Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Moss: Before we adjourned this morning the Minister and his hon. Friends seemed greatly surprised that I should argue for the amendments in the way that I did. It is true that the Conservative Government put through the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It also put through the Police Act 1996, which incorporated many aspects of the 1994 legislation. Central to that in terms of the relationship between the Chief Constable and the police authorities were the ingredients of clause 3, especially those of subsections (5) and (6). There are two points to be made. First, if it is argued that it is impossible to change a view that one held a year ago, much of what the Labour party is implementing at present should not be being done. It is pretty obvious that they are borrowing a foreign suit of clothes in much of the legislation that they are putting through. The second point is more important. The very future of the Police Authority is at the heart of much of the Bill and it is concerned--I would even say disconcerted--by some of the proposals. Given that it is an independent body, as is emphasised by the Government on every conceivable occasion that they go into print or speak publicly about such matters, how else can it make its concerns and views known? We have been told that it is there to represent public opinion and to communicate the views of the community that it serves. Yet during our discussions this morning, there was a hint that the Government did not think that its members should talk to anyone. Even when we returned this afternoon, the Minister referred to local politicians. He did not say that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland could talk to Front-Bench Opposition Members; he just said ``local politicians'', as if we did not come into that category. I hope that he will confirm that the Police Authority is free to discuss any proposal and any measure with Front-Bench Opposition Members at any time. [Interruption.] I am glad to have that confirmed by a sedentary intervention. The Minister did not make it clear earlier. Mr. Ingram: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what was said. I said that the Secretary of State met the members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland on 20 January and told them that they had the right to communicate with Members of Parliament. I think that I might have said ``local Members of Parliament''--I am not sure exactly what the Secretary of State said. As she was talking within a Northern Ireland context, they may have been referred to in that way. If she did not say ``local MPs'', but ``MPs'' then that would deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. If I have confused the issue by saying ``local Members of Parliament'', it is an understandable confusion, given that I was referring to a local body talking to local Members of Parliament. I think that hon. Gentleman has made too much of the point. Mr. Moss: I am delighted to have it confirmed that PANI is free to talk to my colleagues and myself at any time, on any matter relating to this legislation. That is progress of a kind. This morning, I quoted from a document from the Police Authority, a copy of which was sent to the Secretary of State some time ago. It does not contain all the amendments that the Police Authority wants, but it explains in detail the reasons behind the amendments that the authority wishes to see tabled. It is an explanatory document. It has been sent to the Secretary of State. I am therefore more than surprised to find that she has written to the Police Authority to express her concern and surprise that it opposes some parts of the legislation. It is all in the document. It was all sent to her weeks ago. Why did she write to PANI about the matter only a day or so ago? The Minister has not clarified that. Mr. Ingram: The paragraph that I read out from the Secretary of State's letter stated: ``I found it somewhat disconcerting that at Second Reading various MPs had been briefed that the Authority was comprehensively opposed to its provisions.'' Clearly, there were areas of difference between what the Government were trying to achieve and what the Police Authority wanted, but the phrase ``comprehensively opposed'' was used by hon. Members. We wanted to explain that that was not the case, based on the information given to the Secretary of State and to me. On Second Reading, hon. Members said that the Police Authority had a view different from that of the Government. That creates confusion and does not help to produce a better understanding of the legislation that we are trying to introduce. Mr. Moss: Second Reading was some time ago--well before Christmas. Why did the Secretary of State decide to write about events that at that time had taken place only a few days ago? If she was so concerned, why did she not pick up the telephone after Second Reading? Why did the Minister not do that? How many meetings has the Minister had with the Police Authority since he was appointed? There is a deafening silence. How many times has the Secretary of State met the Police Authority? The answer is once. Why did the Secretary of State write a formal letter, exploring this extensive opposition--so the Minister says, I have forgotten the words he used-- Mr. Ingram: Comprehensive. Mr. Ingram: ``Comprehensive'' opposition. The Secretary of State and the Minister received the document that I have here, and there have been weeks since Second Reading for sensible conversations, either face to face or over the telephone. Mr. Maginnis: It is no wonder that the Minister had difficulty with words such as ``adequate'' and ``impartial''. We are now arguing about the word ``comprehensive'', and where did that arise? As far as I am aware, it arose in the Secretary of State's letter. I doubt whether the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire used it to explain the Secretary of State's difficulties with the Bill, and I do not think I used it. The Secretary of State thought of the word ``comprehensive''. It can be applied to the areas where difference has arisen. There is no problem with the ombudsman or with some other matters. The Minister would do well to argue not on the basis of his own choice of words, but on the basis of points that we have put to him in all seriousness. Mr. Moss: I am not sure how to respond to that intervention. [Hon. Members: ``It was a good speech.''] Yes, it was a speech. I am fully in accord with most of what the hon. Gentleman said. It should come as no surprise to the Government that PANI has the concerns that were mentioned. It is a sensitive group of people, which historically has come in for much attack and criticism from all quarters in Northern Ireland. I take my hat off to the people who agree to serve on it. It is probably the worst job on any Government body or quango in Northern Ireland, or indeed in the whole United Kingdom. The PANI members do the best job they can. They have argued in the past that the structure has been wrong; hence the Bill. We all agree that the question of structure needs to be revisited. The tripartite structure needs to be reformed. I thought I heard it said several times--certainly during the Minister's opening remarks--that an important aim was to strengthen the role and independence of the Police Authority. I concur, and I am sure that the authority would agree, but its members have been telling my colleagues and myself, and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, that they are still not happy. They do not think that they have had a proper chance to make representations or that their views have been listened to. Perhaps their submissions were read, digested and rejected, but the Minister should not be surprised if an independent body that takes itself very seriously keeps coming back to say, ``This will not work''. The PANI members are entitled to their views and convictions, but the Government give the impression that those factors do not matter. Do the Government want dupes on the Police Authority, or yes men and women who will do their bidding; or do they want people who think independently, who will do the job to the best of their ability? It should come as no surprise to the Government that there is still considerable disquiet in PANI about some elements of the Bill. One of its greatest concerns arises from clause 3. The PANI documentation also states that the status quo is not satisfactory. The need for change is recognised. The message is, ``Do not legislate in this way at the moment; let us work together within the tripartite structure to try to bring sense to the arrangements for responsibility on the personnel side for management of police and supporting civilians.'' Nothing could be more reasonable. The provision need not be included in the Bill now. It could be added through an order or in some other way later. Given the time scale and the Government's intention under clause 4 to make significant changes to the employment arrangements for current civilian employees of the Police Authority, the contemplated measures are important. PANI cannot see how all the work can be done in the time scale suggested by the Minister. He did not say, when he had the chance, that he had listened carefully to PANI and altered his views on the time scale. However, recent conversations persuade me that the authority is still concerned that what the Government are trying to do is far-reaching and immensely significant and will in organisational and logistic terms, cause considerable problems. 5 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, who is using his words carefully. We understand the concerns of PANI about the loss of responsibility for various police services. However, I want to know whether the Opposition spokesman supports the Government move to simplify matters and give responsibility for those services to the Chief Constable as the previous Government wanted to do? Or has there been a change in Conservative policy?

©Parliamentary copyright 1998	Prepared 12 February 1998