| Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
|
|
Mr. Worthington: It is true that the Government have changed their mind since our 1996 consultation paper. We consulted, and listened, and came to a conclusion in line with the previous Government's position in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 which applied to England and Wales, and Scotland. I shall take the Committee through the process. The setting of establishments by police authorities was abolished in the other three territories in 1994. The feedback that we have received suggests that that was a significant step forward by the previous Government in providing a more efficient police service. There is agreement in all parts of the House that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and those elsewhere should have operational freedom to decide how an area is to be policed: afterwards it should be the job of the relevant Secretary of State and the police authorities to judge how effectively that work has been done. The Government regarded the setting of an establishment--not merely a global figure but one that includes details of how many people, and of which rank--as a bureaucratic restriction. I recall examining years ago the establishment of the community involvement branch in Strathclyde and finding that it involved about 1·96 per cent. of the force. To impose that from the level of the Scottish Office is an absurd restriction on the freedom of the police. We have learnt from the 1994 Act that it seems appropriate to leave the figure as it is. If we agree that the chief constable should have operational freedom to decide, a basic component of that freedom is that he be allowed to allocate resources according to an area's needs rather than being restricted by imposition of some sort, either centrally or by the police authority. Mr. Moss: Does not the Minister think that there is a fundamental difference between giving a chief constable power to determine locally in England and Wales what needs to be done in policing his area, and the situation in Northern Ireland, which was about three to four times the number of policemen per capita? If there is to be a peace dividend in the future in Northern Ireland, fewer police will be needed. Therefore, is not the downsizing of the RUC a political issue in which the Police Authority would wish to have a say? Mr. Worthington: The Police Authority has a say, in that it sets the objectives for the police and evaluates whether they are met. If it also had the decision-making power to allocate police resources in detail to each police station, it would be complicit in the way in which that area was policed. If it were holding the police to account, one way of lessening its power to evaluate whether a good job had been done would be to allow it to make operational decisions about allocation of resources. Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East): I follow the Minister's argument to the extent that an unrepresentative police authority should not be involved in operational determinations of how many policemen should be deployed in a given area. However, the amendment does not say that, but would determine the ceiling on RUC recruitment--and indeed traffic wardens, which is nonsense. That is different from determining the operational and logistical problems faced by chief constables in locating their forces. Mr. Worthington: In terms of setting the establishment one can respond only to the words on the amendment paper which would have the effect of giving powers to the Police Authority that are similar to those enjoyed by police authorities elsewhere--with all the implications that flow from that. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chief Constable should be able to use his professional judgment to determine the appropriate rank structure for constables under his direction and the appropriate mix of police officers and supporting staff. At the moment, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is denied the ability to do that. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about the special nature of Northern Ireland--a point that is often made. However, in view of the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, is it not important to give the Chief Constable more rather than fewer powers? I heard nothing in the hon. Gentleman's argument to suggest that Northern Ireland's Chief Constable should be uniquely denied the necessary flexibility. Mr. Moss: I am more than happy to endorse what the Minister says. Yes, chief constables should have a great deal of power over operational control--especially in Northern Ireland because of its unique situation. But that was not my point. In answer to my previous question, the Minister said that the Police Authority will set objectives and that the power to determine manpower levels should be included in pursuance of those objectives. However, clause 14--or, rather, clause 15--talks of the Police Authority setting objectives just for the following financial year--not for any longer period. Given a peaceful outcome to the present talks--we should be looking forward positively to the future--we need to look to the longer term, but the Police Authority will not have the requisite powers to do so in relation to overall policing levels throughout the Province. Mr. Worthington: We are making the right judgment about the relative powers of the Chief Constable, the Police Authority and the Secretary of State. The right balance is being struck in that tripartite system for both good and bad scenarios. When we debate clause 14 we shall be able to debate the issue further. Mr. Moss: It is clause 15. Mr. Worthington: Whether it is clause 14 or, as the hon. Gentleman says clause 15, the Opposition will see that we are right. The clause gives the Chief Constable the freedom that all other British chief constables already have. That represents a significant step forward and will ensure that the people of Northern Ireland receive a more efficient and effective service. As in Britain, the Police Authority will have a strategic financial oversight role--a significant influence over the overall staffing levels of the Northern Ireland police service. We shall return to debate that matter when we reach clause 17.
11 amMr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): I apologise, Mr. Jones, for being late. The Minister is wrong in his assessment of the Chief Constable's responsibility in this respect. The Chief Constable should have, as everyone agrees, operational responsibility. When I complained about the erosion of the Police Authority's limited authority, I was told that it would still control the budget. The RUC establishment will be directly related to the budget, which in turn, will directly affect the establishment. It is somewhat nonsensical that the Police Authority, which will take possession of the budget, will not decide, in consultation with the Chief Constable, how the budget can best be expended on overall policy decisions but that the Chief Constable should be responsible for deciding every single detail relating to policy as well as-- The Chairman: Order. Interventions are always brief. Mr. Worthington: It is not for me to correct the Chair, but that is not my experience of interventions by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). It is sometimes possible to pop out for lunch during one of his interventions. Mr. Maginnis: It takes a long time to put nonsense right. Mr. Worthington: The problem is that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to distinguish between the strategic role of a body that sets parameters and considers the overall picture and the operational role of the Police Authority. When the Police Authority has nitty-gritty powers to purchase goods and supplies, and control non-police matters, it becomes obsessed and over-involved with such issues, rather than concentrating on its central role: good work such as that carried out with police liaison committees considering the task of the police force. The Police Authority has not been as involved in those strategic aspects as we wish it to be. The proposal is a step forward to allow the Chief Constable more flexibility in the deployment of his force. The message from the rest of Great Britain is that that has greatly improved policing. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, this is a probing amendment. It was proposed, legitimately, on behalf of the Police Authority to test our intentions, but it is not what the hon. Gentleman believes should happen. He believes, as we do, that removing from the Police Authority its bureaucratic powers to set the establishment in 1994 was a step forward. I commend the clause to the Committee. Mr. Peter Robinson: I am more confused than I was when we began the debate. I hope that the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, can tell me whether I was right to conclude that the effect of the amendment would be that operational control of the RUC would be retained by the Chief Constable, who should determine where and how many of his men should be deployed. However, the Police Authority, to which the Bill gives responsibility to secure the maintenance, efficiency and effectiveness of the RUC, should have a role in determining the level of the force, on the basis of what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said, because it has been presented with a budget. The Police Authority would decide what is to be RUC's recruitment ceiling, its membership and its numbers of civilian staff and traffic wardens. That would not remove the Chief Constable's ability to decide how to deploy the men that he recruits to his force. He will have full operational responsibility; he will be able to make a professional judgement about where his men should be deployed. It is a division of the role that would work and I can see no reason why it should not work. If the Chief Constable believes that the Police Authority--unrepresentative body that it is--has not made a thorough judgment on such matters and has not given him enough men, or has given him too many--although that is unlikely--he can made a case to the authority for a change in manpower. I did not have the impression that the Minister was entirely opposed to that proposition. He did not say so expressly.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 24 February 1998 |
