ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

HL Deb 23 October 2000 vol 618 cc60-119

("12.—(1) The 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 any other 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 form as the Secretary of State shall 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 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.

(7) The Board shall be responsible for carrying out audits of all aspects of police activity, and in exercising this function the Board may investigate any aspect of police policies, procedures and practices as it deems necessary and will have access to any information which it requires including that which relates to expenditure of the police grant.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 51 is a major amendment. One does not see how making the Chief Constable of the RUC directly responsible to government for police expenditure will enhance either the effective operation of the police service in Northern Ireland or its accountability to the people. Since its inception the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has borne the responsibility for this matter, and that arrangement has worked very well. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could explain why the Government believe that it is necessary to change the arrangement and remove that responsibility from the policing board. We believe that that would deprive the board of the power to audit police expenditure, which is an essential tool for police accountability, and foist the responsibility onto the chief constable, which he has clearly stated he does not want. It is possible that by removing this function of accountability the new board will feel compelled to exercise another of its important powers more frequently: to call for formal reports and initiate inquiries. Surely, that is not a situation which the Committee wants to see. This measure goes further than Patten intended and is contrary to current practice in England and Wales. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government have insisted on changing the current arrangements and what benefits it will bring.

We ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment which, if accepted, will secure a crucial investigatory and oversight function for the new board. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I have some sympathy for the amendment which was suggested in outline, if not in detail, by the police authority in its comments on the Bill as it stood. The wording of the Bill is not very satisfactory, as the noble Baroness said, in that it provides that the functions of the chief constable in this respect, shall he exercised on behalf of and in the name of the Board". That blurs the lines of responsibility and takes it partly away from the chief constable without really giving it to the board. The new clause proposed in lieu of Clause 12 places that responsibility firmly on the board and the chief constable may delegate it from there.

On the other hand, I am not happy with subsection (7) of the new clause, which provides for an extremely wide-ranging audit of police activity, not just in relation to finance, to which the rest of the clause refers, but operational matters of every kind. What is more, it gives statutory access to any information in the hands of the police. Bear in mind that the board will contain representatives of parties which have not decommissioned and separated themselves from violence in a full manner. It will contain people in touch with—perhaps one should describe them as such—all sections of Northern Ireland society, including some who are thoroughly against the activities of the police. They should not be in a position to demand access to information of that kind, or to audit and second-guess operational responsibilities of the Chief Constable and the members of the police force. This is not what happens in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have always been careful to separate the operational responsibility of the chief constable from other matters.

6.30 p.m.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That is exactly what happens in police authorities in England in Wales. There is a statutory duty to be effective and efficient. The only way to make sure of that is to drill down into the organisation. That does not make the Chief Constable say that the police authority must not be involved in operational issues. It is not, but it must understand the result of those operational issues. The only way to do that is to make sure that everything is reviewed by drilling down and auditing. At the moment, that is very much what police authorities throughout England and Wales do.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

From what the noble Baroness said, and from what 1 understand, operational responsibilities still remain separate. I know of chief constables in Great Britain who have quite properly refused certain information to police authorities—information which was delicate and related to police operations—and the police authorities have not insisted on demanding it. The amendment provides for "any information". The difference is that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, as presently constituted under the Bill, will contain some people whose objectives are not the same as those of the police. That does not apply in Great Britain.

Lord Rogan

I have sympathy for the purpose of the amendment. I strongly object to the transfer of financial responsibility. That is not in line with the position of similar police authorities in Great Britain. It would be a damaging blow to the credibility of the new policing board in Northern Ireland. It goes much further than Patten's proposals. It could have an extremely damaging effect on the internal audit function. The Patten report recommended a substantial strengthening of financial credibility, including a strong audit department within the new policing board.

The accounting officer of a government department is required to make arrangements for internal audit in accordance with the requirements of the government internal audit manual. One of the primary responsibilities of an internal audit is to provide assurances to the accounting officer on the efficiency, the effectiveness and the economy of systems established to achieve the organisation's aims and objectives. If the Chief Constable in effect becomes the sub-accounting officer, he will require an internal audit service to provide this assurance to him. I support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I understand that the Chief Constable's view has been given to the Government following consultation. The RUC's published response to Patten on page 7 says that the Chief Constable agrees to that recommendation. It would be helpful to know where the view comes from that the Chief Constable is opposed to that.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it is difficult to make comparisons because of the different systems and audit arrangements that apply in Northern Ireland as opposed to England and Wales. Local government audit arrangements apply elsewhere. In Northern Ireland the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the National Audit Office is the police auditor.

It is not often that the Government, in another place, enjoy the support of the Member for West Tyrone. But in opposing a similar amendment to Amendment No. 51 in Committee the Government received his support. He said that he supported Clause 12, as drafted in the Bill, because a body which is required to hold another to account or exercise oversight functions on finance should not also keep the detailed accounts.

It is important to consider that in addition Clause 12 addresses technical, but important, issues of police accounting and audit arrangements. The effect of the amendment would be to take detailed financial management of the policing service out of the hands of the Chief Constable and place it in the hands of the board.

The amendment would require the board, rather than the Chief Constable, to keep proper accounts and records but enable it to delegate its functions if it chose to do so. This is the position that was criticised by Patten. Government policy is, and has been, to place management of the policing service in the hands of the person most responsible for delivering that service; namely, the Chief Constable. It is also government policy that the police authority, and, in future, the board should be a regulator of the police service, holding it to account and ensuring community consultation. That is not to say that the authority or the board should not have powers to ensure proper financial accountability. The police authority has them and the board will have them. That is in line with what was recommended in the Patten report. Were we to accept the amendment we would be returning to a situation which Patten describes in paragraph 5.13 of his report as "seriously flawed".

The Government believe that it is important for the Chief Constable to be responsible for the detailed aspect of financial management and for the board to concentrate on strategic issues—the budget, the objectives, planning and measuring performance, securing improvements in service delivery and efficiency and holding to account. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, I would say that that holding to account is not, as she fears, holding to account to the Government, but holding to account to the board. Accordingly, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said. I am not entirely convinced that the Government understand the complexity of what will happen if Clause 12 is not amended. The police authority can currently audit expenditure in any area of policing activity. The Chief Constable is very happy with that situation. Therefore, the amendment at Clause 12(7) will enshrine that right in legislation. There is to be no statutory post of secretary and chief executive to the new board. That means that some accounting responsibility can move from the board to the Chief Constable.

I am concerned about that. I shall look carefully at what the noble Baroness said. We will almost certainly return to the issue at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Establishment of district policing partnerships]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 52: Page 8, line 1. leave out ("and Schedule 3").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. The definition of "district council" in Clause 14 does not need to refer to Schedule 3 because Schedule 3 has its own interpretation paragraph in paragraph 1. I beg to move.

Lord Fitt

Clause 14 is one of the more controversial parts of the Bill in Northern Ireland. Clause 14 sets up district partnerships. While district partnerships will be totally acceptable to 70 or 80 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland, there are a few areas which at present are dominated by paramilitary organisations. Attention has been drawn to the fact that those who have a criminal conviction or those who have been associated with paramilitary organisations will be unacceptable to district partnerships. In Northern Ireland there are so many people who have been involved in terrorist activity but they have never been convicted. The reason that they have never been convicted is that the police were unable to bring them before the courts because they could not get evidence against them.

Everyone in the district would know that someone had been involved in terrorist activity. What would happen if that person applied to the district council to be placed on the district policing board? What form of vetting would take place? Would the district council be able to take into account what information it had that such and such a person had been involved in terrorist activity and then not allow that person to be part of the partnership? In line with what my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said earlier, would that person be able to say, "Nothing has been proved against me. My human rights are being taken away as I have not been brought before the courts"?

The Government have to be very, very careful about who may be appointed to district police partnerships. I know that my noble friend Lady Blood will seek to move an amendment on this matter which I shall support. At the moment there are liaison committees. They should he commended for what they have had to do in difficult circumstances over the past number of years. I warn the Government to be very careful about the personnel who may be appointed to district police partnerships.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

I know that the RUC has already done immensely successful work in the community but I very much share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who is much better informed on these matters than I could ever be. I should like to quote one incident which was recently reported in the press. The CCTV cameras in Londonderry were damaged and removed and the very courageous, I think, SDLP local representative said that they should be restored because their absence damaged the possibility of catching criminals. The Sinn Fein people said, "Not so. We will police this area. To restore those cameras would help the RUC. We will not work with the RUC and therefore no one should restore the CCTV cameras. They represent the RUC and police power". I can see that such incidents could occur very frequently. Therefore, we need to be very careful about this matter.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Perhaps I may make the following suggestion. When we reach group 10 on the groupings list, a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Glentoran, and other noble Lords concerning the issue of the membership of the district police partnerships will be debated. Perhaps I may reply at that point. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has come in slightly out of order.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [District policing partnerships]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)

Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 were marshalled incorrectly. The correct order is Amendment No. 54 first.

6.45 p.m.

Baroness Blood moved Amendment No. 54: Page 50, line 41, at end insert— ("( ) The Board shall ensure that, as far as is practicable, in appointing independent members at least one shall be drawn from existing Community Police Liaison Committee members nominated.").

The noble Baroness said: With the Committee's permission, I shall speak to the two amendments to Schedule 3 standing in my name. The reason for doing so is obvious. Both are about one issue and similar information surrounds both amendments.

A lot has been written, spoken and sometimes implied about Northern Ireland and we have seen many changes in the past four or five years. Indeed, there is a Chinese proverb which states, "May you live in interesting times". No one could deny that in Northern Ireland we are living in the most interesting times and the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill has had its fair share of public exposure and debate in recent months, not least in your Lordships' Committee today. I find it strange that I am moving this amendment in view of our first debate today about sonic parts of the community accepting the RUC and other parts of the community rejecting them.

In the world today we often express ourselves with an abbreviation of the title of the organisations to which we are referring. For example, we refer to the different departments within government by italics only. It has become a form of shorthand that we are all used to. If I were to mention in this Chamber the IRA, the UDA, the UVF, the RUC and the NIO, most if not all Members of the Committee would know to whom I was referring. But in these amendments the group of people referred to is known as the CPL C. Few other than those of us from Northern Ireland who sit in this House would understand to whom that refers.

The simple answer is that these committees or groups are made up of "ordinary" people—I do not like to use that word but it is the only way I can find to describe them— who live in local neighbourhoods, who have wanted to have an input in their own areas. Many have taken great personal risk to do so, during times when it has been very dangerous within both communities—yes, both communities—to show such an interest or involvement in such affairs. Despite the risk of being a member of such committees, the reality is that across Northern Ireland "ordinary" people have felt that it is a risk worth taking and that has been demonstrated through their active involvement over the past number of years.

The setting up of the CPLCs has been to the advantage of both the RUC and the local communities within the areas they operate from. Many have benefited from the formation of the CPLCs with issues such as crime and vandalism. Community safety and sometimes even the breakdown of community relations have been successfully addressed due to the enormous amount of good work carried out by the CPLCs. Unfortunately, most of this work has gone unnoticed.

The general public in Northern Ireland perceives the CPLCs as committees made up of people who want to make a contribution to the community within which they live. The RUC highly values this contribution along with the ongoing work and commitment of the CPLCs. Indeed, the police authority funds some of the work carried out by these groups. Under Schedule 3, with reference to the recruitment of the DPPs and also to the independents on the Police Board, I feel it would greatly enhance the operation of both if the experience that has been built up within the CPLCs was utilised and not lost. It would also be a very positive way of recognising the sterling work carried out over the years by the "ordinary" people of Northern Ireland, people who rarely are acknowledged let alone praised for being an essential component within the peace process.

The composite effect of the two amendments is to ensure that, as far as possible, a member of the current network of CPLCs attains an independent seat on each of the 29 DPPs that it is proposed will be established throughout Northern Ireland.

The basis of the argument in support of these amendments is that there exists already a network of police/community committees in Northern Ireland—CPLCs. The committees perform a similar role and comprise similar memberships to those proposed for the DPPs. As I have said, the CPLCs form a network of committees throughout Northern Ireland. They have been in operation for the past 10 years. During that time they have made an extremely valuable contribution to community and police relations.

Perhaps I may finish with a few statistics. There are 152 CPLCs based locally throughout Northern Ireland. The strength of these committees lies in the fact that they are made up of local people who represent local community and business interests, local statutory bodies such as the Housing Executive, the Department of the Environment, district councillors, local voluntary organisations, Churches, youth and ethnic minority interests, to name only a few. This type of structure is exactly that which has been proposed within the Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for the DPPs. Indeed, one might question the need for another layer of committees.

I fully support the efforts being made by the Government to involve local, democratically elected representatives in the policing of Northern Ireland. I hope that the DPPs are successful in that respect. However, in my heart I know also that, given the new beginning we are to establish in Northern Ireland, this is an area in which the CPLCs have real and valuable experience. Given the opportunity, they could achieve a great deal. If the role and membership of the CPLCs and those proposed for the new DPPs are compared, the similarities are obvious. I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton

I rise to support the amendment. I believe that the most longstanding community police liaison committee is in the city of Derry. It dates back to the time of the commission. I had some contact with it a few years ago. So far as I know, it is still in existence and is still doing good work, despite the kind of problems outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these amendments.

Viscount Brookeborough

I rise to support this amendment. We need to retain a certain degree of continuity in this area. It is not enough merely to discuss new beginnings and, in so doing, discard all that has gone before. I have been informed that up to 30 per cent of the membership of community police liaison committees is Roman Catholic. For that reason, it is extremely important to ensure that we give credit to the hard work and degree of risk to which those members have been exposed in their effort to guide the police forces in those areas.

It would be quite wrong if members had to canvass wildly in order to secure positions on the new DPPs ahead of those who may have connections with terrorist organisations. I strongly support the suggestion that members of the CPLCs should be given an opportunity to serve on the new DPPs.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I, too, am very sympathetic towards the amendment. The community police liaison committees have done a great deal of good work. Furthermore, they represent a vast amount of painstaking effort on behalf both of the RUC and the memberships to build them up into effective bodies. Given the delicate situation, it would be a great shame to throw away that effort and experience. I hope that the membership will continue, to as great a degree as possible, into the DPPs.

On the question of abbreviations, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, that I prefer CPLC to DPP. It seems to me that "DPP" could easily be confused with the abbreviation used when referring to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is an undesirable set of initials in this context. However, I shall not oppose it.

Lord Laird

I wish to add my support to the amendment so ably proposed by my noble friend and colleague Lady Blood. For some years I was a member of a community police liaison committee and I saw at first hand the extremely good work being done. Furthermore, I support fully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Relationships between senior members of the RUC and members of local communities have been carefully nurtured and have matured over many years.

As I look back on my experience as a member of a committee, it is only now—religion has become a factor in policing—that I realise that probably up to 40 per cent of those serving on the committee were those who would be regarded in Northern Ireland as members of the Roman Catholic community. We were delighted to see them on the committee and they played a full part. It seems like a long time ago, but of course I am speaking of only a couple of years ago—before Patten. At that time, religion and policing did not seem to have the same significance. I totally support the amendment.

Lord Fitt

The noble Baroness has drawn the attention of the Committee to what I regard as an extremely important issue; namely, the membership of the community police liaison committees. I stated earlier that many of these committees have been operating in non-controversial areas.

However, we have to bear in mind that there are certain little pockets of terrorists. I can recall one immediately; namely, one that operated in Carrickmore in County Tyrone. The liaison committee worked in conjunction with Monsignor Dennis Faul. They were doing everything they could to bring about normal relations within their area. The committee met in a hotel in Omagh. During the meeting, a crowd of people, led by a member of Sinn Fein, entered the room and wrecked it. The meeting was broken up, documents were stolen and the purpose of the meeting was lost. The saddest element of this story is that, only a few weeks later, the person who led the attack on the meeting was elected as a member of the council with an overwhelming majority. That gives an indication of the difficulties faced by the liaison committees.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, has outlined, the committees have demonstrated a high level of courage over the years. I am not sure whether the Carrickmore committee has met again, but I doubt whether it has, so terrified were the members by the abuse and hostility demonstrated that night in the hotel. The greater the proportion of membership to the DPPs drawn from the most responsible elements of the CPLCs, the better it will be for Northern Ireland.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I, too, have sympathy with the thought that lies behind these amendments. It recognises the valuable contribution made by the CPLCs. However, there are practical and technical difficulties here, the first of which is one of definition.

First, no such entity as a community police liaison community exists in law, although it might be possible to get round that. Secondly, the amendments assume that the CPLC members will, in effect, always be the best candidates. That may very well be the case, but equally it may not. The Government's answer to the problem is this. They will include a requirement in the code of practice, which will be issued by the Secretary of State under Schedule 3, for councils to notify the CPLCs in their areas when advertising for independents. Those members may then apply, along with others. Given their experience, they are likely to have an advantage.

In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to accept the Government's approach to this, and to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blood

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I realise that problems need to be overcome here. However, before I withdraw the amendment, will it be possible to have sight of the draft code of practice as it relates to the appointment of independents? When will it be made available? I ask this because we are tabling amendments at a point when we have only half of the picture.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I regret that the code of practice is not yet available for consideration. However, the Secretary of State will be bound by the provisions of the Bill to consult the board, councils and the equality commission on its contents. I am sure that those bodies will make similar points to those put forward by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blood

I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

7 p.m.

Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 56: Page 51, line 26, leave out ("in the case of an independent member.").

The noble Lord said: The differentiation between political and independent members of DPPs is neither logical nor proper. Amendment No. 56 seeks to ensure that a member, whether political or independent, could be removed from a DPP for failing to disclose a criminal conviction prior to appointment.

As the Bill stands, both political and independent members can be removed for various reasons, including committing criminal offences while a member of a DPP, but only independent members can be removed for failure to disclose a previous conviction. There is no sensible reason for this. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran

I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. As the Minister is aware, we, on this side of the Committee, are not in favour of a number of the differentiations in the Bill between political and independent members, particularly when it comes to selections and sackings, if 1 can use that terminology.

I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 61 and 62, and, by definition, Amendment No. 69. 'The reasoning behind Amendments Nos. 57 and 61 is twofold: it is to prevent convicted terrorists serving on district policing partnerships, whether as political or independent members, and to prevent representatives of parties that are linked to terrorist organisations which have failed to decommission from serving on DPPs.

We support DPPs in principle—there is no doubt about that—but we are very aware of the likely shape and style of DPPs in the different local authorities across the country. We are talking in the context of 26 different local authorities for 1.5 million people after 30 years of polarisation in Northern Ireland. The reasoning behind these amendments is therefore the same as we applied to the main policing board. The arguments are exactly the same.

Under the Bill, district councils—all 26 of them—will be obliged to establish a district policing partnership consisting of either 15, 17 or 19 members. In each case, the majority of the DPP will be political members, the remainder independents. That means that in a number of district council areas, members of Sinn Fein will be automatically entitled to membership of a DPP. In Belfast, members of the small loyalist parties will be entitled to membership.

The situation is made much worse in Belfast by the proposal—which we shall come to later with other amendments—to split the area into four sub-groups. We would have Sinn Fein dominant in west Belfast; the UVF and the loyalist UDA dominant in north Belfast; the UDA and the UVF dominant in east Belfast; and only south Belfast not in the hands of paramilitaries. So, to all intents and purposes, in one sweep we would hand over the DPPs and policing to the various groups of paramilitaries and their elected members.

Imagine what would have happened in the summer when we had the trouble with "Mad Dog" Adair and the on-going loyalist feud. The local district police commander would have been answerable in the DPP to representatives of the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party—and yet these are the parties which represent the UVF and the UFF, the organisations which are carrying out the violence and against whom the police, presumably, hope to make arrests. What about the situations in South Armagh and Strabane? How does the noble and learned Lord expect the DPPs to operate in those areas where Sinn Fein is the dominant player? After all, Sinn Fein has yet to state whether it will support the police at all, even if every amendment to the Bill proposed by the nationalists is carried. I have personally asked the chairman of Sinn Fein what is his attitude. The Minister knows exactly what is his attitude and what he has said to others in the past: he will not commit. It is commitment we want, and Sinn Fein will not give it.

In these circumstances, how can it be right for convicted killers to sit on DPPs? How can it be right for parties which maintain their own private armies and carry out their own forms of summary execution, with nails and baseball bats, to be put in a position of sitting in judgment on the police? The situation hardly bears thinking about.

But we have to think about it to understand it. We have to go into the geography and into the numbers of each single district council and look at what the political make-up of each DPP will be.

The Government have recognised the concerns by disqualifying people with criminal or terrorist convictions from serving as independents on the DPPs. But we have already heard the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, tell us about the members of terrorist organisations who are killers and murderers but who have not been brought to trial and convicted, for the reasons we heard earlier.

In our view the disqualification should include political as well as independent members. The Government may argue that political members are there as of right because they have been elected, and it is true that there is a disqualifying period of, I believe, five years before someone convicted of a terrorist offence can serve as a councillor. I do not subscribe to the Government's view that an elected representative has a God-given right through the democratic process to sit on a DPP. I accept their right to sit on a council or in the Assembly as an elected member, but for them to sit on a DPP or a police board has different connotations which I do not accept.

We do not object in principle to them being given a role, but we do object to that role being carried out by anyone who has been convicted of heinous terrorist offences or who belongs to a party that represents a terrorist organisation intent on holding on to its weapons of murder. Our amendments will stop that happening. It will place the onus on the terrorist related parties to demonstrate their democratic bone fides. We urge the Government to accept the amendment. It concerns one of the areas of the Bill about which my party feels particularly strongly.

Amendment No. 62 concerns quorums for DPPs. The membership of a DPP, as I understand it, could range from 15 to 19. We feel that five members is too low for a quorum and could result in unrepresentative decisions being taken, particularly in the light of what I have just expounded. I hope that the Minister will agree that, in this situation — bearing in mind the arithmetic and the likely make-up of the DPPs in their early days—five is too small a quorum.

Lord Hylton

Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 60 which is in this group. I am sorry to say that it is not well drafted, if only because it does not decide the question of whose convictions are compatible and whose are not. It might have been better and more elegant had I simply sought to omit from Schedule 3 lines 46 and 48 on page 51 of the Bill.

Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the comments made recently on this issue by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the official government-appointed part of the structure for ensuring so far as possible that human rights are respected. The commission states: The Bill disqualifies a person who has previously been convicted of any offence and has had passed on him or her a term of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, from being appointed as an independent member to a DPP. The Commission is concerned about the equality and human rights implications of this prohibition. The NIHRC is of the view that even though former prisoners have, by definition, paid their debt to society by undergoing a period of loss of liberty, they still face considerable difficulties in reintegrating into society once they leave prison. The NIHRC believes that protecting the rights of ex-prisoners can play a useful role in reintegrating ex-prisoners from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland into a new, trusting and pluralistic society. That is what the Good Friday Agreement itself calls for. The approach proposed in this Bill also"— this is most important— runs counter to the spirit and sometimes the letter of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NI) Order 1978. The NIHRC considers that disqualification of people who have been convicted of offences, irrespective of whether or not their sentence was suspended, from becoming independent members of a DPP is a bar to the reintegration of prisoners into society and an impediment in working towards an inclusive society". In support of that view, I can say that I personally know quite a large number of ex-prisoners who have totally renounced violence and who make a positive contribution not only to community relations but to all kinds of peace-building work, on all sides of barriers and peace lines. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's response to this group of amendments, which I shall study in Hansard. I apologise to him because I shall have to leave quite soon in order to take part in entertaining some visiting parliamentarians.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has spelt out graphically what will happen in three of the DPPs in Belfast and in one or two elsewhere. They will certainly be run by paramilitaries who have connections with the councillors. It will be a disaster. That will be a pity, because the principle behind DPPs is excellent. If they can be worked by law-abiding people, that is splendid. But the present proposal, with the base of members coming from the local council, guarantees disaster. They will contrive the most devilish schemes to wreck the police service in those areas. The Minister should look into this matter before the next stage of the Bill. I am sure that a better approach can be devised than what is presently proposed in the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

I support this group of amendments in general and Amendment No. 57 in particular. The Minister wrote to me after the debate at Second Reading: I should point out that DPPs will not have the same access to sensitive information as the Policing Board". The policing board is Province-wide. We all recognise that the DPP will not have access to such sensitive material as might occur on a Province-wide basis. But DPPs are at a local level, and policing in communities works from the bottom up.

I have been a member of a local sub-divisional action committee (SubDAC). The point about such committees is that they discuss everyday activities in an area. Inevitably, matters arise concerning crime. We know how terrorist organisations have leant towards crime, and Members of the Committee will have read about diesel smuggling and other such activities which are prevalent in the Border area where I Whether we like it or not, such information is sensitive. If we want those who are on the boards to contribute—as I believe they can and should, and hope that they will—to local policing and to the acceptability of policing in general, they must be able to discuss sensitive information, some of which will be in a grey area. I refer not merely to raiding the local shop for sweets or money, but to the known areas of "cross-contamination" between the normal criminal fraternity and that of terrorism. For matters under discussion to be meaningful, they will have to be sensitive.

This brings up the subject of vetting. In normal circumstances, vetting—whether for the Foreign Office, the Security Forces or various other positions at different levels that give people access to sensitive information—does not look purely at whether a person has been convicted of an offence. It looks at a person's lifestyle and associates, and at whether or not there is a probability that a person may be persuaded or blackmailed into exposing that sensitive information. I support the tightening up that is suggested in the amendments—and to an even greater extent, in that we must avoid allowing people in who have overtly and obviously been convicted of certain offences.

Lord Monson

The amendments in this large group come from all quarters of the Committee. I find myself in the unusual position of supporting them all, with the possible exception of Amendment No. 62, about which I have no strong feelings either way.

I support in principle the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Let us take as an example a solid citizen in his mid-50s who would like to join a DPP. However, in his rather wild students days 35 years earlier he got into some sort of scrape—perhaps he was a rugby player who, in a hard fought game, took a swing at someone in the opposing scrum and broke that person's nose, and was justifiably sentenced to a month or two in prison. Or let us suppose that he had brought back a small amount of cannabis from Amsterdam for a friend and been sentenced to a short spell in prison or received a suspended sentence. He might now be a pillar of the community in a responsible professional job. IS it right that those previous events should disqualify him from membership altogether? Surely not.

Perhaps I may take the opportunity to point out an error in the Government's drafting at line 24 on page 51 of the Bill. I submit that the comma is in the wrong place. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and his noble friends have the comma in the right place in the first line of Amendment No. 57, which reads: The Board, or the council". In line 24 on page 51 of the Bill the comma should come after "board" and not after "council". I merely draw that to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.

Lord Fitt

I spoke somewhat out of turn on this issue earlier. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran is by far one of the most serious amendments proposed. A person needs to come from Northern Ireland to realise its significance. Heading (b) in the sub-paragraph reads: the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7". When we hear the term "decommissioning", we immediately think of the IRA. But there are other organisations in Northern Ireland that have not even attempted to decommission. They have said clearly that they have no intention of doing so. It is a question of "You jump first". These loyalist organisations are saying, "We're not going to decommission if the IRA is not going to decommission." In turn, the IRA is saying, "We need to hold on to our arms because the loyalist have their arms." So we have a ridiculous roundabout situation.

At present, the UVF, which has been guilty of some of the most atrocious murders throughout the past 30 years, has two members elected to the Stormont Assembly. The Government might well say, "They were elected to the Assembly, so who are we to deny them a place on a partnership board?" By the way, if we followed the logic of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who, I am sorry to say, is no longer in his place, Johnny Adair could have been appointed two months ago to a police partnership before be broke some of the rules. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about someone being debarred because he had smoked cannabis at one time. Well, if someone were to be debarred from a police board, he could always apply to become a Tory MP! The amendment illustrates the tremendous difficulty involved. Sinn Fein will not decommission, the UVF will not decommission. Yet those of us who come from Northern Ireland know that there are people in those areas who have not been brought before a court. Then there is my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, with his strict interpretation of the laws of evidence, and so on. If a person known to have been involved in terrorist activity makes an application to become a member of a DPP and the latter has been told about that person by people who live in the area and who will be affected by the partnership, who does the DPP listen to? Again, I pose the question: is the person so rejected in a position to say, "My human rights have been abused, because no one has convicted me"? But that person, having been brought before a court, could be guilty of murder. Some people underestimate the difficulties involved with this legislation—

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. However, he is rather giving the impression that I put forward some proposition that is inconsistent with what he is saying. I have no recollection of ever having done such a thing.

Lord Fitt

I am very glad to hear that. I support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, along with the other speakers from Northern Ireland. I realise that it is difficult for many noble Lords who have never been to Northern Ireland, or who have only been there on a short visit, to understand the situation. They do not have to live with the consequences of what has been happening. Many representations are made to us. During the summer I was in what is regarded as a peaceful part of Northern Ireland, Ballycastle in north Antrim. Yet every day that I went out, people were talking to me about the setting up of these police partnerships.

The Minister may not have a answer for this, but there is an area in west Belfast known as Twinbrook and an adjoining area known as Poleglass. The question is: should they be in the DPP relating to Belfast or should those two districts be taken into the Lisburn Rural Council? Their whole culture, their whole ethos, has nothing to do with Lisburn, but it has a great deal to do with what is happening in west Belfast.

I know that the Government are trying to create a situation whereby the community will be involved in protecting its own citizens. If the DPPs do come into operation, this amendment makes it very clear that they would not be able to exist under this legislation.

Lord Vivian

I rise to express my support for my noble friend's amendments, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Fitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, have said. This is an extremely important amendment. If criminals or former terrorists are involved in these committees in any way, it is clear to me—and, indeed, it must be clear to most people—that that can only undermine and weaken the authority of the police force, thus making its task exceptionally difficult or virtually impossible. Those are the reasons why I support my noble friend's amendments.

Lord Laird

I join other noble Lords in supporting Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. It seems to be lacking in logic to exclude some people from membership of the DPPs while allowing some people, for the same reason, to be members of such boards simply because they are political appointments. After all, if you have a fairly major type of conviction involving a custodial sentence, that stops you becoming a member of the police force, a member of the judiciary and a member of the Bar. It also prevents people taking up jury service for a period. Therefore, as these partnerhips will play a significant role in policing in certain areas, it seems that anyone with a conviction of a serious nature should be excluded.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I shall deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 56 and 58, which seek to apply the removal provisions that presently apply to independent members to political members who may fail to make a disclosure in relation to a conviction for a criminal office in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. The amendments represent a significant difference between, on the one hand, the Government and, on the other hand, the noble Lords proposing these amendments.

The Government are following the approach of the Good Friday agreement of inclusivity for elected representatives, whereas the amendments now before the Committee seek to place hurdles in the way of appointment of district councillors to DPPs. It is worth pointing out that councillors are already subject to a criminal record test in that they may not be appointed in the first place if they have a conviction of imprisonment of three months or more in the past five years. In other words, if they cannot satisfy that hurdle, they cannot become councillors. However, once that test has been satisfied, then, as far as concerns political membership of the DPPs, it is a matter for the district council. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press these amendments. I give way.

Lord Glentoran

I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but there is a point here that needs clarification. If all the recently released paramilitary prisoners have done their three months, I take it that they are ineligible to become councillors?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

As I read it, the test is whether they have had a conviction of imprisonment of three months or more during the past five years. The relevant five years runs from the date of conviction. That is the information I have at present, but perhaps I may check the position. I understand entirely the noble Lord's question.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 61. The proposers of those amendments, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, seek to increase the removal and disqualification criteria for membership of the DPPs. I know that these issues were debated at some length in Committee and, again, on Report in another place. We believe that the amendments seek to introduce removal and disqualification criteria which are disproportionate to the nature of the powers of the bodies being established. Patten made a recommendation in relation to them following directly from his commission's terms of reference, which calls for, clearly established arrangements enabling local people and their political representatives to articulate their views and concerns about policing, subject to safeguards". We believe that there are a number of safeguards included in the Bill which are proportionate. These safeguards include, first, the existing disqualification and removal provisions in Schedule 3, paragraphs 7 and 8; secondly, the provision enabling the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on appointments of independent members; thirdly, the appointments being made by the board—Patten recommended that it only approve them—and the provision in Clause 15 enabling the Secretary of State to require a council to act in compliance with Schedule 3, failing which the Secretary of State may empower the board to establish the DPP in a council area. As I say, we already have safeguards which are measured against the powers given to these bodies. We think that those safeguards are proportionate.

I turn to Amendment No. 60 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is not present at the moment. Correspondence has been exchanged with him on the amendment. It has been explained to him that the Government think that the provision is appropriate and justified. It cannot be right that those convicted of an offence resulting in imprisonment, whether suspended or not, should be appointed to a body dealing in policing.

If this amendment is aimed at allowing greater flexibility for those convicted of terrorist offences to be members of DPPs, then I would say to the noble Lord that Patten clearly did not regard the time as right for this. The Government continue to hold the view that the time is not right. In saying that I do not seek to rule out the prospect of any change in the future. The Government hope to see the day when sensitivities such as this recede and certain convictions could be relegated in the selection procedures for those bodies. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment No. 60. As he is not present at the moment, that will not be difficult.

I turn to Amendment No. 62 which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. Amendment No. 62 seeks to set the quorum of a DPP meeting at seven instead of the five required in the Bill. I point out that these bodies are linked to and effectively formed from councils and Schedule 2, paragraph 4 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972 provides that council business in Northern Ireland cannot be transacted unless at least one quarter of the whole number of councillors is present. The figure of five for DPPs would be at least a quarter (they may have a membership between 15 and 19). I ask the noble Lords and the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the test for councillors relates to any offence for which a sentence of imprisonment of three months or more has been passed within a period of five years immediately preceding the day on which a councillor is elected.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Monson

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he saying that someone awarded a very short sentence, suspended or otherwise, 35 or 40 years ago, and who has since led a totally blameless life is unsuitable for all time to become a member of a DPP?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

That is the effect of the Bill.

Baroness Blatch

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in regard to the five-year rule, is he saying that someone convicted five and a half years ago for, say, a 10 year sentence would qualify since having been released?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

He would qualify to be a councillor under the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. I referred to the provisions that prevent someone from being a councillor. If you pass that test under the 1972 Act which I described twice to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, you would qualify to become a councillor.

Baroness Blatch

I understand what the noble and learned Lord says but I am talking about the seriousness of an offence. If someone five and a half years ago committed a serious offence, can that person qualify as having passed the five-year test?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

What I am describing to the noble Baroness is what someone has to do to become a councillor. Those provisions are laid down in the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. If, within the period of five years preceding the day on which the councillor is elected he has had a sentence passed on him of more than three months' imprisonment, he is disqualified from becoming a councillor. Five years is the relevant period.

Lord Rogan

I thank the Minister for his comments. The kindest thing I can say is that I have taken note of them. I shall consider them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 57 to 62 not moved.]

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Default of council]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 63: Page 8, line 8, leave out ("section 14(1)") and insert ("any part of Part III of this Act").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 63, I wish to speak also to the amendments grouped with it.

Amendment No. 63 widens the defaults by a district council that the Secretary of State can remedy. Part III of the Bill is concerned with all matters related to DPPs. I wish we did not have this confusion with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who I hope feels suitably honoured. Clause 14(1) applied only to a council failing to establish a DPP. The amendment would include matters such as the council failing to arrange for a DPP report to be published and the council failing to send a copy of a DPP report to the board.

Amendment No. 65 seeks to insert the words, to formulate a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder in the area". That is based on Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which is in force in England and Wales. The Crime and Disorder Act refers to a body equivalent to a DPP.

Amendment No. 68 seeks to add the words, Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall he the duty of each district policing partnership to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can, to prevent crime and disorder in its area". That seems to be a laudable directive.

Amendment No. 67 defines the function of the DPP, removing the ambiguity which appears in paragraph (e) of Clause 16(1). We do not wish a new function to be the nationalist/republican demand of a budget and private security firms for some policing functions.

Amendment No. 69 states: Page 9, line 5, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("comply with"). It would appear much easier to comply with a code of practice than a code of ethics. In Committee in another place the Government indicated that they would reconsider what is now Clause 32(4) in order to force the police to comply with their code of ethics. I have not detected such an amendment on Report in the other place. However, the Government may intend to change the code of ethics to "be guided by" rather than "have regard to". I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I support Amendment No. 63. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 70 and 71, standing in my name and those of my noble friends which are grouped with Amendment No. 63.

Amendment No. 67 is a paving amendment.

I hope that the purpose of Amendment No. 70 is clear. We have not had much joy out of the Government today. We have had a little sympathy occasionally, but no movement. However, I am hoping for better luck on these two amendments, partly because I am pushing at a door which the Secretary of State himself has half opened.

So far as Amendment No. 70 is concerned, it is clear that the purpose of DPPs is primarily to be consultative rather than to have executive responsibilities and the amendment is designed to ensure that the operational independence of the district police commanders is preserved. It is well worth making this explicit in the Bill and underlining the point that politicians and others on the DPP cannot interfere with the operational independence of the commander of the district. We want to take politics out of policing, particularly local policing.

Sometimes, district commanders have to make difficult decisions about all sorts of things and how they are going to deal with them—not least parades. It is important that DPPs stick to their consultative role and do not try to take over from the district commanders. They can, of course, as liaison committees have in the past, play an extremely valuable role in such problem areas. I think that the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that this is intended to be the case, so I hope the Government can accept that amendment, or something like it.

Regarding Amendment No. 71, your Lordships will recall that one of the controversial aspects of the Patten report was the proposal to allow district councils the power to raise up to 3p in the £ to buy in additional policing services within their area. It was said that some of that money might be spent on things like CCTV, although as a matter of fact the councils already have the power, and indeed use it, to spend money on those sorts of things to the great advantage of the public.

However, the Patten report also made clear that the money could be used for the hiring of security firms to carry out police-type duties. The implications of that, particularly in certain parts of Northern Ireland, are extremely worrying. There are parts where racketeering and extortion exist, and it is extremely difficult for the police to deal with these. There are parts of Northern Ireland where paramilitaries of all persuasions are attempting to "police" areas of the Province, and if certain district councils had the power they might seem to be giving backing to this by using the power.

I hope we are pushing at a half-open door here. The Secretary of State said on 19th January that he did not intend to extend the function of the DPPs in this way but did not rule it out entirely. He said that the function was being considered by the criminal justice review, and that would be still to come. So this idea has not been entirely buried. But it is, I believe, it is a bad and dangerous idea in the Northern Ireland context. That is why it seems to me right to put something into the Bill along the lines of Amendment No. 71. I would not necessarily insist on the precise wording of these amendments—it is the thought which counts—but I do believe that these are provisions which should appear in the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I rise to speak about Amendment No. 64, which is very similar to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. This amendment will give the Secretary of State the power to intervene where the DPP is not exercising its powers and functions properly.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I intervene simply to mention my Amendment No. 66, which is included in this group. The principle which it raises was discussed earlier, and so I say simply, without prejudice to that principle, that I do not propose to move that amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Amendment No. 63, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and Amendment No, 64 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, are further examples of the way in which people are trying to pull the Government in different directions. On the one hand, there are complaints of the overbearing approach by Government and of too much control in the hands of the Secretary of State and interference by him in accountability arrangements. On the other hand, we are asked in these amendments to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether or not a DPP has adequately discharged any of its functions and, if not, to direct it to do so.

This must be wrong in principle. I ask noble Lords to consider, for example, the powers of these bodies which are of an explanatory or consultative nature, and to compare them with the powers of the board. There is no call for the Secretary of State to have a similar override or to call for a provision for the latter. This is not to say that the DPPs are going to be able to act with impunity. For a start, they have statutory functions and the board can issue a code of practice covering the exercise of their functions. In addition, of course, councillors have to perform to hold on to their seats and members of the DPP may be removed by the board or the council, with the board's approval, if they do not comply with the terms of their appointment.

In short, the Government have sought to take a balanced approach and to give the Secretary of State powers and provide safeguards where we believe them to be necessary and justified. Regarding the requirement for a default power on councils to establish DPPs on general functions and obligations, these are matters for the policing board to monitor and manage in conjunction with the councils, who will have been consulted on the board's code on functions and will want it and DPPs to function effectively. I would therefore ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press Amendments Nos. 63 and 64.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 68 seek to place responsibility for formulating crime and disorder strategies on the DPPs. While the Government share their enthusiasm for strategies to tackle crime and disorder and recognise that their proposed aproach is similar to that already in place in England and Wales, we would ask noble Lords not to pursue their amendments. That is because this issue is a key part of the criminal justice review, on which consultation has just been completed and on which the Government will be announcing a decision shortly.

In addition, arrangements made for England and Wales should not be seen as precisely applicable in Northern Ireland as the situation is different here between the powers of councils in Northern Ireland and local authorities in England and Wales. In brief, local authorities have powers in the areas covered by those structures and councils and DPPs do not. I therefore ask noble Lords not to pursue Amendments Nos. 65 and 68.

Amendment No. 66 is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord in regard to Clause 3, and he has indicated that he is not moving—

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I think his attention was distracted. In order to prevent a misunderstanding, I have already said that I will not move this amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I have got that point, thank you. Turning to Amendment No. 67, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, want to remove Clause 16 (1)(e). I suspect they view this as a Trojan horse, given their later amendments. I can assure them that this is really a technical provision and a simple acknowledgment that legislation resulting from the criminal justice review could confer additional powers on the DPPs. The provision in paragraph (e) would mean that if this happened the Bill would not need to be specifically amended at that stage. Obviously nothing could change without a statutory provision which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask noble Lords not to pursue their amendment.

Amendment No. 70, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is aimed at ensuring operational independence. It was something that Patten recognised. Patten specifically said at paragraph 6.21 of his report that it is the chief constable's right and duty to take operational decisions and nobody should direct him how to conduct an operation. He said that police officers must be free to exercise their responsibilities. This, again, is an issue which arose in another place, and I can assure noble Lords that our view there that operational independence should be preserved remains.

It is worth pointing out, too, that DPPs are consultative bodies. They can ask the police to account to the community for their actions. The police accept and would welcome the opportunity to do this for the benefit of policing. The code of practice to be issued by the board under Clause 19 will set out in detail what is expected of the police. But neither this provision nor the one in the code will affect the operational independence of officers. I believe that we are at one on that issue. With the assurance I have given, I ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment No. 70.

Amendment No. 71 would provide that DPPs should not have any power to raise money for the purpose of buying in any additional policing services within the district. There is no need for such an amendment. It is unnecessary. The Government, recognising the widespread concerns about the Patten recommendation on this, did not include it in the Bill, so they have no such power.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made clear that the DPPs would not have this fund-raising power. He has said that he would review it in the light of the criminal justice review conclusions and the operation of DPPs. The Bill does not give DPPs such a power and the provision saying that they should not have them is unnecessary. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press Amendment No. 71.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

Perhaps I should concede that the noble and learned Lord may be justified in complaining that he is being pulled in two different directions. However, he has indicated that that had the effect of achieving a balance. I hope that that balance will be sustained and maintained throughout the remaining clauses. On that basis, I generously withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [General functions of district policing partnerships]:

[Amendments Nos. 65 to 71 not moved.]

Clause 16 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.50 p.m. and inform the House that unfortunately, despite this delay, it appears unlikely that the commission can occur during the dinner break.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.50 p.m.]

Clause 17 [Annual report by district policing partnership to council]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 72: Page 9, line 9, at end insert— ("( ) When a district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1), it shall at the same time send a copy of the report to the Board.").

The noble Baroness said: Under Clause 17, at the end of the financial year each district policing partnership is obliged to submit a general report to its district council. The Bill provides that a copy should be sent to the policing board by the council. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland expressed concern that a council might accidentally or otherwise delay sending a copy of the report. It argued that the DPP should send a copy to the policing board at the same time as it sends one to the council.

We have said throughout that we will consider constructive suggestions. We have accepted that suggestion and have tabled Amendments Nos. 72 and 74 accordingly. I am pleased to say that the Government have anticipated Amendment No. 73. I hope that it will not be pressed, given the changes that we are proposing.

Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 to Clause 18, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, provide that the DPPs may report on any matter. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in response to similar amendments in another place, they are not necessary. The clause simply empowers the board to require reports. It does not prevent DPPs from reporting on their functions. Given that assurance, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Amendment No. 78, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cooke, Lord Laird, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Rogan, would require the board to make an order if a DPP failed to produce a report when asked to do so by the board. The theme of the fear of non-compliance runs through several amendments. The Government do not think it right to bind a body comprising elected representatives and those appointed by the board in that way. The board could take other avenues. For example, if members of a DPP fail to fulfil their terms of appointment, they can be removed. The logic of the amendment would require similar provisions throughout the Bill, such as in Clause 68, which requires the board to appoint traffic wardens, or Clause 55(4) on the board reporting to the Secretary of State. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment No. 79 would place a requirement on the board to issue a code of practice. The Government have made it clear that we have every expectation that the board will issue such a code. However, given the obvious strength of feeling on the point, the Government accept the amendment in principle. Once we have had a chance to check the wording with counsel, we shall introduce an amendment on Report. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

I hope that it has been helpful to go through the other amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I congratulate the Government. I am in the enviable position of yet again welcoming a government amendment. I am glad that the Government have listened to the shrewd advice of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The Government have clearly thought through in a little more detail the relationship between the board and the district policing partnerships. Smooth and harmonious relationships will be essential to effective policing. Amendment No. 72 is sensible and I strongly support it.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

Saving time is commendable. My noble friend the Minister has answered my arguments before I have advanced them. Not for the first time, she has largely read my mind. I am not wholly surprised to be told that my amendments are unnecessary, but I should like to take a moment to explain why I tabled them.

We are told that the DPP may submit a report on a specific matter whenever so required by the board. The aim of the amendments was to make it clear that the DPP did not have to wait until it was required to do so before submitting a report.

I was not surprised that my noble friend said that the principle was not in dispute. We all know that those who are closest to the action are best placed to know when a report is needed. The purpose of such a report is often to alert those in the hierarchy who are further from the coal face. When I was privileged to chair the council on tribunals, we were required to submit an annual report to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but sometimes we discovered a problem that required an alarm signal without waiting until it was time for the next report. Sometimes the most important advice is unsolicited, because its purpose is to alert those who had not grasped the situation. I am delighted that my noble friend and I agree about that.

I am not wholly sure that the amendments are superfluous. We are imposing the duty to submit a report when asked. It may be wise to make sure that the DPP may also submit a report when not asked, because there is a principle of construction that that which is not included is excluded. However, my noble friend has largely anticipated my points and I shall not take the matter further tonight.

Lord Glentoran

I thank the Government for accepting Amendment No. 79. That is welcome. I may be pedantic, but I have one comment to make. The purpose of our Amendment No. 73, which is almost identical to government Amendment No. 72, was to reinforce the point that DPPs are accountable to the police board. That is why we felt that they should submit the same report to the board. We wanted to make that point a little more strongly, but I accept that it is almost the same.

I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, but I am delighted that he does not intend to press his amendments.

9 p.m.

Lord Laird

As the proposer of Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, perhaps I may say a few words. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, I listened carefully to what was said, even before I put my case. I shall consider that and obviously shall be prepared not to push the amendment but to withdraw it. I simply want to savour the moment. If I understand the situation correctly, as I believe I do, the Government have accepted Amendment No. 79 in my name and those of three of my colleagues. I want to savour that moment because it is the first such moment that I have savoured here all evening. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for accepting the amendment. I believe that it will go some way towards bringing back a little public confidence. I thank the Government.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am delighted with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Perhaps I may make certain that the Committee understands that we accept the amendment in principle but want to check the precise wording with counsel. I believe that that is important. I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer that it is a refreshing change for the Government to be told that placing certain items on the face of the Bill sometimes causes difficulty because, by definition, others may be deemed to be less important or excluded in some way. I am sure that I shall recall his wise words when we come to deal with other Bills. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her contribution.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 74: Page 9, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

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

[Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 not moved.]

Clause 18 agreed to.

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

Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 79: Page 9, line 30, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: If I understand it correctly, the Government have accepted this amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government have accepted the amendment in principle but would prefer the noble Lord not to press the matter to a Division tonight while we receive the advice of counsel.

Lord Laird

In view of that clarification, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 80: Page 9, line 30, leave out (", with the consent of the Secretary of State,").

The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with this amendment we debate all the amendments up to and including Amendment No. 85.

Amendment No. 80 is largely a probing amendment. Clause 19 empowers the board to issue or revise a code of practice for district policing partnerships. That is sensible. However, the clause then provides that they may do so only with the consent of the Secretary of State. I wonder why. The board is charged with ensuring that policing in Northern Ireland is carried out properly. Why does one not let them get on with it? One assumes that the people appointed to the board will be responsible and sensible. Clearly, ultimate responsibility lies with the Secretary of State. However, we all know that when the Secretary of State moves over from policy to more detailed matters, he is likely to spark off inflammable material and store up trouble for himself. Therefore, I ask simply: what is the thinking behind that requirement?

I turn to Amendment No. 83. Clause 19 empowers the board to issue a code of practice. Subsection (2) very sensibly provides that, before doing so, it, shall consult … district councils; and … the Chief Constable". This amendment simply seeks to explore whether all the other obvious consultees are to be left out of the process. If the answer is that it is unnecessary to make specific provision because they would be consulted without specific provision, then if my noble friend and I can continue our tennis match, perhaps I may lob the ball back over the net and say that, if specific consultees are listed, are the others not relegated to the second division? I wonder why there should be that distinction.

First, there is the district policing partnership itself. Should it not be consulted about the code of practice which is to be imposed on it? I cannot believe that it is intended that the code should be sprung on it as a fait accompli. However, if the argument is that it is unnecessary, we return to the question of whether that is not also true of the many provisions in the Bill where an authority is enjoined to consult.

In Clause 5(5), before making regulations for the transfer of staff the Secretary of State is required to consult the board, the chief constable and organisations representing the interests of those affected. Does that imply that in the absence of a statutory requirement he might not consult them? A requirement to consult serves as a reminder. Perhaps that resolves the issue between my noble friend and myself. It is a reminder to officials to consult when working on a project and, perhaps only in the last resort, it is a trigger for a challenge to an uncooperative Secretary of State.

The amendment would also require consultation with the Police Ombudsman. He or she should provide a mine of information. The ombudsman has been learning where the shoe pinches. Then there is reference to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, which over the years have developed substantial expertise. To make a case for consulting them is superfluous and I shall not take up the Committee's time. It would be an insult or an act of madness to produce a code without inviting their comments.

At the risk of being tiresome, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 84. This amendment serves as another reminder. Subsection (3) relates to some of the matters with which the code of practice may deal. Surely the DPP will wish to have ongoing consultations with those organisations which have something to contribute to the combined wisdom and whose support would ensure that the public are informed about and agree with the arrangements for policing in the area. That has been the subject of an earlier debate and I shall not elaborate on it.

The code of practice is to set out various arrangements. Would it not be wise to set out how the consultation process will operate: how those concerns will be notified as to what is to happen or what is proposed and how they will be invited to submit their concerns; at which point should those views be fed into the machine; and most particularly, how far the process should have proceeded before various people are consulted and in what order they should be consulted? Very often, such matters can touch off an explosion. As we all know, sometimes an unnecessary crisis is sparked off because A was told about something before B. Would it not be wise to have a structure in place to ensure that no crisis occurs before someone's attention is distracted at the wrong moment? I beg to move.

Baroness O'Cathain

I seek clarification on this point. I can see the reason for the comment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, about consulting. Am I correct in thinking that he suggests that, in spite of his amendment listing those bodies—the ombudsman, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and so on—he would be happy with Clause 5(5)(c) in place which refers to, such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of persons affected by the regulations"?

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I am sorry if I failed to make myself clear. I was simply saying that in Clause 5(5)(c) it was felt necessary to set that out. I am only wondering why it was not felt necessary to set it out here.

Baroness O'Cathain

So the noble and learned Lord would be quite happy with the words included in Clause 5(5)(c)?

Lord Archer of Sandwell

Yes.

Lord Glentoran

We are moving onto the area of the ombudsman. I do not believe that it is necessary but I should feel more comfortable to declare an interest in this regard in as much as the present ombudsman, Mrs O'Loan, is somebody with whom I worked on a government committee for some time. I know her quite well and have a great deal of respect for her. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept that any comment I may make about the ombudsman's role or position in relation to this Bill is objective and not in any way subjective. It reflects in no way whatever on Mrs O'Loan, for whom I have an enormous amount of time.

With regard to Amendment No. 82, the Minister may perhaps be surprised to hear that on this side of the Committee we like the idea of keeping the Secretary of State's hand on the helm at this stage. When, it is hoped, the powers in relation to policing and so on are devolved to the Assembly, those powers will be needed in the early stages. Ultimately, I believe that it would be better if the decision for the Secretary of State to withdraw were taken at the time when the power becomes devolved. Therefore, I support those amendments which seek to keep the Secretary of State's hand on the helm; that is, I support Amendment No. 80.

I do not wish to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and nor do I wish to support Amendment No. 82. We wish to increase the role of the Secretary of State as much as possible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, was clear on his thoughts in relation to that matter.

On Amendment No. 83, I should be worried and concerned if that field of consultation were made too ridiculously wide. That was the sense of feeling which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, was coming across with too. I understand where he is coming from. He wants reminders. I like reminders too but not lists.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

I support my noble friend. We need the Secretary of State involved, at least until we can see, in the next year or two, how things are going.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 81 is consequential on Amendment No. 79, which we dealt with in our last group of amendments. I gave an undertaking to bring forward an amendment. In the light of that assurance, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment No. 81.

Amendment No. 82 represents another of those areas where some want to see greater involvement by the Secretary of State while others would want to see less. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. We have already included a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consent to the board's code. We believe that this is a higher test than the need to have consultation. Therefore, in the light of the response, we hope that the amendment is not felt to be necessary.

I also ask for my noble and learned friend Lord Archer to resist pressing Amendments Nos. 80, 83 and 84. Amendment No. 80 removes the ability of the Secretary of State to approve any code issued by the board and removes a safeguard which the Government included because of the level of concern about the nature of DPPs.

My noble friend asked for the sort of circumstances in which the safeguard could be necessary. Perhaps I may say that it could avoid a situation where the board produces a code which is clearly at odds with the legislation for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

Amendment No. 83 expands the list of those to be consulted on the code. I simply say that the current provision does not preclude the board from consulting the bodies listed. I have no doubt that it will consult those it thinks it is relevant to consult. But we do not believe that it is necessary to place a requirement on the board to consult, bearing in mind that it would then apply to any revision to a code, and that the district policing partnerships will not be in existence to be consulted. I hope that this is one clear distinction for the Government's reasoning on this point.

Finally, perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer that the third of these amendments, Amendment No. 84, is more a matter to address under the Criminal Justice Review than under the Bill. I therefore hope that Amendments Nos. 80, 83 and 84 will not be pressed.

Last in this group is Amendment No. 85, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It seeks, as did Amendment No. 70, to protect the police from being required to answer questions or disclosing information which would breach their general duty in Clause 32.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Glentoran

I thank the Minister for giving way. For the record, Amendment No. 85 is not tabled in my name, although I certainly would have supported it. I did not hear anybody speak to it from the Unionist Benches.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I understood that we had not reached that yet. Is that not the case?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Perhaps I may check whether the noble Lord wishes to speak to the amendment before I reply.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

If that group had been called, I would gladly have responded, particularly to the Minister's welcome request that we might no press the amendment. If we were to do so, I would have to amend the scribbled notes I had made earlier in the day in the expectation that Amendment No. 79 would be rejected.

I shall read the three lines I would have said and see how that fits in with the provisional approval given earlier. Amendment No. 81 is necessary in the light of Amendment No. 79 in principle. If compulsion to issue were accepted, there would be automatic compulsion to revise, and there should not be compulsion to revise. The use of the word "may" provides an effective solution. I shall not even expect a reply to that, because, as I have said, it is obsolete because of the generosity of the Front Bench over Amendment No. 79.

If I can be regarded as having moved this group of amendments, perhaps I may mention Amendment No. 85. This refers directly to Clause 19(3) regarding the question of officers. It is self-explanatory. An officer shall not be compelled to disclose sensitive information to loyalist or republicans on DPPs. I am not sure whether I beg to move the amendment. To avoid confusion, I shall not.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, with great pleasure, that I am sure his learned comments on Amendment No. 81 will be beneficial to counsel when we consider the government amendment that will emerge. In response to his comments on Amendment No. 85, perhaps I may place on the record that it goes without saying that the police should not breach their duty in their dealings with the board.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

This debate has been a salutary experience for me. I now know from personal experience what it feels like to be in a minority. Rule number one of any strategy is: "Do not seek a battle when you are surrounded". I promise to think further about what my noble friend has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 not moved.]

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Police districts]:

Lord Glentoran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 86: Page 10, line 20, leave out (", other than Belfast,").

The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 86 or 87 and perhaps I may give an explanation. The system fell apart and these amendments were aimed at the wrong clause. We shall return at Report stage with amendments to Clause 21, which we do not like very much.

[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]

Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 88: Page 10, line 22, after ("Constable") insert ("after consultation with the Board").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a small amendment but is perhaps one worthy of discussion.

The whole Bill is about balancing. There is a balancing of interests; there is a balance between authority and safeguards; there is also a balancing of powers at various levels in the hierarchy—the Secretary of State, the board, the chief constable and the district councils.

One is therefore driven to ask the question: should the number of districts and their boundaries be entirely a matter for the chief constable? Is that purely an operational question? If the board is to act as a monitor on behalf of the community, ought it to have an input into that process? It is arguable that the arrangements should require the consent of the board. I have not sought to go as far as that. My amendment requires the chief constable to "consult" the board. I believe he would wish to do that in any event. But a requirement in the Bill would serve as a useful reminder.

Before I sit down, perhaps I may say that to some extent we seem to have desegregated this group of amendments and it might be convenient for the Committee if I spoke to Amendment No. 97 now. I am sure that would save time.

Amendment No. 97 requires the district commander to say what representations he received from the district policing partnership and how far he had taken them into account. That has two advantages. First, it is a way of notifying the public of the thinking of the partnership on the one hand and the district commander on the other; secondly, I hope that the district commander would find it helpful.

When we are considering someone's representations, it is a useful discipline to have to paraphrase what they said; it focuses one's mind. Then, if we have to say what our reaction was, it focuses the mind on how to address that. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I support Amendments Nos. 88 and 97. I fully recognise that the chief constable is best placed to determine on operational grounds how the staff resources should best be organised and deployed. But decisions about force structure and the boundaries for operational commanding are a matter of legitimate public interest about which there are often contentious local views.

It is therefore right that the chief constable should consult with and seek the views of the policing board on such matters, though the ultimate decision would remain his. I am sure—I know that mine would—chief constables would bring such organisational proposals to the police authority for discussion in any event, and that is a matter of good practice. So it is right to include the provision in the Bill and I ask the Committee to support the amendment.

Lord Glentoran

The purpose of my Amendment No. 89 is straightforward. As I mentioned earlier, there are now 26 local authorities in Northern Ireland plus an assembly/government in Stormont. My amendment allows flexibility within the Bill should there be a restructuring of local government—by that I mean the authorities and not Stormont—and it will be possible to adjust the DPPs to fit in with the new arrangements.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I shall deal first with Amendment No. 88. Under the Bill, the police are required to make each district council a police district, other than Belfast. In Belfast, the boundaries of the police districts must coincide with the district council area but within that the Government have concluded 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 that. It should not be up to the board to guide the Chief Constable on the boundaries to set within Belfast. That should be a matter for his operational judgment. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to the three government amendments, Nos. 90 to 92. They combine to provide that a district commander may be a regular or a reservist. At present he may only be a regular officer. The Government see no need to make such a distinction and the appointments should be on merit.

As regards Amendments Nos. 93 and 94, under Clause 21 each sub-group of the Belfast policing partnership is to provide views to the police "and the hoard". It should read "and the Belfast partnership". The amendment fulfils the commitment which the Government made in another place to correct that reference and to clarify that "district", in line 40, means a police district.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. The Committee should know the admiration the Government have for the work of the CPLCs and, indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister of State addressed the annual CPLC conference at the weekend. 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. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, which are virtually identical, seek to oblige the police district commander to consult also with any local consultative groups set up by the board.

While I can understand the motive behind this amendment, I think that it is pushing the Bill into a level of detail that is not appropriate on the one hand and on the other could be undermining the role of the DPPs themselves. The Government's view is that it should be the DPPs who should retain contact with the local bodies established in their areas and they should then sift or filter these views and represent them to the local commanders.

Indeed, if the board is convinced that this is the right way forward, I see no reason that it should not include such an arrangement in the code that it will issue under Clause 19. The code can cover the arrangements for monitoring the performance of the police in carrying out the local policing plan. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, not to move her Amendment No. 95 and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, not to move his Amendment No. 96.

Amendment No. 97, which is also in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, is not what Patten proposed. Patten said in paragraph 6.31 that, The District Commander should consult with the DPPB in the preparation of the district police plan". The Bill provides for that. If the DPPB wishes to publish comments that it has made and comment on the extent to which they have been taken into account in the plan, it is a matter for it. In those circumstances, I ask my noble and learned friend not to move Amendment No. 97.

Amendment No. 89 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would enable the Secretary of State to alter by regulations the number of police districts in the event of changes. Patten was quite clear that police boundaries should be coterminous with council areas (paragraph 12.4), and the Chief Constable agreed with that in his response to the commission. The amendment is at odds with that, and I ask the noble Lord riot to move it.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

Amendment No. 80 sought to raise the question whether the arrangement of districts was a matter for the operational judgment of the chief constable. My noble and learned friend's answer was one sentence: it is a matter for his operational judgment. With great respect to my noble and learned friend, that is not an argument but an assertion. However, it may be that even if we pursued the matter it would not be carried much further than the assertion today.

As for Amendment No. 97, my noble and learned friend's argument is that that is not what the Patten commission proposed. I cannot help feeling that the Government look at the recommendations of the Patten commission a little selectively. A number of the Government's proposals are not what the Patten commission proposed. I do not regard that as a conclusive argument on the subject, but since tonight we are not in the business of making a great deal of trouble I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 88.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 92: Page 10, line 25, leave out from ("a") to end of line 26 and insert ("police officer of the required rank"). Page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (5). Page 10, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) "Required rank" means a rank not less than that of chief inspector.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

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

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94: Page 10, line 39, leave out ("Board") and insert ("district policing partnership"). Page 10, line 40, after ("that") insert ("police").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [The local policing plan]:

[Amendments Nos. 95 to 97 not moved.]

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Other community policing arrangements]:

[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]

Clause 23 agreed to.

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

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 99: Page 12, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 99 is again concerned with the role of the ombudsman. We believe that performance targets which are included in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 are an integral part of the police planning process. They have now been removed from the face of the Bill and are to be included in government regulations which set out minimum requirements for the annual policing plan. Such regulations can be changed and are under the control of the Secretary of State, thereby diminishing the role of the board. Will the Minister outline the reasons why government have felt it desirable to remove from the face of the Bill the power of the policing board to set performance targets, which is an important power accorded to the police authority under the 1998 Act? What are the reasons for the change? How will such a measure enhance not only the credibility of the policing board in holding the police service to account for its performance, but, more importantly, the efficiency of that service?

The effect of Amendment No. 101 is that it removes the police ombudsman from the consultation process for the setting of both the Secretary of State's long term policing objectives and the board's policing objectives. I move the amendment in the interest of the management of the police service in which the ombudsman does not, and should not, have a role. I also move it in the interests of the independence of the office of the police ombudsman. That is an independence that might, in the public eye, be prejudiced by her proposed involvement in objective setting. The ombudsman has an important and significant role to play in dealing with complaints. She will also report to the chief constable and the board on police policies and practices arising from such complaints. Where appropriate, those reports could be taken into account by the board and the Secretary of State in the setting of objectives.

It is not necessary further to complicate the objective setting process with the involvement of a body corporate which has no role in the process and which could in the long run be to the detriment of that independent body; namely, the ombudsman. I ask the Minister to take that amendment particularly seriously.

There are a number of other amendments concerning the role of the board. Turning to Amendment No. 103, the statutory base for local policing plans is welcomed. However, it is felt that a wider approach should be taken in terms of those to be consulted about the plans. That would ensure that, where a district council fails to set up a DPP and the policing board makes alternative arrangements, that group would be consulted. Perhaps the Minister would consider inserting at the end of this subsection the words, and any other bodies established pursuant to section 23(2)", in order to ensure a more inclusive approach.

Perhaps I may say a little more on Amendment No. 103. The police authority for Northern Ireland is currently charged with producing an annual policing plan for Northern Ireland. That is an important function. The plan, produced on the basis of widespread community consultation, sets out the full range of annual policing priorities, objectives and associated targets. It is the plan against which police performance is measured at the end of the year.

The setting of performance targets is an integral part of, and a vital tool in, this process. Current Northern Ireland legislation replaces GB provisions. The legislative provision for the policing plan process in GB, referred to as local policing plans, is contained in the Police Act 1996. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 introduced the process into Northern Ireland and mirrors the GB provisions. Under the legislation that power is transferred to the Secretary of State who can prescribe the contents of the policing plan in regulations.

The contents of the board's policing plan are, and should be, determined by the expectations of the community and what it wants from its police service. The authority historically consults widely with the public in order to determine the contents of the plan. Removal of that power and its transmission to the Secretary of State will lessen the board's involvement in the planning process. The redefinition of the board's role in the planning process is, in our opinion, at the expense of both the planning process and the community in Northern Ireland.

If one thought about the process logically one should ask how the Secretary of State is able to ascertain what the community would like to see included in the plan in order to regulate its contents. Perhaps the Minister will say why he thinks that power should more appropriately sit with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also say why he thinks such a measure would enhance the credibility of the policing board in holding the police service to account for its performance, and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of that service.

Amendment No. 107 is linked to Amendment No. 105. Current Northern Ireland legislation replicates GB provisions, and changes to those as contained in the Bill will reduce the role of the policing board and enhance that of the Secretary of State in comparison to the situation in Great Britain. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 104 and 107. Part IV of the Bill, which deals with policing objectives and plans, goes right to the substance of whether we put in place a police board which can effectively hold the chief constable to account on behalf of the community. Our amendments are essential if the policing board is to be able to do the job that it is purportedly set up to do. Amendment No. 104 is almost identical to Amendment No. 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will take note of the strength and unity of opinion on the Opposition Benches on this point.

The board must have the power to set targets both for those objectives laid down by the Secretary of State and for the local objectives which the board itself sets; otherwise, how else will it ensure that the community of Northern Ireland has an effective police service committed to improving its performance? Amendment No. 107, which is equally important in my view, seeks to ensure that the Bill clearly states the broad contents of the policing plan. Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also seek to achieve a similar end. However, Amendment No. 107 replicates the position elsewhere in Great Britain and reinstates the existing provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. It works extremely well in Great Britain and to my knowledge has worked well in Northern Ireland, too, over the past couple of years. The wording is sufficiently flexible to enable everything that needs to be in the plan to be included. I really do not understand why the Secretary of State has chosen to depart from that position.

I note that Amendment No. 108 brought forward by the Government seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that the policing plan must contain information about the education and training of police staff. While I support the principle of including such information, I cannot understand why that is to be specified but the rest of the plan's contents are to be left to regulations. I have seen a draft of the regulations prepared by the Government. They cover much the same ground as is covered by my amendment with the addition of best value requirements, which we shall discuss a little later on. If that is the case and the Secretary of State is not seeking to do more than that, why can this not be included in the primary legislation?

I am slightly mystified. It was my understanding that the purpose of the Bill is to implement the Patten report and to regularise as far as possible the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. Reserving to the Secretary of State powers which he does not need does not achieve that purpose. I urge the Committee to support my amendments.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I do not know whether it was deliberate on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that, in introducing this group of amendments, he spoke unattributably to my Amendment No. 102, and, if I may say so, made out a very persuasive case for it. I can only say that I am grateful to him.

I can now be very brief. Perhaps I may spend a few moments repeating the noble Lord's question. Section 15 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 empowers the present police authority to set performance targets. The police authority has made it clear that it regards that power as an important one. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Patten report to suggest that the commission did not wish to see a similar power vested in the board. We may be told, not for the first time, that the amendment is unnecessary because it is obviously the intention that the power should be continued. If that is the case, would it not be wise for the power to be made clear in the Bill? Perhaps I may say on this occasion to my noble and learned friend that it really is not obvious.

Clearly it is intended that performance indicators shall be put in place for the board. Clause 28 addresses that and the power is in the Bill. However, if no equivalent provision is made in respect of the board's power to set targets for the police service, then it might be thought that the omission was deliberate and that it was not to be given that power.

If, on the other hand, it is deliberate and the power to set performance targets for the police service is to be discontinued, then no doubt my noble and learned friend will explain the thinking that lies behind that decision.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

Perhaps I may suggest that it is not easy to compare the make-up and, therefore, the probable behaviour, of this police board and police boards in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom police boards have no political agenda. It seems to me that it will be necessary to retain powers for the Secretary of State precisely to correct that. We could see a situation in which the performance plan is delayed or faces difficulties and the entire work of the police is complicated by political arguments between members of the board. I should like to know how that will be dealt with.

I support entirely the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Glentoran in their words on government Amendment No. 108. Again, I am anxious that this could allow the board to intervene in issues such as shortening the length of service in the Special Branch to only one or two years. Although there may appear to be grounds for doing that, in fact, it is impossible to recruit a valuable source and then run him or her unless a long period of relationship building and trust between the officer concerned and the source is allowed to develop. Such details may be crucial to the effectiveness of the police service, but may be taken to be within the rights and purlieu of the board and the authority. That gives me cause for concern.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I should like to lend my support to Amendment No. 104 and to support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, in moving it. I believe that the performance targets and indicators are essential and, for the life of me, I cannot see why there should be any reluctance on the part of any responsible person or body to accept the subparagraphs in the amendment, which state: (a) any objectives established by the Secretary of State… or, (6) the objectives determined by the board for a financial year under this section". It is essential that that should be confirmed and I hope that we shall receive a favourable response from the Government Front Bench.

As regards Amendment No. 105, tabled by myself and my noble friends, I think it is important to ensure that the new arrangements should remain as close as possible to what is still in place in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Section 17(2) of that Act is perfectly clear and reasonable. Perhaps I may read it: The annual policing plan shall include a statement of the Police Authority's priorities for the year, of the financial resources expected to be available to the Authority and of the proposed allocation of those resources by the Authority, and shall give particulars of—

1. (a) any objectives determined by the Secretary of State under section 14;
2. (b) any objectives determined by the Police Authority under section 15; and
3. (c) any performance targets established by the Police Authority under that section".

I cannot see any sound case for altering that clear directive in the 1998 Act.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, which set out in Clause 26 that the policing plan must include a training and education strategy. Amendment No. 109 requires the Secretary of State to consult such bodies as may be relevant before issuing a code of practice to the policing board under Clause 27.

It has been the Government's intention to include in regulations a requirement on the board to assess the training and education needs of police officers and support staff, and to give particulars of how those needs were to be met. The Government set this out in draft regulations which were made available when the Bill was considered in Committee in another place. This issue was addressed in regulations because Patten specifically recommended that the legislation be simplified.

However, the Government have been criticised by some for not putting the training strategy in primary legislation as it is such an important issue. To show that the Government are willing to listen to these concerns we have introduced Amendment No. 108. The Government remain fully committed to the board's role in developing such a strategy.

Amendment No. 109 allows the Secretary of State to take on board the expertise of various organisations where their input would add value to any codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State to the board or, in permitted circumstances, the chief constable. The reference to consultation is generic because it would be impossible to list every organisation that might have an interest in a particular code. The Government have shown themselves to be open to appropriate consultation in a number of areas in the Bill and again have responded to concerns on this particular point. I ask that this amendment be accepted. In the light of my comments and government Amendment No. 109, I hope that Amendment No. 110, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Shutt, will not be pressed.

Turning to other amendments to Part IV of the Bill, the effects of Amendments Nos. 99 and 101 would be to remove the ombudsman as a consultee on policing objectives. Patten said, at paragraph 6.42, that he could not emphasise too strongly the importance of the ombudsman's role in future policing arrangements. The Government agree. The amendments would detract from this position and I ask the Committee to resist them.

The ombudsman will feed her experience and the lessons learnt through her investigations and the research of police policy and practices arising from complaints into the planning process. The Government understand the importance of the ombudsman's role. We consulted fully on the issue before including this role and feel it to be appropriate.

Amendment No. 100 would require the Secretary of State to set objectives for three to five years. Again, Patten specifically recommended that the board should set objectives for this three to five year period, taking account of any longer-term objectives set by the Secretary of State. The Bill implements Patten's recommendation, simplifying the planning process to create a system for effective strategic planning. Again I ask the Committee to resist this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 deal with targets and other contents of the policing plan. I appreciate the aim behind these amendments and the Government share the commitment of noble Lords to measuring police performance through targets. But the Government also want to implement the Patten report, and recommendation 22 of that report states that the legislation and the system should be simplified.

Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 all seek to prescribe the need for performance targets on the face of the Bill. A number also seek to specify that the plan should contain the Secretary of State's and board's objectives. This would replicate the provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Patten described these provisions as "labyrinthine" and said that these "complicated provisions" should be simplified.

To achieve this the Government have included in regulations issued under Clause 26 a requirement for the board's police plan to contain targets and other matters covered by the amendments. Amendment No. 106 seeks to remove this power.

These regulations which the Government have made available show that there is really very little separating the Government from Members of the Committee who have tabled amendments in this group. I hope that they will feel able to withdraw them.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked why the board's power to set targets should be removed. The government proposals do not remove the board's power to set targets. That will be set out in regulations, as the noble Lord acknowledged. The provision is the result of recommendations in the Patten report.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to comparisons in terms of the police planning system with England and Wales. The system of police planning and objective setting is broadly similar to that in England and Wales; but the system set out in the Bill is to implement Patten's recommendation and to be adapted to suit Northern Ireland, with its one police service. It is not designed to replicate what is suitable for England and Wales, where there are 48 different areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised the issue of why there should be this change and what would be gained by it. The board will retain power to set targets. This can be seen from the draft regulations which have been made available. The board will gain control of annual planning and strategic planning—formerly down to the chief constable alone. The board will set strategic and annual objectives, which was formerly a function fulfilled by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State now sets only long-term objectives.

I ask the Committee to resist Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 so that the Government can implement Patten's proposals on simplifying the primary legislation. I ask the Committee to resist Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 which are contrary to the spirit of what the Government are attempting to achieve by implementing Patten's proposals in this area. I think the intent of Amendment No. 110 is covered by the Government's own Amendment No. 109.

I ask the Committee to support Amendments Nos. 108 and 109.

Lord Hylton

Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may say a word of welcome for government Amendment No. 108. Assessing the need for educating and training police officers may be particularly important in the transitional period before we reach, as is to be hoped, 50:50 parity in composition.

Lord Glentoran

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [The Board's policing objectives]:

[Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 not moved.]

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [The Board's policing plan]:

[Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 108: Page 12, line 22, leave out from ("shall") to ("matters") in line 23 and insert ("—

1. (a) contain an assessment of the requirements for educating and training police officers and members of the police support staff and give particulars of the way in which those requirements are to be met; and
2. (b) include such other statements and give particulars of such other").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 [Codes of practice on exercise of functions]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 109: Page 13, line 4, at end insert ("; and ( ) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 110 not moved]

On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I oppose the Question that this clause should stand part of the Bill. My opposition is advanced in the interrogative mood. It is simply a useful way of ascertaining the Government's thinking. As I understand it, Clause 27 would require the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice For the board and the chief constable. Once again, it is a question of balance. Of course the last word in policing policy must lie with the Secretary of State, but a "code of practice" suggests a fairly detailed set of guiclelines. Therefore, is there not a danger of undermining the independence of the board and the operational freedom of a chief constable? It is, of course, always a matter of judgment, but I derive some comfort from the debate in another place where it was said that the code would only be "advisory" and would probably relate largely to financial controls. It would be helpful to know what it is envisaged the codes will cover—I note that the reference is to "codes" in the plural—and what their relation is to the "guidance", which the Secretary of State may issue under Clause 51.

It is also worth saying a few words about who the Secretary of State is to consult. The Bill says that he is to consult the board and the Chief Constable. However, there is no requirement for him to consult anyone else. At this stage I have a feeling of déjà vu but I do not propose to resurrect all our former arguments. In fact, I believe that my noble friend said something about this a few moments ago.

I notice that my right honourable friend Adam Ingram said in another place that, if a code were to be issued touching on human rights or equality, he could envisage no circumstances in which the commissions—that is, the human rights commission and the equality commission—would not be consulted. However, the Government seem loath to make that a part of the Bill. We have been over this argument before, but sometimes requirements in a statute to consult can serve as a useful reminder. In our experience, we can all think of occasions when, in the course of getting everything else ready, governments simply forgot to consult people who ought to have been consulted, with disastrous results. As I said, I oppose the Question. But if my noble friend can enlighten the Committee about the Government's thinking, I may revise my position.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The effect of Clause 27 is to allow the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice to the board and to the Chief Constable in relation to planning, efficiency, financial and other resources and support staff. The Secretary of State must consult the board and Chief Constable on any code, and must publish it.

The Government believe that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should, as an integral part of the tripartite structure of governance, be able to issue codes of practice to the board and, in certain limited areas, the Chief Constable. The Patten report certainly does not suggest or support the removal of the Secretary of State's role in police governance.

The power to issue codes is in line with practice in Great Britain and with previous legislation. Patten does not recommend removal of this power as he did in respect of the Secretary of State's existing power to issue guidance to the police. The Government have responded by repealing the provision, Section 39 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

Codes cannot impose new statutory obligations on the board. I hope that that answers some of the points raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. Any code will address only detailed matters strictly in accordance with the Bill's provisions where this is necessary. They cannot be used as a back door to undermine the board's role.

I say in answer to my noble and learned friend's other question that we can conceive of no circumstances where the organisations he mentioned would not be consulted to hear their important contributions.

The main areas for any codes will concern detailed matters such as funding. In fact, the only existing code concerns detailed financial arrangements. This is consistent with the Government's 100 per cent funding of policing in Northern Ireland. I hope that I have reassured my noble and learned friend. I draw to his attention my right honourable friend Mr Ingram's comments at col. 250 of Hansard of 27th June of the other place. He said: If a code was issued that touched on equality or human rights issues I cannot envisage circumstances in which they would not he consulted in order to draw on their knowledge".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 27/6/00; col. 250.] With those reassurances I hope that my noble and learned friend will not object to Clause 27 standing part of the Bill.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I am sorry that my noble friend hesitated before describing me as her noble and learned friend. I am sure that that was a lapse.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It was a loss of breath, not a loss of friendship.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I am grateful for that explanation as well as all the other explanations my noble friend has given. She has given us food for thought; I promise to digest it. I shall not press my objection to Clause 27 standing part of the Bill.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

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

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 111: Page 13, line 9, leave out from ("make") to ("to") in line 10 and insert ("arrangements").

The noble and learned Lord said: We now come to a large and complex set of amendments which I shall try to explain briefly and simply.

The amendments in my name, although I shall have to correct some references, on Part V of the Bill effect a fundamental shift of responsibility from the Secretary of State to the policing board in dealing with efficiency.

The changes deliver commitments made by the Government to give the board the central role in delivering efficiency and effectiveness. They maintain a methodology which is loosely based upon the "best value" provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 in England and Wales and retain a default role for the Secretary of State.

As currently drafted Part V of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make an order setting out how the board and the Chief Constable should undertake the delivery of best value. The amendments to Clause 28 place the duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of the board's and police functions squarely upon the board. The board and the Chief Constable are required to review their functions as part of these arrangements and the board is required to produce a single performance plan for itself and the police on how best value is to be delivered. It is also required to set targets and benchmarks against which performance can be judged.

In all these arrangements the Government's intention is that the board and the Chief Constable will work together to deliver best value. We would like to see the Chief Constable involving members of the board and its audit department in reviewing police functions and conversely we want the board to work closely with the police in drawing up targets and performance plans.

There are a number of consequential amendments to Clauses 29 and 30 which provide for the best value arrangements to be scrutinised by the National Audit Office and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Clause 31 has been amended to define the Secretary of State's default power. His power to direct the board to take specific action will now only be triggered on adverse reports from the National Audit Office or the inspectors of constabulary. Having made these changes, and noting that other noble Lords have their names to similar amendments, I ask that Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 116 be withdrawn.

The Committee should note for the record that Amendments Nos. 113 and 116 have my name wrongly attributed to them. I will move Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 115, which are in my name alone, and no others on Clause 28.

Turning to the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, Amendment No. 114, he raises issues of fairness aand impartiality. They are clearly of the highest importance, but I would point out that they are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill and in Part V we are dealing specifically with efficiency.

The Chairman of Committees

As amendment No. 115 is also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 116.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 116, notwithstanding that the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, should not be attached to Amendment No. 116.

Although the words are not mentioned on the face of the Bill, Clauses 28 to 31 are about best value, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us. From 1st April this year police authorities, along with local authorities in England and Wales, came under a duty to secure best value. That is continuous improvement in the provision of local services. I have to tell your Lordships that this has been the most significant and important addition to our role since the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in 1984, which initiated community consultation about policing.

I am delighted to see that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed in another place and to those which we voiced when the Bill was before us at Second Reading. My Amendments Nos. 113 and 116 seek to achieve much the same as government Amendment No. 115 and I very much welcome most of the substance of that amendment. We have moved a considerable distance, but the Government still have a little further to go. A key part of best value is the fundamental reviews that must be undertaken into every aspect of the service. These reviews mean that we look at everything we do from first principles.

Should we be doing this? How else can we do it? How can we improve on what we do? What do the public want? How would they like things to be done better? These are simple questions, but in fact they result in rigorous scrutiny.

In Great Britain the responsibility for such reviews rests with the police authority and not the chief constable. That has been both a real eye-opener and a significant lever for ensuring that improvements are made. It also ensures that local people get a real say in this important work. I cannot understand why the Minister has deviated from that approach here. Under Amendment No. 115 responsibility for reviews of the police force will rest with the police constable and in many ways that defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. The police board will only be allowed, so to speak, to gaze at its own navel.

The Minister has done extremely well, but he does need to go that little bit further. He needs to explain and justify, if he can, why he has taken this approach, because I am afraid it still does not make much sense to me. The police board is responsible for securing efficient, effective, economic and accountable policing. How can it do that if the gate is barred?

On a separate note, perhaps I may offer the noble and learned Lord any help that I can. As the Bill is drafted, the police board will publish two separate plans each year: a policing plan; and a best value performance plan. That is a recipe for confusion. The best value plan needs to be integrated into the policing plan. We have had some difficulty in managing to do that up and down the country but we are getting there. I am happy to put what expertise I have, and that of the National Association of Police Authorities, at the disposal of the noble and learned Lord in order to identify how that can be simply and sensibly achieved; and to discuss with him before Report stage how we can put in place the best value framework which delivers just that.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

Like the noble Baroness, I congratulate the Minister on the changes he is making to the Bill. I believe that they are improvements and he has earned a beta plus. He could so easily earn himself an alpha.

Perhaps I may speak on Amendment No. 114. Self monitoring by the board is a praiseworthy concept. Perhaps more of our public bodies would he the better if they were required, and not merely encouraged, to conduct an ongoing review into the way in which they were doing their job and how they could do it better.

My amendment would examine what the board will be looking for. Subsection (1) requires it to have regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Those are certainly worthy objectives. But should not it be looking at some other values? The value of efficiency and effectiveness depends on what one seeks to do. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there is nothing in principle between us. He simply says that one does not need to put the additional values here because they are found elsewhere in the Bill. But the board will be asking itself questions about how it is doing in these various respects: "Are we being efficient and effective?" Should not it at the same time ask itself, "Are we being fair and impartial?" I believe that it would wish to do that in any event. There is little satisfaction in being part of a project which is not fair and impartial. It might help to concentrate its mind. Even if the amendment is unnecessary and the proposal to consider this matter is taken for granted, would it not reassure those in the population who feel anxieties if those factors are included at this point in the Bill where the board is required to look at what progress it is making?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

It will be known to many Members of the Committee that I am an accountant. Therefore noble Lords will reasonably suppose that I am in favour of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In fact I believe that those three words are in the wrong order. I think that effectiveness should be first. followed by efficiency and then economy. But we have not tabled an amendment to that effect and I shall not press the point. The Bill refers to a combination of those three factors.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, spoke of fairness and impartiality. They are extremely important. It is good that they are written into the Bill, even if in other places. But this clause refers to the performance plan which is supposed to measure the effectiveness, and so on, of the force and the policing operations undertaken.

If there are to be two separate plans—a performance plan and a policing plan—I can understand that. However, there is a problem with having two plans. Effectiveness, efficiency and economy cannot be seen in isolation from policing. Effectiveness, be it the first or the last of the criteria, relates precisely to what the force is trying to do—catch criminals, deter crime and all the rest of it. The awkwardness stems from having two separate plans.

That is not exclusive to Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, knows about it from her other responsibilities. However, it is a difficulty. I recognise that there is a difference between the things that accountants can measure and the things that cannot be measured, which are often equally important. That is also recognised in the Bill, because performance indicators and performance standards are separately allowed for. The indicators can be measured. Whether a target has been met can be worked out by an arithmetical calculation. It ismore difficult to say whether the standards have been met. The fact that they cannot be measured does not make them less important.

It is difficult to see the performance plan separately from the policing plan. I have not proposed changes to the Bill and I do not intend to oppose any of the Minister's amendments, because his proposals to give the board greater responsibility go in the right direction. However, the performance plan and the policing plan will need to be published together and thought of together to ensure that they are properly co-ordinated.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, congratulated us but said that we could go a little further. As we have said on other issues, we are devising arrangements for Northern Ireland. These are complex provisions and we shall consider the points that she has raised. I assure her that we intend that the board will be involved in reviews of its own functions and the police functions.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to the possible difficulty of there being both a policing plan and a performance plan. We envisage that the performance plan under this clause will form part of the policing plan under Clause 26. Clause 3 of the draft regulations, which have been published, makes it clear that the board's policing plan should include, among a long list of things, any performance plans prepared and published under Clause 28.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, did not press his suggestion of changing the order of the three words. On the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, it is sensible to focus on effectiveness, efficiency and economy in this clause. The points that he raised on Amendment No. 114 are important. We fully subscribe to them and they are covered elsewhere. It must be right that one clause deals with matters of efficiency. That is the right focus.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 112: Page 13, line 11, after ("functions") insert (", and those of the Chief Constable,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 115: Page 13, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert— ("(2) The arrangements shall require the Board to conduct, at intervals specified in the arrangements, reviews of the way in which its functions are exercised. (3) The arrangements shall also require the Chief Constable to conduct, at intervals specified in the arrangements, reviews of the way in which his functions are exercised. (4) The Board shall prepare and publish a plan (its "performance plan") for each financial year containing details of how the arrangements made under subsection (1) in that year are to be implemented. (5) The performance plan shall—

1. (a) identify factors ("performance indicators") by reference to which performance in exercising functions can be measured;
2. (b) set standards ("performance standards") to be met in the exercise of particular functions in relation to performance indicators; and
3. (c) include a summary of the Boards assessment of—
1. (i) its and the Chief Constable's performance in the previous financial year measured by reference to performance indicators;
2. (ii) the extent to which any performance standard which applied at any time during that year was met.

(6) Before publishing its performance plan, the Board must consult the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable. (7) In this Part—

• "performance indicators" and "performance standards" have the meaning given in subsection (5); and
• "performance plan" means a plan published by the Board under subsection (4).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 [Audit of performance plans]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 117: Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("plan") to ("shall") in line 6.

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 117, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 118 to 125, which I am happy to say are all correctly in my name.

I explained the overall position on "best value" when I spoke to Clause 28. The amendments to Clause 29 are consequential to the changes to Clause 28. They remove references to the Secretary of State's order-making power which has now been deleted from Clause 28, as have references to the Chief Constable. The policy that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will audit the best value programmes, commenting, for example, on whether targets are realistic, is maintained. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 117 to 125 and Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 130 and 131. The amendments in my name are consequential on those that we have just discussed. I welcome the Government's support for them.

Perhaps I may express my concern in relation to government Amendment No. 121. That amendment would give the Comptroller and Auditor-General the power to substitute his judgment for that of the police board with regard to what are appropriate performance indicators and targets. First, is that the job of an auditor? Is it not a matter on which we should look more properly to HM Inspector of Constabulary to take a view? Secondly, it is a complete departure from the best value role given to auditors in Great Britain. I do not understand the logic behind the move. Again, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter further with the noble and learned Lord before Report stage so that we get right this important part of the legislation.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I have one or two questions which arise from these amendments. I notice that Amendment No. 121 suggests that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should express a view only on the functions of the Chief Constable and not on those of the board. It seems to me that, as he is auditing the functions of the board as well as those of the Chief Constable, he might be expected to express an opinion, if he wishes, on both those matters.

Secondly, why is it proposed that the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report should be published by the board as opposed to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself? I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference because presumably the board will not alter the report. Perhaps it is only a question of timing. However, I considered it to be worth asking the question.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, raised the question as to whether such matters are the job of an auditor. Of course there are differences between the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the government sphere and that of a private sector auditor, which many years ago I was. The auditor of a company examines the books and accounts to ensure that they present a true and fair view and to ensure that there has been no fraud, and so on.

The Comptroller and Auditor-General in government has had a much wider role, particularly in recent years, expressing his view on the efficiency of the delivery of the service in government which he is investigating. I believe it is right that the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the public sector should have a wider role in comparison with the company auditor in the private sector. I believe that that is reflected here in the Bill.

There is also a difference between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this respect. Because the police in Great Britain essentially are answerable to the local authority, the Inspector of Constabulary looms larger in overseeing matters.

In Northern Ireland, the Comptroller and Auditor-General looks at all the functions of government, and the police is a function of central government. I admit that it is under the direct rule of a single department and now, as we know, the Secretary of State and the board under him. Therefore, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is drawn into the role almost of the Inspectorate of Constabulary.

There is a slight difficulty that those two bodies may be looking at the same things and we may reach a position in which the Comptroller and Auditor-General is making one recommendation in relation to, for example, the effectiveness of the police in Northern Ireland while the Inspectorate of Constabulary is recommending something else.

But if that happens, I presume that it will be a case of divide and rule. The Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable will, in their respective roles, be able to choose which advice they follow. That is not necessarily bad but it is something which we should note as we take through these provisions.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

First, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to Amendment No. 121. He asked why the provisions do not cover the board as well as the Chief Constable. At first blush, that looks to be a good point. Perhaps I may return on Report with a response to the point which the noble Lord has made.

Secondly, reference was made to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, wondered whether it was appropriate for an "auditor" to be auditing the best value performance plans. The answer to that was given in part by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, particularly in Northern Ireland, as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom, is more than that simply of an auditor. He has roles beyond that. Therefore, it is not inappropriate, in the context of Northern Ireland, that he should inspect the best value plans. That is certainly not detrimental to the board.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised a point in relation to who should publish the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. As for England, we shall need to work out the relationship of the Comptroller and Auditor-General with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. That is not a matter which should be dealt with specifically in the Bill.

We are genuinely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for the detailed matters which she has raised. It may be appropriate to arrange a meeting between Committee and Report stages so that the detailed proposals can be discussed, the vast majority of them not being appropriate for the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 118 to 124: Page 14, line 10, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("the requirements of section 28"). Page 14, line 15, leave out ("the Board's") and insert ("a"). Page 14, line 19, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("the requirements of section 28"). Page 14, line 19, at end insert— ("(bb) stating whether he believes that the performance indicators and performance standards, so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable, are reasonable and, if appropriate, recommending changes to those performance indicators or performance standards;"). Page 14, line 21, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("the requirements of section 28"). Page 14, line 30, leave out ("published by the Board"). Page 14, line 31, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) Subsections (7A) to (7C) apply if the Board receives a report which contains a recommendation made under paragraph (bb), (c) or (d) of subsection (4). (7A) Within the period of one month beginning on the day on which it receives the report, the Board shall prepare a statement. (7B) The Board shall consult the Chief Constable about the report and the statement it is required to prepare under subsection (7A). (7C) The Board shall, without delay, submit the statement it has prepared to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General. (7D) The statement shall—

1. (a) specify the action, if any, which the Board, or the Chief Constable, intend to take as a result of the report:
2. (b) contain a summary of the result of the consultation required by subsection (7B).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 125: Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (8).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 [Examinations]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 126: Page 14, line 42, leave out ("or the Chief Constable's").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 to 135. Those are consequential upon the changes to Clause 28. They remove references to the Secretary of State's order-making power and to that of the Chief Constable. Those references are no longer required in the light of the changes to Clause 28. Clause 30 continues to provide for examinations of the board's delivery of best value by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Perhaps I may point out that taking out the words "or the Chief Constable" from this section of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's duties seems to me to lend weight to the suggestion that I made in relation to the previous grouping that the Comptroller and Auditor-General might look at the functions of the board as well as those of the Chief Constable. Here, he has been cut out from looking at the chief constables and made to look at the boards. In the previous grouping, it was entirely the other way round.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I think I indicated that on the face of it, the point appeared to be a good one; that I would consider it and come back to it later on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 135: Page 14, line 43, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28"). Page 15, line 2, leave out ("or the Chief Constable's"). Page 15, line 3, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28"). Page 15, line 17, leave out ("or the Chief Constable"). Page 15, line 18, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28"). Page 15, line 25, at end insert— ("( ) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall lay copies of every report under this section before each House of Parliament."). Page 15, line 30, leave out ("or the Chief Constable's"). Page 15, line 31, leave out ("any provision of an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28"). Page 15, line 35, at end insert ("as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 [Enforcement of duties under section 28]:

The Chairman of Committees

Before calling Amendment No. 136, I must inform the Committee that, if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 137 to 139.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 136: Page 15, line 41, leave out from ("State") to end of line 3 on page 16 and insert ("has received a report under section 29(4) or 30(5) of this Act, or section 41(4) of the 1998 Act, and he is satisfied that—

1. (a) the Board is failing to comply with the requirements of section 28; or
2. (b) it is appropriate to change performance indicators or performance standards contained in a performance plan, so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State may direct the Board—

1. (a) to take any action which he considers necessary or expedient to secure compliance with the requirement of section 28; or
2. (b) to make such changes to the performance indicators or performance standards mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as he considers appropriate.").

The noble and learned Lord said: There has been some confusion on the Marshalled List. I do not wish to be associated with Amendments 137 and 144, which are tabled in my name, though the government amendments achieve the same effect as these amendments. I wish it to be clear that I now move Amendment No. 136 and later shall move Amendments Nos. 140 to 143 inclusive, and Amendment No. 240, all of which are tabled in my name alone. I invite noble Lords to withdraw the other amendments in this group.

We have already covered this ground in general terms under Clause 28. Many of the changes to Clause 31 are consequent upon the changes to Clause 28. The clause provides for the Secretary of State's default role should the hoard fail in its duty to secure best value for its own and police resources. If the Secretary of State receives an adverse report from the Comptroller and Auditor-General, he will be able to take action to direct the board to take measures to secure best value.

This is a strong power but it is only triggered following independent professional scrutiny. As the Secretary of State provides 100 per cent of the £650 million it takes to run policing in Northern Ireland each year, that is hardly an unreasonable power. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. Nevertheless, I have to press this and put down a marker about the content of Amendment No. 136 in the name of the noble and learned Lord. It follows on from the concerns I expressed earlier about Amendment No. 121. I still do not understand why the Secretary of State is giving himself power to change the board's indicators and targets. We would oppose the move. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister, as he has promised, before Report.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I was a little confused as to where we had reached. Clause 31 states: Subsection (2) applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Board or the Chief Constable is failing to comply with the requirements of any provision of an order under section 28(1)". However, I thought that, under Amendment No. 111, we had knocked out the order. That amendment deleted the words from page 13, line 9: such arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order specify". It seems to me that the drafting has slipped a little. Perhaps I have missed something. However, I thought it worth drawing this to the attention of the Minister.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on my Amendment No. 121 about not referring to the board seemed a good one. At present I am not in a position to answer it. It may or may not be a good point in relation to the drafting. Perhaps I may undertake to write to the noble Lord. If the point is a good one so far as concerns the drafting, we shall obviously return to it on Report.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked why the Secretary of State has the power to amend the targets. As I have explained, the Secretary of State provides 100 per cent of the funding. However, that may be a matter which we can explore in a meeting between Committee and Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 137 to 139 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 140 to 143: Page 16, line 5, leave out ("subsection (4)(d)") and insert ("paragraph (bb), (c) or (d) of subsection (4)"). Page 16, line 6, leave out ("received by him under subsection (7)(b)") and insert ("submitted to him under subsection (7C)"). Page 16, line 8, leave out ("subsection (7)(a)") and insert ("subsection (7A)"). Page 16, line 9, leave out subsections (4) to (6).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 [General functions of the police]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 145: Page 16, line 40, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("be guided by").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 145 strengthens the requirement on officers to adhere to the code of ethics. It changes "have regard to" to "be guided by".

A number of commentators on the Bill expressed concerns that the code of ethics will not have teeth. That is far from the case, as the Secretary of State is already obliged under Clause 50 to reflect the code in discipline regulations. However, the Government and the chief constable were prepared to go the extra mile to reassure those who had concerns and tabled Amendment No. 145 accordingly. In our view, that is as far as we can reasonably go with what is, after all, a code and not legislation.

In the light of previous experience I shall reply to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 after they have been moved. I beg to move.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My noble friend resisted the temptation on this occasion to eat the egg before it was laid. Perhaps I can say a word on Amendment No. 147, though I believe I know what her reaction will be.

First, I am a little puzzled by what she said in relation to Amendment No. 145. My noble friend seems to think that "be guided by" is in some way stronger than "have regard to". One could debate that at length. Some Members of' the Committee are grammarians by profession. But I am not sure it is self-evident. I would have preferred something a little stronger.

At the moment the Bill simply requires the Chief Constable to "have regard to" the policing plan. Amendment No. 147 seeks to impose a stronger restraint. It requires him to "comply" with it. That is hardly a draconian restraint on his discretion. After all, if we look at Clause 26, we see that the chief constable himself is to draft the policing plan and the board may amend it, but only after consulting him. To say that after that he need do no more than be "guided" by it, seems to reduce the exercise almost to a charade.

It seems from Clause 27 that the code of practice is envisaged primarily as a matter of financial and managerial controls. And even that is not to be issued before consultation. Both processes represent a carefully considered balance before either document sees the light of day. Is the Chief Constable then required to be no more than "guided" by them? Presumably, if he shows that he had regard to them or was guided by them and then took the view that the best course was to ignore them, no Secretary of State, no court, no authority may second-guess him.

If the fear is that the restraints and safeguards may prove to be too rigid; that there may be unforeseen situations where the Chief Constable's writ should run unfettered, Amendment No. 147 at least suggests a solution. He would then be free to shed the bridle. However, it would require him at least to persuade the board of the necessity to depart from it. Surely, that is hardly likely to reduce him to inactivity and I hope that my noble friend will at least consider that.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

As regards the difference between the two phrases in Amendment No. 145, I believe that to have regard to something is to look at it. The Chief Constable could say that he looked at the code of ethics of policing plans but then did something else. It therefore seems to me that to "be guided by" strengthens the provision.

The Minister is proposing to strengthen the Bill with respect to police officers and the code of ethics but not with regard to the chief constable either in respect of the policing plan or any code of practice. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, suggests that he should "comply with" it, unless he has agreed with the board that he need not. That proposal goes a little further and slightly reduces the Chief Constable's freedom of manoeuvre. From time to time, he may need to act quickly and I am not sure that he will always have time to obtain the board's approval to vary the policing power.

That point is more important to policing in Northern Ireland than perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom because the situation can change quickly and become extremely fraught. The chief constable might need to bend the policing plan or code of practice. He would be responsible for that and be answerable to the board under the general provisions but he needs flexibility of movement, particularly in tight situations.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for acknowledging that government Amendment No. 145 meets his objective in Amendment No. 146 and he will therefore not move it.

It is true that lawyers could debate at great length the difference in meaning between the phrases "guided by" and "have regard to". The Government's legal advice is that, as noble Lord, Lord Cope said, "guided by" is a stronger formulation. Furthermore, it could cost a great deal of money to have the noble Lord's lawyers debate the issue.

Amendment No. 147, tabled by my noble and learned friend requires the chief constable to comply with the policing plan and any codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State unless he has the approval of the policing board to do otherwise. The provision as it currently stands requires the chief constable to have regard to both the plan and the codes of practice. Of course we want the chief constable to do his best to implement both the policing plan and the codes of practice and I agree that there will be full consultation and involvement of the chief constable in that process. However, rigid compliance could undermine the chief constable's operational independence. The Patten report stated that that must be maintained in Recommendation 24 and that neither the policing board nor the Secretary of State should have power to direct the chief constable.

In any event, it is not realistic to suppose that the planning process will foresee every possible eventuality, which is why the Chief Constable must be permitted room for manoeuvre. There is a point at which that professional judgment may well have to be exercised in circumstances which cannot be foreseen in detail. Similar arguments apply in respect of codes of practice which, by their nature, are not legally binding in the same way as subordinate legislation. I hope that that satisfies my noble and learned friend and that he will feel able not to press his amendment.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I am not sure that my noble friend's response wholly satisfies me, but I do feel able not to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 [General functions of Chief Constable]:

[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 [Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve]:

Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 148: Page 18, line 30, at end insert— ("(4) Any person appointed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve shall serve only on a part-time basis.").

The noble and learned Lord said: Of all the provisions of the Bill, recruitment is probably the area which gives rise to the most serious problems, as we have seen in earlier debates. The Government tread a minefield. It is here that people are most jealous, suspicious, unwilling to make concessions and ready to explode into anger. I believe that the Government have done their best to address the problems fairly, and I do not wish to upset that balance. However, it would be a pity if avoidable problems arose. In paragraph 14.12 of its report the Patten commission sought to address the problem of the part-time reserve. In many cases this is a useful bridge by which the force and the professional constabulary on the one hand maintain their links with the local communities on the other. They in turn develop an insight into the problems of policing.

At present there is a full-time reserve and part-time reserve. The first question which will be asked in any conversation is how the two traditions are represented in each. It is with some hesitation that I quote statistics because I appreciate that I may be challenged on the source. Such challenges could be exchanged all evening. (I once saw a document entitled The House of Lords broken down by age and sex, and since then I have rather suspected statistics.) As I understand it, 8 per cent of regular officers are Catholics, and for the full-time reserve and part-time reserve the figures are 7 per cent and less than 5 per cent respectively. The Patten commission observed that in whole areas which are predominantly nationalist Catholics are totally unrepresented in the part-time reserve.

The commission pointed out that a great opportunity was being missed to establish effective community policing, particularly bearing in mind the high proportion of women in the part-time reserve. The commission recommended the phasing out of the full-time reserve over three years, after a reasonable period of notice as contracts expired. The purpose of this amendment is simply to give effect to that recommendation. I am not sure whether such a provision was left out of the Bill by oversight, but if it was deliberate I hope that my noble friend can explain why the Bill does not appear to envisage acceptance of that recommendation. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I rise to say a few words against the amendment. The RUC Reserve has played a most important role over many years. It was originally recruited for a three-year term, which I believe has been renewed 10 times in some cases, for the duration of the emergency as it were, to assist the regular RUC. It is true that reservists are not trained to the same high degree as the regular RUC. They are used a great deal for guard duties and important matters of that kind. One regularly finds RUCR officers on the gates in the sangars around police stations and around other vulnerable points, such as the courts of justice and so on. Those duties do not require a fully trained officer and a reserve officer can readily do the task. Many of then—the majority as far as I know—are full time, and have been for many years.

When I was in the Northern Ireland Office the question of their pension arose. There had not been proper pension provision initially because they were supposed to serve only for three years. But after their contracts had been renewed seven times, some of them had served for 21 years and it was necessary to think of that.

When peace fully arrives—we have not yet arrived at it by quite a long way—the RUCR can be phased out altogether. I hope we shall thank them in a generous way for what they have done. They have been just as exposed to the terrorists as have the regular RUC. Many have been murdered or injured, some while serving and some after retirement. I remember one particular incident when that happened. It is sensible to suggest that in future they should serve only on a part-time basis. On the contrary, it is important that many of them remain on a full-time basis, at least until peace fully comes.

I did not recall that the Patten commission suggested that they should only serve on a part-time basis. Perhaps I missed that. I have just looked back at the reference which the noble and learned Lord gave. I did not see it there.

I support the recommendation that new reserve police officers be recruited from the Catholic nationalist areas as much as possible. But we know the difficulties with that. We discussed the difficulties earlier; namely, intimidation and so on. That applies equally to the reserve officers as to the regular RUC officers. Therefore, this is not an acceptable provision.

In passing, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the RUCR and the contribution they have made to democracy and preserving democracy over the past 30 years.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I, too, pay tribute to the work that has been done and the danger that has been faced by the RUCR.

Amendment No. 148 requires that appointments to the police reserve should henceforth be on a part-time basis only. In effect, it would prohibit any further appointments to the full-time reserves. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it was recommended in the Patten recommendations—recommendation 103—that the future police service should not include a full-time reserve. I can reassure my noble and learned friend that the Government's intention is that the full-time reserve will be phased out over a three-year period by means of non-renewal of contracts and through enhanced severance arrangements. Neither the Government nor the Chief Constable have any intention of recruiting to the full-time reserve. Draft outline regulations on recruitment, which have been placed in the Library and the Printed Paper Office, make that clear. This also fulfils a commitment given at Second Reading to produce these outline regulations.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, acknowledged, the policy of the Government with regard to security support in Northern Ireland is based on the security situation. The security and public order climate in Northern Ireland is unpredictable and we are simply not in a position absolutely to guarantee future stability. The Chief Constable must therefore be allowed operational discretion and flexibility in determining future policing needs. However, in saying that to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, perhaps I may repeat and stress that the intention is that the full-time reserve will be phased out over a three-year period. I accordingly ask that his amendment be withdrawn.

11 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to the specific recommendation, but I would point out that the Patten commission said that the RUC's own fundamental review in 1996 proposed that in the event of a sustained improvement in the security situation the full-time reserve should be disbanded. I said myself that when we have peace—that is another way of expressing it—the role of the full-time reserve will be over. It was recruited for the emergency situation, even if it has lasted for 30 years instead of three years. I do not disagree with that. But I do not think that we are there yet and I do not think that we should write into the Bill a provision of this character.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

I readily acknowledge the debt we all owe to the full-time reserve. Nothing in my amendment was intended to cast any doubt on that. I am grateful to my noble friend, first, for pointing out recommendation 103. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I think that the reference I gave was erroneous. I am grateful to my noble friend too for pointing out what is intended when the time comes. I do not believe that it would be right to carry the matter any further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 43 agreed to.

Lord Carter

I think that now may be a convenient moment to break. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.