political members of the DPPs and the councillor members on the CPLCs, the same principles would apply as regards whether or not a person could become a councillor. Subject to the point I made about the councillor members of the CPLCs, they are not statutory bodies and therefore there are no statutory disqualifications beyond those that apply to councillors.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, did not speak to Amendment No 83A, so I shall not reply to it.

Lord Laird

My Lords, as the proposer of Amendment No. 79, I have listened carefully to what has been said by the Minister. I shall couple that with the fact that noble Lords on some Benches in this House have attempted to allow opportunities for the peace process in Northern Ireland to be enhanced rather than put under stress and strain, as it has been tonight. I wonder how some of the activities we have seen tonight will be reported in the Northern Ireland press, especially in terms of support for those people whose sacrifice has been extreme. I propose to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

11.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 5
CONTENTS
Attlee, E.	Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Blatch, B.	Lyell, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L
Bridgeman, V.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Burnham, L.	Monson, L.
Cooke of Islandreagh, L	Montrose, D.
Cope of Berkeley, L.	Northbrook, L.
Craigavon, V.	Northesk, E.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Norton of Louth, L.
Dundee, E.	Palmer, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Glentoran, L.	Rogan, L.
	Shrewsbury, E.
Henley, L. [Teller]	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Laird, L. [Teller]	Vivian, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Addington, L.	Farrington of Ribbleton, B
Alli, L,	Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Amos, B.	Filkin, L.
Andrews, B.	Gale, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B.	Gilbert, L.
Bach, L.	Gladwin of Clee, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Goldsmith, L.
Berkeley, L.	Goudie, B.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.	Gould of Potternewton, B.
Billingham, B.	Grabiner, L.
Birt, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Blackstone, B.	Grenfell, L.
Bragg, L.	Harris of Haringey, L.
Brennan, L.	Harris of Richmond, B.
Brett, L.	Harrison, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Haskel, L.
Brookman, L.	Hayman, B.
Burlison, L.	Hollis of Heigham, B.
Carter, L. [Teller]	Howells of St. Davids, B.
Chandos, V.	Hoyle, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Hughes of Woodside, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.	Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.	Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Judd, L.
Desai, L.	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Dixon, L.	King of West Bromwich, L.
Dubs, L.	Layard, L.
Elder, L.	Lea of Crondall, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Lipsey, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.	Lofthoase of Pontefract, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.	Sewel, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]	Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
	Shutt of Greetland, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.	Simon, V.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.	Smith of Clifton, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.	Smith of Leigh, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B
Mitchell, L.	Thornton, B.
Morgan, L.	Tomlinson, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
	Wakefield, Bp.
Nicol, B.	Warner, L.
Puttnam, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.	Whitaker, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.	Whitty, L.
Russell, E.	Wilkins, B.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Sawyer, L.	Winston, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

11.36 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 82: Schedule 3, page 56, line 11, leave out ("an independent") and insert ("a").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

11.37 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 82) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 6
CONTENTS
Attlee, E.	Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Blatch, B.	Lyell, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Burnham, L.	Monson, L.
Cooke of Islandreagh, L.	Northbrook, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.	Northesk, E.
Craigavon, V.	Norton of Louth, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Palmer, L.
Dundee, E.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Eden of Winton, L.	Rogan, L.
Glentoran, L. [Teller]	Shrewsbury, E.
Henley, L. [Teller]	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Laird, L.	Vivian, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Billingham, B.
Addington, L.	Birt, L.
Alli, L.	Blackstone, B.
Amos, B.	Bragg, L.
Andrews, B.	Brennan, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Brett, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.	Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Bach, L.	Brookman, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Burlison, L.
Berkeley, L.	Carter, L. [Teller]
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.	Chandos, V.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Lea of Crondall, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Lipsey, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Crawley, B.	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.	McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Dixon, L.	MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Dubs, L.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L
Elder, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.	Mitchell, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Morgan, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Nicol, B.
Filkin, L.	Puttnam, L.
Gale, B.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gilbert, L.	Russell, E.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Goldsmith, L.	Sawyer, L.
Goudie, B.	Scotland of Asthal, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Sewel, L.
Grabiner, L.	Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Shutt of Greetland, L.
Grenfell, L.	Simon, V.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Smith of Clifton, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.	Smith of Leigh, L.
Harrison, L.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Haskel, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Hayman, B.	Thornton, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Tomlinson, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hoyle, L.	Wakefield, Bp.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Warner, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)	Whitaker, B.
	Whitty, L.
Judd, L.	Wilkins, B.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.	Winston, L.
Layard, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

11.46 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 83 and 83A not moved.]

Schedule 7 [Transitional and transitory provisions]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 84: Page 72, line 40, leave out ("20") and insert ("21").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 84 is a technical drafting point to fix an erroneous numbering reference in paragraph 4 of Schedule 7. That paragraph would then refer to Section 21 rather than Section 20. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.